I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. Under the Constitution, this House is supposed to be a sovereign Assembly, a Parliament of a Republic, and the duty and responsibility of protecting the rights and privileges of Deputies rest with the Ceann Comhairle. For that reason, I want on this Estimate to seek an assurance that that duty and that responsibility are properly discharged. I take it that the appointment, promotion, dismissal and retirement of members of the staff lie in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle and that nobody else has the right to appoint, promote, or increase the pay of any member of the staff under the control of this House. I should like to have a very definite assurance from the Ceann Comhairle that that duty is being properly discharged and that he accepts full responsibility for the salaries, wages and working conditions generally of all the members of the staff working in and around this House.
Many months ago, the Captain of the Guard retired after a long and faithful service and, so far as I am aware, that position has not so far been filled. I want to know what is the cause of the delay in filling that vacancy. Before the Captain of the Guard retired everybody knew the date on which he was due to retire. If a vacancy occurred in any business establishment worthy of the name in this city or in the country, the necessary steps would be taken beforehand to select the most suitable successor to the person due to retire at a particular date. It is the duty of the Ceann Comhairle, under the Constitution and the Standing Orders, to answer to the House for his failure to fill, this position and I recognise nobody else in this matter. I have heard, and I suppose other Deputies have heard, that there is an innumerable number of applicants and that every Minister has a nominee for this much sought for position, which was so honourably filled over a long period of years by Captain Tom Byrne. I hope that whoever gets the job will do it as well as it was done by him. It is about time, at any rate, if there is anybody responsible for reconciling the differences between Ministers who have their own nominees for this job, that he should make up his mind as to who is the most suitable applicant amongst the innumerable people who have made application for the position.
The Captain of the Guard has a certain responsibility to this House. For instance, I understand that, under the Rules and Standing Orders of the House, he has the sole responsibility for removing any Deputy who refuses to leave the House at the request of the Chair. Quite recently we had a little bit of trouble here. That kind of trouble arises in the best-regulated families. At any rate, a member who was ordered to leave the House on a particular occasion did not respond right away to the request of the Ceann Comhairle and we had no Captain of the Guard to enforce the ruling of the Chair. That distasteful task was left to one of the ushers
I wonder was it quite in order on that occasion for the Chair Id order the removal of a Deputy by a person on whom did not lie the responsibility for carrying out that duty. I am not too well versed in the duties of the Captain of the Guard, but there may be other duties which nobody else should, in the ordinary course, perform except the Captain of the Guard. At any rate, for a long period of years this House has passed an Estimate, and I presume it will pass this Estimate, making provision for the position of Captain of the Guard. I hope that a satisfactory explanation for the failure to fill this responsible post will be given to the House before this Estimate is passed.
On a number of previous occasions the attention of the responsible authority here, that is the Ceann Comhairle, was drawn to a number of matters, including the very unsatisfactory kind of room provided for the reception of visitors. Like yourself-Sir, I have had the experience of visiting Parliament Houses in other countries — in London, Brussels, Paris and Rome — and I think we have nothing to boast about in the kind of dog-box at the entrance gate for the reception of foreign visitors and of our own people who come here in large numbers from time to time to see Deputies. It is a disgraceful kind of dog-box which is used for this purpose. If the Minister for Finance has all the money he says he has for every useful purpose, it is time that he allocated some of it for the purpose of providing a decent kind of reception-room for visitors to this House. I hope that before this Estimate is passed an assurance will be given by the responsible authority in this matter that a proper reception-room will he provided before the end of the financial year.
I understand that the Department of Finance claim responsibility for all these matters, but where they come in under the Constitution in matters of this kind I do not know. So far as I can see, the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has as much responsibility under the Constitution for the proper conduct of this House, for appointments to the staff and for the promotion and dismissal of members of the staff as the Minister for Finance. I would be amazed, as I imagine other Deputies would be amazed, to hear that all this work is left in the hands of some senior or junior civil servant.
I now come to the question of the staff employed in this House and, particularly, in the restaurant. When I first entered this House in 1922, and for many years afterwards, the catering arrangements were in the hands of a committee appointed by this House. That committee had full responsibility for the employment and the conditions of employment of the staff that worked here over a long period of years. At one stage, perhaps during the period of your membership of this House, Sir, that Kitchen Committee employed a good and efficient staff under the best possible conditions, gave them a full week's employment, and at the end of certain financial years profits which were made went back into the revenue for the relief of taxation. Who is responsible for it I have yet to find out, but now we are asked to vote a subsidy, if you please, of £500 a year to a private company, established for profit-making purposes. Is there any other catering concern in the country in such a privileged position as that? I doubt it. This is a fairly big concern. I do not care whether they claim the whole or portion of the £500 provided in this Estimate as a subsidy to enable them to get more profit on their business than they would get in any other place where they are carrying on business. I understand that the directors of this catering concern are associated with a lot of other catering concerns outside this House. That is not pertinent, except to this extent, that they get no subsidy for the catering they do in other places. They have to rely on the service they give to the public, and the taxpayers have not to pay, in addition to those who have to pay decent amounts, I suppose, for the food they consume in any of the other establishments carried on by this concern outside this House. I do not know that anybody would get up here and say that he is getting his food cheaply in the restaurant. I have heard many members complaining about the high charges.
As to the efficiency, I have nothing to say on that matter against the concern responsible for carrying out the catering arrangements, but I wonder how many members know of the conditions under which the staff in the restaurant are employed. I take it that members of the House know something about the hours and working conditions and I would like to see any Deputy from any part of the House, who is personally aware of the shocking conditions under which some of the members of the staff are working, standing up here and saying he is prepared to go outside and defend them. How many Deputies know that one girl with a glorified title is working a full week here for 27/3 and another girl with, perhaps, a more important title, is paid £2 8s. 0d. for a hard week's work, working late into the night and with very long service?
If Deputy Mrs. Crowley speaks in this debate, I wonder will she defend such things if she knows the conditions of the women members of the staff and were asked to vote a subsidy to a so-called business concern that is prepared apparently to defend these rotten conditions of service. Somebody may get up and say that the staff are not working here every week, but the same applies to the Ceann Comhairle and to Deputies. We are not sitting here every week or every day in the week and there is no use in coming back with that kind of argument. Before this subsidy is voted, I want an assurance from the Ceann Comhairle, and from nobody else, that the rotten conditions of service of the catering staff will be revised immediately and that the employees, male and female, will at least have as good conditions as employees have in any other comparable concern in the city or country.