Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 21 Nov 1952

Vol. 134 No. 15

Private Deputies' Business. - Adjournment Debate—Road Workers' Wages: Prior Disclosure of Decision.

Deputy Dunne has given notice of his intention to raise the manner in which the Minister for Local Government supplied prior information to a Deputy of the House of his sanction of the proposal to increase road workers' wages in County Dublin, which he withheld a few days earlier in response to a Dáil question. I am allowing Deputy Dunne to raise that matter.

I propose to call in question the covert and reprehensible manner in which the Minister conveyed to a Deputy of his own Party the knowledge that he was about to sanction, or had, in fact, sanctioned, an increase in wages for road workers in County Dublin. In doing this, I consider that I shall be successful in exposing what is nothing less than a political racket. I am concerned not just with the question of what has occurred in this case. I am concerned with the standards that guide any Cabinet Minister or member of any Party who indulges in political chicanery of this kind, and I am concerned on behalf of the people with the knowledge of the kind of mind that lies behind the present Administration which permits, connives and manoeuvres small, mean and petty things such as this action.

I want briefly to give the background of this situation so that the position may be clear. On 13th May this year, the union representing these workers, the Federation of Rural Workers, addressed a letter to the Dublin City and County Manager wherein they submitted that, because of the substantial increase in the cost of living brought about by the Budget, the road workers in County Dublin, like all other workers, were entitled to an increase in wages. That step was taken by the union representing the men on 13th May. On July 2nd of this year, a conference took place in the City Hall between representatives of the men's union and the City Manager. Certain proposals were made to the men's representatives on that occasion, which proposals were rejected because of their inadequacy.

On 8th July, a special meeting of the Finance and General Purposes Committee of Dublin County Council was summoned in order to consider what was to be done in the situation in which the road workers were claiming an increase which the manager was not willing to concede. The Finance and General Purposes Committee of Dublin County Council came to a certain conclusion in regard to that matter, and Dublin County Council met on July 14th and again considered the position of the road workers in their employment, and, as a result of that discussion, a special meeting of the Finance and General Purposes Committee was called on Wednesday, 23rd July. On July 24th, the union representing the men had a further meeting with the Manager and, after negotiations, on August 21st and 25th and September 1st, correspondence ensured between the Manager and the union.

It immediately becomes manifest that the principal body in this context was Dublin County Council, the premier county council of Ireland. This body had decided by a majority vote, which was eventually converted into a unanimous vote, to increase the wages of the road workers by 15/- per week. That proposal was not acceptable to the Manager, who sent forward a recommendation to the Minister stating that he was prepared to increase the wages of the workers by 10/- a week. That was all perfectly in order and as it should be, but I want to emphasise that Dublin County Council was the body chiefly concerned in this whole affair.

On 29th October I put the following question to the Minister for Local Government:—

"If he will state with regard to the proposals which have been submitted to his Department by the Dublin City and County Manager concerning the wages of road workers employed by the Dublin County Council, the nature of such proposals, and if it is proposed to approve of them."

The reply was:—

"I have received a proposal to increase the wages of the Dublin County Council road labourers from 95/- to 100/- a week from the 1st April, 1952, and from 100/- to 105/- per week from 5th July, 1952. The proposal is under consideration."

On 12th November, I asked the following question:—

"To ask the Minister for Local Government if he has yet reached a decision in relation to the recommendation of Dublin County and City Manager for increased wages for County Dublin road workers."

The reply was:—

"The matter is still under consideration."

That question was asked two weeks after the first question, so that it was a fortnight under consideration. The latter question was asked on last Wednesday week. On Friday evening, there appeared on the streets one paper, the Evening Mail, and to and behold, what did we read? Nothing less than a statement that an announcement had been made to a Deputy of the Minister's Party to the effect that he had now decided to sanction an increase in wages for road workers. That may appear funny to some, but I wonder if this will amuse them. The Dublin County Council, who provide the money, were not informed by the Minister until yesterday morning. I wonder will they laugh that off so easily. This is just another example of what occurs in many other spheres, as the presence here of Deputy Gallagher reminds me. He took occasion very recently to question the right of a public representative to receive and publish information from a public organisation, Córas Iompair Éireann. It was obvious that Deputy Gallagher was concerned with gaining votes in NorthWest Dublin.

