Deputy O'Leary has received permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the payment of public servants this week.
Adjournment Debate: Payment of Public Servants.
I want to thank the Chair for permitting me to raise this matter. The only manner in which I could raise this matter was to seek this time on the Adjournment. The matter that concerned me was the position that I understand has arisen in which public servants normally in receipt of their payments on a weekly basis, normally in receipt of these payments today, have not been paid today. I am anxious to know when they will be paid, why they have not received their normal cheques today, the reason for the delay and whether the non-receipt of cheques today is based on the involvement of some in the demonstration of last Tuesday, the half-day march through this city. I was informed of this rather confused position only in the course of the afternoon. Therefore I want to thank the Chair for permitting me to raise it because it is a matter of some concern to those affected.
I want to make it clear that, as I understand the position, the cheques made out to those on weekly rates—and I understand the grades concerned are those from clerical officer to cleaner; this would be the range of people concerned in this delay of payment in Government Departments throughout the city—have not come to hand. The cheques they normally receive on a Thursday are dated for the Friday. In other words, they would receive their payments today with tomorrow's date. The practical problem posed in the present situation is that there is no clarification of the position at this point in the afternoon for many of these families who depend on rather accurate information, whose family budgets are based on receipt of their cheque on a Thursday and cashing them early on Friday morning. The predicament facing many of them at this point in the afternoon is that, for example, the cleaners leaving Government Buildings on the early shift tomorrow morning are not certain this afternoon that their cheques dated for tomorrow will be received tomorrow.
There is at this point no clarification of that position. It does not leave much to the imagination to appreciate the difficulties encountered in family budgets, of payments falling due on instalment, of payments falling due on food bills, shopping expeditions arranged for a particular time on Friday with no certainty of payment of the cheque on which that family budget depends. Certainly it could be visualised that in the present rather difficult public transport situation in the city it could be a vital matter that a cheque normally paid on a Thursday should be paid out on that day. If there is some difficulty or confusion relating to receipt of the cheque the people concerned should know this afternoon that at least they will be in receipt of that cheque before leaving their employment at whatever hour tomorrow.
I do not know the reason. Perhaps there is an adequate explanation. If there is, certainly the fears of those concerned have not been appeased by any comprehensive explanation from official quarters. Of course, people on one income bracket may find it difficult to understand the plight of those on a lower one. Perhaps the problems of a cleaner, or other lowly grade conventionally understood in the public service, is not a matter with which senior people should be too concerned. But under the normal agreement in relation to the payment of a cleaner's wages it should be understood that that person's wages are as important to her family budget as may be any higher wage packet to any executive, at whatever level on the seniority ladder. There may be a failure to understand the problems of low budget families at present, shown by the rather strange behaviour in relation to payments this week.
We do not know whether this has to do with participation in the recent stoppage. We do know that the Civil and Public Services Staff Association wrote to the Minister for Finance on Tuesday informing him that their members would be taking industrial action for half that day. I do not know what way the Minister received that news but there is no ambiguity about that association's attitude. They participated in the one-day stoppage. They made no bones of the fact that they were willing to sacrifice half a day's pay for participation in a demonstration they supported fully. Therefore they were in industrial dispute with the Department for half that day.
Could the Minister confirm or explain the appearance of an inquiry note in different Government Departments seeking the names of those who participated in Tuesday's demonstration? Is it a fact that such a circular was issued? Is it in the form of a circular? If not in the form of a circular has any inquiry been started in various Departments seeking the names of those who participated in Tuesday's demonstration? What is the purpose of any inquiry seeking the names of those who participated in Tuesday's demonstration? Does participation in Tuesday's demonstration put a black mark against an individual who participated, against his or her promotion prospects in the future?
The question deals with one specific matter—the payment of cheques this week—and we cannot discuss other matters. That has always been the rule of the House on Questions on the Adjournment—that Deputies must adhere to the matter raised.
My predicament is that I was apprised only late this afternoon of the apparent difficulty of non-receipt of cheques by individuals in the Government service. I have indicated the grade concerned. One does not know the reason for this non-payment. I surmise it has something to do with participation in the one-day dispute on Tuesday last. As I understand it, no official explanation has been given for withholding the presentation of cheques this afternoon.
