asked the Minister for Finance if he will state (a) the number of men who were dismissed from the Board of Works in the week preceding Christmas, 1949; (b) the number of those men who were since re-employed; (c) the average period of employment, prior to dismissal, of those who were re-employed; (d) the average period of employment, prior to dismissal, of those who were not re-employed, and (e) whether some men were refused re-employment who were members of the I.R.A. and had not National Army discharge papers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Board of Works Employees.
I presume the Deputy refers to workmen employed by the contractors to the Commissioners of Public Works in the Dublin area. It is incorrect, however, to refer to them as having been dismissed; their services were terminated because, as casual employees, their retention depended on the nature and duration of the work for which they were taken on. The replies to the Deputy's questions are as follows: (a) 14; (b) five; (c) 12 months; (d) seven months; (e) preference for employment is given to men who have had certain service in the Defence Forces and men, with military service in the period 1916-23, who have been granted active or general service medals. I am not aware that any of the men in question who may be eligible for preference accordingly have been refused re-employment. I may point out, however, that the engagements of all the men covered by the question were purely temporary and gave no claim to continued employment or re-employment.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some of the men who were not re-employed got a Christmas box in Christmas week and dismissal? The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that the average period of employment was seven months. Is he aware that one man out of the number on whose behalf I am speaking was engaged for 18 months, and was not given any explanation as to why priority was given to people with shorter service?
As the Deputy is aware Government regulations strictly confine us to employ certain types of men with from 1916 to 1923 Army service. If such a thing happened, I want to tell the Deputy that these people are employed through the local labour exchange.
Am I now to understand that in the Republic of Ireland, the men who served the Republic from 1916 to 1923, to 1933 and to 1943 are not to get employment either temporary or any other form of employment in Government services or agencies?
That is not so.
Did the Parliamentary Secretary state that there is a regulation prohibiting employment except to those with military service from 1916 to 1923?
What I said to the Deputy was that they get preference through the labour exchanges.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a man who was in employment for 18 months was dismissed, or let go, shall we say, through redundancy; it is all the same to him. He subsequently got a letter to report for work in February and when he went down in February he was asked for his discharge papers. The only discharge papers he had were from Brixton prison and the Curragh. He was told to go about his business. He cannot get employment here. Is it the policy of the Government that members who served in the Irish Republican Army should not get employment?
No, it is not the policy.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the statement made I ask the permission of the Chair to raise this matter on the Adjournment.