We are dealing with a particular incident and the Deputy should keep to it.

The reply given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce was that he looked with disfavour on that kind of activity, that he considered that matters of that kind should be made public by means of a public statement and he inferred that he thought it was a positively disreputable practice for the Deputy in question to have written a letter and received a reply in a perfectly normal, legitimate and decent manner, with regard to a subject with which he had been dealing, not just this year but over many years, in County Dublin.

Here we have a case where there is the most flagrant evidence and an abundance of evidence of collusion between the Minister and his friend in order to try to score what was in fact no more than a petty political point. I am not, however, concerned about that. It will not matter one jot in County Dublin. Deputy Burke, when taking part in this little conspiracy, this pseudo-smart political trick, overlooked the intelligence of the people with whom he was dealing. He forgot that he is regarded by the men affected in this case as an unconscious comedian and this was just one of the more doubtful jokes perpetrated by him on my constituents.

Are these the standards upon which the country will be run? Is an important local authority, such as the Dublin County Council which has to provide the money—a very substantial sum of money—to meet these increases to be brushed aside for the sake of presenting one of the backbenchers of the Minister's Party with what was thought to be a little advantage? Is that the standard upon which the country will be run? Apparently it is.

This action was disreputable. It cannot but be condemned by those who hope to see a proper standard of conduct established in public life for public men. It seems to be forgotten at times that when people are elected to this House a certain responsibility is thrust upon them and that responsibility does not rest merely in walking into the Division Lobby in order to bolster up whatever Administration may be in power. That responsibility extends to every action of every member of the Government. It is their duty to act with decency and integrity and without any suggestion of political connivance or the kind of political trickery that is in evidence here to-day. We have seen other cases of that. On a previous occasion the same Deputy——

It is the Minister's action we are now discussing.

I must be forgiven if I make reference to his henchman now and again. I raise this matter because of representations that were made to me by various people who said: "We knew politics was a queer game but we did not know it was quite as low as this." Someone once said that "politics was the last refuge of a scoundrel." We should not try to justify that cliché. We should rather try to prove that the work in which we are engaged will be carried out honestly and without our endeavouring, for the sake of a few paltry votes, to score an advantage. But this piece of trickery has not even achieved that effect though that is what it was designed to do.

While I may make some excuse for the attitude of some members of the Minister's Party I can make no excuse for the Minister and I will be interested to learn how the Minister justifies this. When I am speaking of this matter I am sure I am speaking on behalf of all the members of the Dublin County Council. I am quite certain that the members of the Minister's own Party on that council will take a very dim view of his action in this regard. Supporters of the Minister's Party have already represented their views to me upon what has been done. The action was petty. It was small, but it is at the same time an indication or a pointer to the general attitude of the Administration that is now in office here.

I try to be, and I hope I am, a responsible Deputy representing County Dublin, being, as I am, a member of a Party concerned with the welfare of all sections of the people. A number of the road workers concerned have been in here in the Dáil making representations to me and asking me to get the Minister to expedite sanction of the increase in County Dublin. Instead of putting down a parliamentary question, I asked the Minister at every opportunity I got to expedite sanction for an increase in the road workers' wages in County Dublin. Because of the large number of road workers coming in here to me I was concerned for their welfare and I pressed the Minister very hard. I would do the same to-morrow with any other Minister. I make no apology for it. I am here to serve the people to the best of my ability. Deputy Dunne's lament—I must try to set it to music some day when I have a bit of time——

You are a bit of a fiddler all right. I will agree with you there.

Deputy Dunne's lament would never have arisen if the Minister had answered Deputy Dunne on the 29th October or on the 12th November, when he asked the question, and told Deputy Dunne that he had sanctioned the increase in the road workers' wages.

I am a member of the Dublin County Council. You are not.

I did not interrupt the Deputy when he was speaking.