I have indicated some of the difficulties arising for those who have not received their cheques today, difficulties in the way of household budgetary problems and so on. For example, what is the position of a servant of this House, an usher, a group whose union did not participate in Tuesday's march, as they indicated to their members that a condition of their service was that they should not take part in that march? They did not take part in the march; yet they did not receive their cheques today as usual. What happens to the man leaving his employment on the early shift tomorrow morning? As I understand it, the latest word from the Department is that there is no guarantee that they will be receiving their cheques before 1 o'clock tomorrow. The banks close at 3 o'clock. Again one can visualise the difficulties facing a family budgeting with such a mystery surrounding the weekly payment of one's cheque on a particular day of the week.
Very relevant to this is the question of the approach of the Department of the Public Service to those who participated in Tuesday's march. Have inquiries been instituted to discover the names of the public servants who participated?
That does not arise on the question the Deputy has asked. The only matter that arises on that question is the reason for the delay in the payment of this week's cheques. We cannot go into any other matters.
I must ask such questions as are relevant to this problem.
The position, as far as the Chair is concerned, is that in an Adjournment Debate a Deputy is strictly confined to the subject matter of the question he raises.
We do not know now whether employees in the grades concerned will receive their cheques from the Department. Whatever the explanation, that is not conducive to the best relations between employees and management. Throughout the public service there is a bad industrial relations situation at present. The Minister has delivered many homilies on improvements in industrial relations in outside employment but this is his responsibility——
Industrial relations in the civil service does not arise on this question.
As I understand it, the attitude of management in outside employment to last Tuesday's march has not led to any inquiries in relation to participation in the march.
What outside management do does not arise on this question. The question is strictly confined to the payment of this week's cheques to certain public servants and nothing else is involved. We must stick strictly to the question before the House.
Does the Chair think that if an employee outside did not receive a pay cheque on the normal day it would pass without comment? Would that improve industrial relations in any plant?
What the Chair thinks does not arise. We are only concerned with the payment of cheques to public servants this week. There is but one simple question before the House.
There are a number of questions before the House in relation to this issue. There is the question of human relations in the Department and an insensitive handling of a basic problem for many of the employees. If management in outside industry withheld payment of pay on the customary day great difficulties would ensue; it would not improve relations between management and employees. It will have a like adverse effect in the areas concerned on this occasion. If there is not early payment to the grades affected tomorrow morning what are those involved to do? Must they return later in the day for payment? It must be remembered that they will have to contend with the bad transport system operating at present. The people concerned have no clarification of the situation relating to the payment of their weekly cheques.
For many of those concerned the entire pay packet is earmarked for particular purchases weekly. They must pay bills, instalments and purchase food items and the confusion in relation to payment is obviously a serious matter for them. A curious insight into the way the Minister or his advisers think is the fact that no satisfactory explanation has been given to the employees concerned. The Minister will readily appreciate that a family person who is unsure of the time of the payment of his or her cheque has a legitimate complaint. The legacy of this kind of behaviour in other employment would be to worsen relations between management and staff. I have no doubt that this will add its own small quota of distrust in an already difficult situation in the public service. It would have been better for all concerned had an adequate explanation been given for this unilateral change in the customary time for payment of cheques to those concerned. Over many years cheques have been given to those on weekly pay rates on a Thursday. They are dated for cashing on Friday but the fact that they are distributed on Thursday means that the families of those concerned can cash the cheques early on Friday morning. That position was changed unilaterally this week, some days after a large demonstration in which many public servants took part, as they were entitled to do. If inquiries have been set afoot seeking the identity of those who took part we should be given an explanation for them. We all know that the public service is run on lines of great vigilance about the character and outside activities of those employed in the service. I suggest to the Minister that such inquiries should be abandoned as quickly as possible.
The Deputy is getting away from the question again.
We have not had a satisfactory explanation for the departure from customary practice in the payment of cheques to those on weekly rates in the grades from clerical officer to cleaner. A great deal of unease has been caused as a consequence and the sequel is that there will be further distrust in the Departments and areas concerned.
