Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 Mar 1929

Vol. 28 No. 6

Senators' Allowances. - Question on the Adjournment—Letting of Buncrana Naval Barracks.

This matter that with your permission, a Chinn Comhairle, I brought up to-day is, to my mind, one of vital importance. It started in October, 1927, when the representative of Mr. Moore himself came to me and told me that he was in business in Buncrana engaged in the manufacture of shirts and collars. The premises he had, he said, were not suitable, and if it were possible to get a couple of huts that were attached to the naval barracks in Buncrana, not alone, he said, would he extend his business in the manufacture of shirts and collars, but he would also engage in the manufacture of boiler suits, pyjamas and dungarees. The making of boiler suits and of dungarees meant practically the creation of a new industry. I think it is the pioneer industry of the kind in the Free State. It was new in that area, at all events. After a long space of time, during which a great deal of correspondence passed between the departments concerned and Mr. Moore in regard to these premises, a provisional lease was granted to Messrs. Moore and Co. for two huts, covering a period of five years, at an annual rent of £55. Statutory sanction would have to be applied for, and on 1st October, 1928, the Board of Works communicated with Messrs. Moore, and said: "We are making application for the necessary statutory sanction for making a letting to you of these premises." They specified that under the proposed lease: "You will be required to have the site completely walled off or fenced off from the rest of the camp to our satisfaction, and provide a suitable direct entrance to the site from the adjoining public road, to maintain the buildings and any fresh erections in good condition, and so yield up at the end of the term, and to insure the premises."

They said, of course, that statutory sanction would have to be granted, and they allowed Messrs. Moore in at their own risk, getting from Messrs. Moore a half-year's rent, £22 10s. 0d., assuring them that statutory permission for the granting of the lease was being applied for. That is as much as to say that everything would be all right. In good faith Messrs. Moore went into the place, gave up their own premises, installed machinery, and carried out all the repairs to the huts. When they took over occupation they got the necessary machinery installed. They have upwards of thirty girls employed there, and in addition Messrs. Moore gave work out to the surrounding districts, that is, the making up of shirts and so on, which provides very necessary employment for the people in the district, which is a poor, congested area. It is most necessary some employment should be given. The Minister comes along now after all that lapse of time, and because of the intervention of some mysterious Mr. X., although this has lain on the Table of the House for twenty-one days and this is the last day, he suddenly makes up his mind that Messrs. Moore have to vacate. He finds out that somebody might give a little more than Messrs. Moore. The Minister then gets this letter sent to Messrs. Moore:

"We beg to acquaint you that the letting of portion of these premises which was provisionally arranged with you, subject to the terms of the State Lands Act of 1924, cannot be proceeded with. It is, therefore, necessary for us to call on you to vacate the premises forthwith, in accordance with our letter of the 22nd December, 1928. Please inform us of the date and hour on which you will give possession to our representative, who will hand over a payable order for the sum of £22 10s., being the refund of the amount lodged by you for use and occupation."

A nice, polite letter that. They have put up huts and railed the place off from the rest of the camp, and made a road to the main thoroughfare. The same mysterious Mr. X. I have mentioned would have paid more had he known the place was to be let. The place was not to be let. The mysterious Mr. X. whispers to the Minister that if he had been informed about this perhaps he would have paid more than Messrs. Moore. Messrs. Moore have, as I have said, girls employed there already, and they will lose their employment if this polite letter of the Minister takes effect. That is what it means, as there are no other suitable premises in the town. It means that those thirty girls and the outdoor workers employed by Messrs. Moore will be thrown out on the roadside. If the President were here he would tell us they can go and see their friends in America. I want to know from the Minister definitely whether any mysterious Mr. X. from Buncrana or elsewhere is going to dictate the policy of this Government. I had experience a short time ago of the same mysterious Mr. X., who whispered to the Minister what he wanted him to do. The mysterious Mr. X. is not mysterious to me, for I know him. In Buncrana he boasted of the fact that he would have Messrs. Moore put out.

What has the Minister to say about it? At this stage the Minister has had whippings enough which should have taught him a lesson. I am going to teach him one now. At this stage of the country's history, when we are all prating about our country turning the corner, and about the upper curves in the prosperity of the people, when a firm sets up to employ a number of girls in their factory and others in their own homes, in a portion of Donegal, in a poverty-stricken area, that can hardly support half its present population, and when certain regulations are laid down and complied with, the Minister comes along, and he wants the people who are giving employment to clear out. He wants to break the firm that gives that employment, a successful firm; a firm that, instead of standing still, is progressing all the time and giving increased employment. The Minister wants to break that firm and to throw their employees out on the roadside. What are the thirty girls employed in the factory and the people who make the shirts in their own homes going to do if their means of livelihood is taken from them? The Minister suddenly discovers, after a lapse of eighteen months, that he made a mistake. Is it possible the infallible Minister can make a mistake? Eighteen months elapsed since this matter was first mooted, and the Minister discovers after eighteen months that he should have advertised the place. There is nothing to compel the Minister to advertise it. His little tender conscience starts to prick him now. He suddenly assumes all the virtues, and he does not want to do anything underhand. He wants the place advertised broadcast, and Messrs. Moore would still get the opportunity of tendering.

