Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Oct 1932

Vol. 44 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 2—Oireachtas.

I beg to move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £38,160 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1933, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Oireachtas.

That a sum not exceeding £38,160 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, for the salaries and expenses of the Oireachtas.

This Vote deals with the salaries and expenses of the Oireachtas, including the salaries of the members of the Dáil and the Seanad and the officers of both Houses.

I regret having to mention, in connection with this Vote, a matter that I would rather was mentioned and dealt with elsewhere. I want to say at the outset that it is not a new question; it is a question that has been going on for some time. I refer to the discontent that exists because of the unsatisfactory conditions under which the ushers are employed in this House. I want to refer also to certain complaints for which they have failed to secure any redress. There have been complaints for the last two or three years about the conditions under which the ushers are obliged to do their work. I think it will be agreed on all sides of the House that the members of the existing staff do their work very satisfactorily. I think it is apparent to all of us who have watched them doing their work that they have altogether too much work to do. I want to put a plea to the responsible Minister for a thorough examination of the whole position with a view to seeing what additional assistance is required in the House.

It is obvious to all of us that some additional assistance on the staff of ushers is necessary. I think we have all felt the inconvenience on more than one occasion of having a limited number of men to do an unlimited amount of work. There are other aspects of the case that, perhaps, it would not be well to stress unduly here. There are complaints that the conditions of work have been made very unsatisfactory for the ushers, particularly with regard to increments and wages. Fines have been inflicted and there have been penalties by way of loss of increment in connection with entirely trivial matters. I would like to say that the employees of this House who are concerned in this matter are trade unionists. I think they have endeavoured to secure redress through their union, and I would much prefer that that object would be achieved without the matter being mentioned in the House. It will be a very unpleasant state of affairs for us if the trade union catering for the men concerned has to take action. This House ought to give a lead in the matter of decent employment and satisfactory conditions.

I want to call attention also to the very grave dissatisfaction that exists to my own knowledge in the case of the staff employed in the restaurant. There have been complaints for a very long time in this respect. Only recently when some of us became members of the Restaurant Committee were we brought face to face with the difficulty in that department, and the necessity for remedying complaints of the kind. I want to mention one instance. Before the Recess we decided, as members of the Restaurant Committee to make certain recommendations in connection with the allowance——

The Deputy will observe that there is nothing in this Estimate having a bearing on the restaurant. It does not come under this Vote.

Mr. Murphy

Perhaps it can be dealt with in another way. I will say this much, that it seems to me that any attempt to remedy conditions has been deliberately flouted. I was going to quote a particular instance connected with the restaurant in support of that view. I hope it will not be necessary for the trade unions catering for the persons concerned to call the men who are employed here out—to withdraw their labour—because they cannot get their grievances redressed. I understand there has been a slight improvement lately, but much more improvement is necessary. I want the Minister to make full inquiries into these matters with the object of remedying the grievances that exist. The people concerned complain that they have a difficulty in getting a hearing for their grievances, and they are naturally desirous for some improvement in the conditions under which they work.

I want to raise a point, perhaps a much older point than the one raised just now. I will refer to a matter that has been raised in this House on very many occasions. I think it is a matter that will be subscribed to by members of all Parties. I would like the Minister to consider whether he will not again approach the railway companies with regard to the travelling facilities for members of the Oireachtas. As members of the House are aware, the position is that each time a Deputy desires to travel he has to get a voucher. That voucher is presented at the railway station and the Deputy is given a first-class ticket for which the State has to pay full fare. There are certain inconveniences in that procedure, and I think it would be much more satisfactory, and it might cost the State less, if there could be some system of passes the same as are given to many people in the country who have to use the railways fairly frequently. I understand that the late Government approached the railway companies on this matter, but the companies were not inclined to grant any facilities. I think the State is entitled to certain facilities from the railway company. A good deal of State money goes to the railways every year, and I think there ought to be some appreciation of that on the part of the companies. It is doubtful if there would be very much loss to the railways. It would certainly be of advantage if members of the House got some such facilities.