That is so, and Deputy Burke should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

Had that answer been given there would not be one word to-day. The Minister would be a grant fellow. The Deputy referred to me here in a way that is worthy of him but I will not descend to that level. The people of County Dublin have returned me twice at the head of the poll and I do not want to play this mean political game one way or the other. If in the same circumstances anyone again asks me to do what I believe to be my duty here, I will do my duty. When I pressed this matter with the Minister I was only doing my duty. For three years I saw the misrepresentation that went on. I never raised a question about it. To-day has been a lesson to me. A good deal of misrepresentation went on in so far as honour and decency are concerned in public life. I will not hang my head for anybody because of my actions. I am grateful to the Minister for acceding to my request on behalf of the road workers in County Dublin. I hope they will appreciate the Minister's action. There was no connivance. There was just plain representation and nothing else. Naturally when I got the good news I did what any other Deputy would do. Instead of writing out 100 letters I told the Press about it and let them give the good news immediately.

I am sure both Deputies want to hear the Minister.

I thought Deputy Burke was replying for the Minister.

I am sorry I have been the cause of butting in, as it were, between Deputy Burke and Deputy Dunne in the methods they employ in publicity matters. I would like to remind Deputy Dunne and other Deputies that the increase in wages was a matter that had to have my consideration, not only in relation to County Dublin but in relation to other counties as well. Proposals for increases reached me from Carlow, Kildare, Laoighis, Tipperary North and South Ridings, Kerry, Kilkenny and Wicklow. Some of these proposals were in my Department for many weeks before the County Dublin proposal reached me in October.

As I explained here, correspondence was necessary as between my Department and the county managers to enable me to come to a uniform decision in connection with these proposals. Deputy Dunne was not the only Deputy who asked me a parliamentary question in relation to the wages paid to County Dublin road workers. Deputy Cosgrave, on the same day, asked a similar question. Deputy Spring asked a question in relation to County Kerry. It was, in fact, the delay in securing information from the Kerry County Council, through its manager, that caused the delay in dealing with all the other proposals.

I repudiate the suggestion that it is only Deputies who table parliamentary questions here who are entitled to approach a Minister and make recommendations to him as to what they think he should do in connection with these matters. As long as I have been in political life, it is an accepted practice that Deputies supporting a Government should not avail of the Order Paper for the purpose of eliciting information from Ministers. That practice was departed from for three years. It is a practice that should not have been departed from. The Order Paper should be available to Opposition Deputies at all times.

We were free to talk.

This is a new line of Party discipline.

It is not a new line.

It is, and you have just admitted it.

If Deputies supporting the Government are not to be encouraged, as I say they should not be encouraged, to take away the time that should in the main go to members of the Opposition, surely they have a right to go to the Minister and make representations to him in relation to a proposal such as that under discussion here. If, having made a decision, a Deputy stops me in the corridor and asks me if I have dealt with it, I would naturally inform him on the matter. If Deputy Dunne had met me on Friday evening—and it was on Friday that I asked my officials to bring over here all the files dealing with this matter and subsequently made my decision—I would have given him the same information that I gave to Deputy Burke.

Should Deputy Dunne not have been advised of the decision at the same time?

It was not a question of being advised. None of them was entitled to be advised and none of them would be advised if it——

Why should the Minister advise any of them?

Why should I tell a lie? Why should I run around the House looking for Deputy Dunne, Deputy Murphy, Deputy Spring, Deputy Norton, or any of the other Deputies either in my own Party or in any Party in the House who made representations to me? Having been pressed for an early decision on the 12th by Deputy Norton who had a question down on the proposal for Kildare, I sent for the files on Friday morning. I gave a decision and, having given it, I was asked by a Deputy who was interested in the proposal in regard to one of these counties if I had come to my decision. I said I had. I cannot understand why anything so petty as the question which has been raised here should be raised in a legislative Assembly.

Does the Minister not consider hat he had a duty to notify each county council before notifying Deputy Burke or anybody else?

Deputy Burke has replied to that question. Deputy Burke has stated here that if I had given the information in reply to a parliamentary question—if I had been able to give the information on the 12th or on the 29th October—there would have been no question at all about the premier body. Even though Deputy Dunne is a member of that body, it would not entitle him to expect that he should get information as the one and only person who was entitled to get that information.

I am sure the Minister would not have given me that information until he had given it to the council first.

When I give my word I will not break it, like some Deputies.

The Dáil adjourned at 2.25 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 26th November, 1952.

Barr
Roinn