Is it possible the Minister made a mistake when he allowed this matter to proceed so far, and allowed those people to burn their boats, and allowed them to take occupation of the premises, allowed them to employ these people, all because he made a mistake, and he wants to remedy his mistake at the expense of the workpeople there by throwing them out on the roadside to die of starvation? That is what it means, but if the Minister thinks that his mistakes are going to be covered up in this matter, he is making the biggest mistake he ever made in all his lifetime, and your mysterious Mr. X. is making the error of his lifetime. If the Minister listens to what this Mr. X. wants him to do all the time, he is not going to be a Minister very long. I can foresee that, and only the mysterious Mr. X. is a sort of a fixed star, he would have been shifted, too, out of the position he occupies; but, unfortunately, he cannot be, for he is as far away as Mars. He is in the Seanad. Are we going now to allow, as the Minister proposes, to have those people who are in employment in this factory, thrown out because the Minister wants to remedy his mistake by sending a little letter to Messrs. Moore, ordering them to remove all their machinery out of the factory? We want a direct answer from the Minister, and I hope we are going to have it from him.

I may say at the outset that I did not know this matter was coming up for discussion on the adjournment. I think it is needless for me to point out that I would be only too delighted to see additional factories in Buncrana or elsewhere in Donegal, so that more employment would be given to the workers there at proper rates of wages, and not the sweated rates of wages that some of the Buncrana employers were recently giving. What I do object to in the whole transaction is the underhand method adopted. Before there was any letting of these buildings it should have been advertised in the newspaper circulating in the locality, namely, the "Derry Journal." The Minister, in order to satisfy a personal grievance which he imagines he has against the editor of the "Derry Journal," is using public moneys for his own Party purposes, and he holds back advertisements from that particular newspaper. I object to this place being let without an advertisement being issued in the "Derry Journal," the newspaper which circulates in the district.

I understand a promise was made some considerable time ago to a firm in the same line as Messrs. Moore and Co., a reputable firm, prepared to pay Trade Board rates of wages to workers in the shirt industry, that when these huts became vacant they would be advertised in the ordinary way. It appears that has not been done. I understand that, at the instigation of the gentleman referred to by Deputy Carney as Mr. X., the matter was to have been raised by Senator Milroy in the Seanad a few days ago; but apparently that was not considered desirable. I suggest that any Government property of this sort that is to be let should not have so much secrecy attached to it. As far as Donegal is concerned, there has been far too much underhand work and too much secrecy in regard to many things.

The operations of the Sham Squire.

I suggest the Minister for Industry and Commerce should exercise some supervision over firms in Donegal, and he should see that fair rates of wages are paid to factory workers there. Before this place was let at all the various firms concerned in Donegal should have been given some opportunity of making an offer for those buildings for the purpose of extending their works and giving more employment in Buncrana at recognised Trade Board wages.

I agree with Deputy Cassidy in everything he has stated. If some of those Army huts were to be devoted to the manufacture of shirts, the matter should have been advertised by the Minister or the Board of Works. The letting of the huts should have been advertised.

In the "Derry Journal."

In the "Derry Journal" or any other paper there; it does not matter to me in which paper it would be advertised. All the other local manufacturers should have been given a chance to compete as well as Messrs. Moore & Co. I think Deputy Carney's speech on this occasion is rather a storm in a teacup. Deputy Carney, as far as I understand—I am open to correction—negotiated with the Board of Works to get portion of the Army huts for a Six-County manufacturer, without any notice being given to the local manufacturers, or, to put it clearly, behind the backs of the local manufacturers in Buncrana he went to the Board of Works and negotiated for portion of the Army huts for Messrs. Moore. I do not object to Messrs. Moore getting some of the Army huts, because my opinion is that the more industry of the sort introduced into the district the better; but, at the same time, the other local manufacturers who had to provide premises out of their own capital for shirt manufacture had a perfect right, being ratepayers and employers of labour within the area, to be notified that these Army huts were to be let for shirt manufacturing purposes.