There is another matter that I desire to raise. Many members of the House of all Parties have spoken to me on this matter. It will be within the recollection of Deputies that a couple of years ago an Act relating to the travelling expenses of members was amended so that Deputies who might use their own motor cars would be entitled to some allowance. The position to-day is that on many occasions in the performance of their duties as members of the Dáil and in carrying out the work of their constituents Deputies find it more convenient to use their own cars rather than utilise the railways. Very often it is absolutely necessary to use a motor car and many Deputies find it more convenient to do this than to travel to Dublin by rail. The allowance made by the Department of Finance works out at something like 1½d. a mile or less. We know that certain State servants get as much as 6d. a mile. I am not suggesting that 6d. a mile for State servants is too much. When you take into account running expenses, wear and tear, and depreciation of a car, that figure is not at all too much.

I suggest it is absurd to offer 1d., 1½d. or 2d. a mile to a Deputy who is obliged to use his own car in order to reach Dublin. So far as I remember, in the Act passed by the Oireachtas it was laid down that the allowance to a member of the House who uses his own car or travels by motor bus or otherwise should not exceed the cost of a first-class railway ticket. The Ministry of Finance interpreted that in the way that the Ministry of Finance usually interprets things by not exceeding the cost of a first-class ticket. In fact, they do not give you the cost of a third-class ticket. While this may appear to be a small matter I think it is unfair, and I do not think the Minister himself, or any member of the House will contend that a Deputy should travel from his constituency to Dublin to do his business at 1½d. a mile. I know this is a matter that has been discussed between Deputies of the House. It is a matter on which members of all Parties feel to a certain extent. Therefore, I desire to raise it and, therefore, I hope that when he is replying the Minister will indicate first that he is prepared to interview or get in touch with the railway company again about getting passes under the present system, and that he will get his Department to interpret the present Act as the House intended it should be interpreted.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Murphy, I think I should say at the outset that I am very sorry that that matter was raised in the House. As far as I am concerned, I would have been glad to have listened to representations made to me by any responsible Deputies in regard to any members of the staff, but I am not prepared to go outside what would be my proper domain, and say here in the House whether or not there is any foundation for the grievances that are alleged to exist. They have not been formally brought to my notice.

Has the Minister ever heard of them?

I have heard of one incident, but I am not disposed to say that that incident was a justifiable one. I have heard of some members of the staff refusing to turn in for duty when called upon. I cannot say to my own knowledge——

Mr. Murphy

The Minister is taking a very unfair line.

I think it was rather unfair to raise it without approaching me at first, at any rate. That does not help us very much. The only thing I can say is that I wish to make it quite clear that there are responsible authorities in this House and I have no reason to believe that they would deal other than fairly and justly with the staff, as I believe the heads of all the services would.

Mr. Murphy

My information is that all attempts to have satisfaction given with regard to certain matters have failed. I was very careful when referring to the matter, and as a last resort I mentioned it in this House, the only place in which I should mention it.

I am sorry, because I do not think that as between the State and the servants of the Oireachtas the House is the proper place in which to raise those matters. I feel that very strongly. I would like to make myself quite clear on this matter, because there should not be any ground for misunderstanding. I understood some suggestion was made that certain civil servants might withdraw their labour. I think that in that regard they must remember as civil servants that they enjoy certain privileges, and that one of the conditions of their service is that labour is not to be withdrawn, that there are other means of settling disputes of this sort.

I would be very sorry to think that any civil servant would proceed to take action which might have serious consequences not merely for the civil servant but possibly for the State and the people. There have been established proper means of approach to the official side of the Civil Service; proper means of approach to the Ministers, and as long as these means exist they must be tried out to the very end. When they have failed, if there is still a sense of grievance or a sense of injustice I am prepared to receive representations such as the Deputy has made—private representations. I am perfectly certain that there is any substance in the grievances which are said to exist that there will be on the part of every responsible person in the service of the Government a desire to adjust and to remedy them should any arise.

With regard to the point that has been made by Deputy Morrissey, I understand that my predecessor in office approached the railway companies on several occasions and was not able to get much satisfaction out of them. I will look into the points the Deputy has made with regard to travelling facilities, railway or road facilities, and will try to meet any hardship that may exist. At the same time in regard to this matter it must be remembered that we cannot do anything which would increase the cost of travelling to the State.

I have not suggested that.

I wanted to make that clear.

Vote agreed to.
Top
Share