Firstly, the facts of the situation are that the Accounts Branch of the Department of Finance pay the salaries of all the weekly paid staff of the central Departments and a number of other offices such as Leinster House, the Central Statistics Office, the Civil Service Commission and so on. The number of persons involved is about 1,500 and the payments are processed by minicomputers. In this week there was a bank holiday on Monday and this reduced the time available for the preparation of weekly pay orders. In the normal course of events this would not have affected the issue of payments because overtime working would have made good the time lost. However, this week a large part of Tuesday last was also lost in addition to the overtime that might have been worked because the staff who were engaged on these duties absented themselves from duty from about noon onwards on that day. I do not know at the moment whether it was entirely due to those participating in the march on Tuesday or, to some extent, was contributed to, perhaps, by the fact that there was no heating in the offices. In any event, the staff concerned absented themselves from noon on Tuesday. The result was that it was not physically possible, even with working extended overtime on Wednesday, to have the payable orders ready to issue at the normal time on Thursday afternoon. Further overtime is being worked tonight. Every effort has been and is being made to get those payable orders out. They are, as Deputy O'Leary said, dated in the normal way for Friday although they are given out on the Thursday.
Up to now about half of the orders have been completed and they are being distributed. It is hoped to have the remainder issued by 10.30 tomorrow. Deputy O'Leary mentioned cleaners. I understand that cleaners in Government Buildings have in fact received their cheques. Deputy O'Leary also referred to a circular. I have no knowledge at this stage of the circular but, as you stated, the matter does not arise in regard to this question. If it had I would have had some knowledge of it.
Has no official inquiry been set up?
I told the Deputy I have no knowledge of the circular.
It does not arise.
If I had and if it arose on this I would have such knowledge. The Deputy now comes in here and sheds crocodile tears for the people concerned. He tells us about cleaners and the lowly paid and in a snide way suggests executives and, by implication, Ministers might not know what it meant to such people not to receive a cheque at the normal time.
I actually meant Ministers.
I thought the Deputy did although he said executives. I got the message all right. I would like Deputy O'Leary to know that I understand very well the problems of such people. If he understands them what does he mean by encouraging and marching with people whose participation in the march caused this difficulty for cleaners and the lowly paid? He then comes in here and tries to get another bite of the cherry by complaining about the results, which are the direct consequence of what he participated in, when every possible effort is being made to ensure that cleaners and lowly paid people in the civil service would not suffer? Additional overtime has been worked and every possible effort has been made to meet this problem. It has been impossible. I am not in the least bit impressed with the hypocritical performance of Deputy O'Leary who, having tried to get publicity on one side of the coin by marching on Tuesday, comes in here to shed those crocodile tears about the consequences of what he did on Tuesday.
The Minister had far more to do with the march.
Deputy O'Leary can take it now. I did not interrupt him for 20 minutes of waffle. Let the Deputy not interrupt me because he is now beginning to get the message. He cannot have it both ways. Perhaps Deputy Barry Desmond had it right when he spoke and perhaps Deputy O'Leary should have listened to him. The Deputy certainly cannot participate in a march and then, with any degree of credibility whatever, come into the House and complain about consequences which are a direct result of that march. That is what Deputy O'Leary is trying to do, and he knows the truth of this. I hope that his hypocrisy in this matter will be fully exposed. Every possible effort, physical effort and every other effort which could be made, has been made and is being made to ensure that those people who are, as Deputy O'Leary says—and I agree with him—among the lowly paid are not inconvenienced. It has been impossible to avoid that inconvenience and hardship in some cases for those people because of the kind of thing that happened last Tuesday and in which Deputy O'Leary participated.
Did he know that cleaners and other lowly paid would suffer or did he care? He tried to suggest that I do not know what they suffer. I know. Did he know? If he did, why did he not try to ensure that they did not suffer? If he did not know, it means that he just went on regardless of the consequences. I want to tell Deputy O'Leary one thing. The people being talked about here are not the only people who have suffered as a result of what happened last Tuesday. People can say it is justifiable in the circumstances. It is not open to me at this stage to argue on that. I can say that it ill behoves Deputy O'Leary to pose as one who is aiding and abetting what happened on Tuesday and then to come in here and complain about those who have suffered as a direct consequence of what happened last Tuesday. Deputy O'Leary should now explain to the public how he justifies or attempts to justify his carryon when he now comes in to complain about the direct consequences of his activities last Tuesday. As far as I am concerned, his performance on this is a clear illustration of the total lack of sincerity in his mad scramble to overcome Deputy John O'Connell in their race for the European Parliament. It does not impress me and I hope it will not impress many other people.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 March 1979.