On a point of correction, Deputy White mentioned that Messrs. Moore are Six-County employers. Messrs. Moore & Co. were manufacturing shirts and collars in Buncrana before they got this place.

Their headquarters are in Derry City, and Derry City is in the Six Counties. If the Board of Works decide to let these Army huts for manufacturing purposes, they should advertise them, and then Messrs. Moore will have an opportunity of competing with other manufacturers for the accommodation offered.

Does the Deputy think it fair that the thirty employees should be made the victims of the error of those responsible for not advertising the premises?

I have no opinion with regard to that. I say the arrangement between the Board of Works and Deputy Carney with regard to the letting of the huts was not a business proposition.

The main issue is the position of the 30 employees.

Mr. X. was left out of it.

I have already explained this morning that the usual practice with premises we have to let is to advertise them. In some cases advertisements have not been issued because the premises concerned were long vacant. It has been taken for granted that anybody who might have wanted them would have applied. In the case of premises long vacant, if a genuine applicant came along it might only prevent the letting to insist on an advertisement.

This was a different case, and when the matter came before me personally recently I was satisfied that it was a case in which no letting should have been made without advertisement. The premises were not vacant. It is even alleged, and I believe it is true, that other local manufacturers desired to make a bid for these premises.

The Senator is at the back of it.

In cases where it is intended to let premises, the general practice heretofore has been to allow the tenant in before the proposal has been laid on the Table of the Oireachtas, and before it was possible to make the lease, so that they might make preparation for getting to work when the lease was completed. The intention of that was, that any surveys or estimations that had to be done could be done, and the builders and architects and others could see the place, and as little delay as possible should take place. Allowing people into occupation before the lease was made did not mean that they should assume that they were sure of getting the lease, and that they could get to work as if they had it already. Messrs. Moore were distinctly warned of the conditions under which they were entering the premises.

On 22nd December the Board of Works wrote:—"We enclose draft of a lease to you of the site and two huts in this barrack together with the plans. If you kindly return the documents duly approved, we can arrange for our local officer to allow you into occupation of the premises, provided that you are prepared to take the risk of the statutory sanction for any reasons being withheld, in which event we would be obliged to call on you to vacate." Again on the 6th January there was further correspondence between the Board of Works and Messrs. Moore, with regard to fencing off this particular part of the site. The Board of Works wrote:—"With reference to previous correspondence regarding your application for a lease, in order to avoid delay later we suggest that you should now submit for our approval particulars of the wall or unclimbable railing which you propose to erect in order to cut off the site proposed to be leased from the rest of the barracks. It would, of course, be imprudent for you to incur any expenditure on the premises at the moment, seeing that it was intimated in our letter of 22nd December, that you are allowed into occupation subject to your taking the risk that the necessary statutory sanction may be withheld, in which case you will be required to vacate."

They were twice specifically warned that they were not to count on the lease, and it was specifically told them that it would be imprudent for them to incur any expenditure. If they have gone ahead and incurred expenditure, they must take the consequences, and I am perfectly satisfied, on examining this case, that it would be entirely wrong to proceed to give a lease of these premises when other possible and, as I understand, probable applicants had had no opportunity of competing for the premises.

Would the Minister mind saying why he did not advertise the premises in the principal newspaper circulating in the district?

The newspapers circulating in the district are not confined merely to one.

Advertising them in the principal newspaper.

So far as advertising is concerned what happened in this case was that the premises had not been vacated. When Messrs. Moore made application for the premises they had not been vacated. By going to various Departments and representing that they were going to start a new industry and give employment, they got the various Departments to write to the Board of Works recommending the granting of the lease. The Board of Works then by some error entered into negotiations with Messrs. Moore without advertising.

Would the Minister say is it not a fact that some considerable time ago the Board of Works made a promise to a firm in Buncrana that when these huts became vacant that firm would be notified by advertisement or otherwise?

The Board of Works say they did not make that promise. I am disposed to believe that some sort of a promise, such as Deputy Cassidy has mentioned, was made by the local officer of the Board of Works, but I am not sure of that, but that is one of the factors which seem to make it impossible to proceed with the letting to Messrs. Moore without advertising.

Am I to understand now from the Minister that on account of that error Messrs. Moore are now to be called on to vacate the premises? Is the Minister proceeding with that?

Certainly: Messrs. Moore were warned.

Arising out of the debate, will the Minister see that in future as far as possible before leases of all land and premises of this kind belonging to the State are given that the premises will be advertised?

I think this case is a proof that no exception should be made to the general rule to advertise before any letting arrangements are entered into.

The Minister's hatred of the "Derry Journal" is responsible for this.

The Senator has pulled your leg again, all right.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 6th March, 1929.

Top
Share