Vol. 174 No. 3
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in connection with schemes 575 and 586 of bog development in the townland of Mullen and Frenchpark, County Roscommon, why the instructions issued by the S.E.S.O. in connection with the recruitment of labour were not complied with; and whether any disciplinary action has been taken in the matter.
16.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that a man (whose name has been supplied to his Department) was refused work at the commencement of scheme No. 575 of bog development; and if he will state (a) the reason for the refusal, and (b) why the decision was made to take this man on during the closing stages of the work.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions No. 15 and No. 16 together.
The arrangements made for the recruitment of workers for the two schemes in question are fully set out in the letter addressed to the Deputy by the Special Employment Schemes Office on the 24th January, 1959. The subject matter of the Questions was fully dealt with in that reply, and I have nothing further to add to it.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the sole information I got in that written reply was to the effect that it was unfortunate that the instructions issued were not carried out? Now, in view of that limited amount of information, I have asked the Minister in this question to give me the reasons why the instructions issued were not carried out and I now repeat that question. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give to me and to the House the reasons why the strict instructions that were issued by the Department were not observed by the people responsible in the townlands concerned?
It is not possible by Parliamentary Question and Answer to give all the information which I gave to the Deputy, or at least which was given to the Deputy by the Director of the Special Employment Schemes Office, under my authority, covering two foolscap pages. If the Deputy reads the letter again carefully, he will find out that, in so far as the Director was able to ascertain that the regulation was broken, the answer is given. We have no more information to give than that contained in the letter. He was also told that the officer who had slipped up in the matter was reprimanded.
May I state, Sir, that that is completely incorrect? I have the letter here. Would the Parliamentary Secretary now state what disciplinary action was taken in this matter? In the case of the supervising ganger and the ganger concerned, were either of these gentlemen reprimanded or dismissed for carrying out a system of recruitment which can only be described as disgraceful—in other words, employing the men purely on the basis of their political allegiance?
The Deputy is making a speech by means of a question.
May I put it this way? Is it or is it not a fact that those men who were employed were recruited solely on the basis that they were supporters of Fianna Fáil—is that not correct—and that the supervising ganger and the ganger concerned are well-known Fianna Fáil henchmen?
The Deputy is giving the information, not asking for some.
Dá mebeadh breith ar aiféal agam gheobhadh sé malairt an fheagra a fuair sé dá litir. The Deputy's statement is entirely wrong. The officer in question had difficulty on a previous occasion in finding or recruiting a gang in accordance with the regulation governing the matter.
Whom does the Parliamentary Secretary think he is codding?
He instructed—whilst irregularly—the supervising ganger when seeking the consent of the applicants for the work in question, to try to find out how many U.A. and U.I.B. recipients in the place would be available for employment. That was not in accordance with his instructions and for that he was reprimanded. The work was stopped and was subsequently carried on on a recruitment basis in accordance with the standing regulation.
With your permission, Sir, I should like to raise this matter on the adjournment.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.
