Deputy Tunney has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of a Private Notice Question to the Minister for Communications confined to the emergency Army transport element of the question.
Adjournment Debate. - Army Emergency Transport.
I thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to raise the matter. While I shall endeavour to confine myself entirely to the provision of emergency transport facilities which I want immediately for the people, it will be very difficult for me not to treat, at least to some peripheral extent, matters which are concerned with the existing problem. However, if the Chair feels that I am abusing the concession given me by allowing me to raise the matter on the Adjournment I will respond to the ruling of the Chair.
I have ruled that the Minister has no responsibility for the dispute which has given rise to the Deputy's request for Army transport.
I accept that. That is the note on which I propose to start. Members of this House must carry the odium of extracting from the people by direct and indirect taxes the colossal amount of money required to provide a public transport system. We extract that money from the people on their behalf and we are supposed to be the guarantors of their having such a service. On the other hand, when that service is withdrawn for any reason we do not seem to have any power in the matter. We can be accused of letting down the people who charge us with the responsibility of having the service provided. I do not know if I will be accused of advocating any new ideology, but I think the time has come when we must look seriously at the matter.
I am not prepared to continue with the situation where the law-abiding, industrious people of Finglas and Glasnevin are deprived of a proper transport service. It appears that literally at the drop of a hat, at the whim of some person, whether in management, on the general operative staff or in a trade union, the people of the areas concerned are deprived of their rights overnight and without notice.
I ask the Minister to visualise the situation that exists at the moment. It started off with an unofficial strike. Men and women, in pursuit of their livelihoods and all of them contributing to the economic wellbeing of the community, arrive at their bus stops at 7 a.m. having overcome a very natural reluctance to get up at that hour and resisting the temptation to stay at home, especially when they see people getting money for not working. However, they are left standing at their bus stops with no excuse or explanation given. Later in the day they discover the reason, namely, that in the opinion of one person the buses were not roadworthy or some other flimsy excuse. Because the crews would not work on the buses the people were deprived of the service. One wonders at the selectivity that operates in this matter, that it applies only to Glasnevin and Finglas.
At this time many young boys and girls after years of industry and application to educational pursuits, are sitting their leaving certificate and intermediate certificate examinations and some are going to third level colleges. Unlike other young people they are totally dependent on public transport to get to their examination centres, They have to wait for buses that do not come, and this in addition to all the anxieties they are experiencing in relation to their examinations. In addition to all the inequalities that exist, they are now confronted with the appalling position where they are worried that they will not get to their examination centres. They know that even though the matter is totally outside their control, the people at the examination centres will not take account of that fact.
Let us take the case of a young woman who may have an appointment at Holles Street Hospital or the Rotunda Hospital in connection with a pregnancy, or indeed the case of any person who may have an appointment in a hospital. They depend on public transport to get to the hospital but the buses do not come and the appointment is broken. The institution will be insensitive as to the reason these people have not arrived on time for their appointments.
These are the human factors that cause me to become agitated. Some 50 years ago labour was abused and my late father and others were forced to go on the streets because they did not have a living wage. In those times people worked for ruthless employers who extracted the last ounce from them and people had to go on strike in order to reduce the profits of the owners. However, that is not the situation now. The employer here is the person who provides the money. PAYE taxpayers in my constituency, in that of Deputy Flaherty and Deputy De Rossa, who have paid for a proper transport service are not getting that service. This is not because the people who are charged with providing the service are not getting a living wage but for some twopence halfpenny reason. Where is the greater injustice? People were subjected to slavery 50 years ago and we all know that fat profits were made by the employer, compared to the meagre wages paid to the worker.
The Deputy seems to be moving away from the debate.
I was leading up to the fact that the least we should do for those people is to provide an emergency service forthwith, because the obligation is on the Government to do so and they should not tolerate selectivity. If, as has been said, the crews refused to take out these buses because they were inferior does that mean that the garage which is obliged to provide buses for Finglas and Glasnevin houses inferior buses? If that is the case, we must castigate management and everyone else concerned and call for an inquiry. To whom is the injustice being done? Is it to the person who, by direct or indirect taxation, is paying for the service, from whom it is being withheld and who has to suffer all the hardship of having no other transport, or is it to the person who feels that the bus being provided is not of the type or quality which he thinks suitable?
The people of Glasnevin and Finglas should not be asked to carry the can. I am mindful of what the Minister of State said about sensitivity. However, I am not concerned about sensitivity in this instance except in the case of my constituents who are being deprived of this service. We are obliged, by law, to provide a service and, if the service is taken away as a result of a dispute, the obligation is on us to provide an emergency service. That has been provided before and, if the people of Foxrock or Dun Laoghaire were involved, it would be provided again. Is it because only the people of Finglas are involved, who perhaps are not as articulate as other people, that nothing is being done? Those people might have the resolve to see justice done in their own way, and reference has been made to the fact that they are contemplating having a service of their own. I am in full sympathy with that aim. If the Government are not upholding the law it is unfair to castigate people who feel they are entitled to depart from it. They are already being denied normal service. Bus services to the McKelvey, Plunkett, Finglas West and South areas stop at 9.30 p.m. It does not stop at 9.30 p.m. in Foxrock, Killiney, Donnybrook or Clontarf but it stops at that hour in Finglas because the crews are not too happy. If they are not, there is an obligation on the Minister for Justice to provide a service. That is in the legislation under which CIE act. For over a year and a half now it has not been provided——
The Deputy has not said a word yet about emergency transport and he has been speaking for over ten minutes.
The Chair will appreciate that you cannot just mention one matter. I am referring to what the people of Finglas are entitled to under the law and I am suggesting that there is an obligation on the Minister of State to provide, forthwith, emergency services which have been provided in the past. If there has been selectivity in the operation of the strike, surely the Minister should not follow the same path in respect of withholding emergency services from those people which were granted on other occasions when strikes affected the whole city? I am appealing to the Minister, irrespective of the so-called sensitivity which he may have, to do something now. Strikes and withholding of labour were relevant some years ago but are no longer relevant today because the people of Finglas, who provide the money to run the service, are suffering unnecessary hardship.
I promised my colleague, Deputy Mary Flaherty, that I would allow her five minutes of my time, with your permission, to speak on this most urgent problem. I appeal to the Minister of State to provide an emergency service tomorrow or the day after for the people of Finglas and let them see that we have not let them down.
I wish to thank Deputy Tunney for giving me some of his time, as I had sought to raise this matter in a number of ways. There are currently 36,000 angry, fed-up and footsore people whose working, leisure and ordinary activities of daily life are disrupted as a result of this dispute. It has been going on now for five days and may very soon spread to the whole city. Finglas people know where to lay the blame — at the Phibsboro depot which has been causing problems by offering a limited service to the area for a very long time. It is because they have not had buses in the evenings for nearly two years now that the level of frustration is reaching breaking point when they are faced with total shutdown of services. It affects not just the people directly involved but also the numbers 13, 11 and 36 which are coming under severe pressure because people who normally use the buses on strike are now turning to these services. The Dublin north west area has been badly affected by this dispute.
I understand that the Labour Court have thrown out the case. I agree with Deputy Tunney that this is a minor dispute, and the people should not have been used as pawns in the ongoing battle at Phibsboro depot between the management and the unions. The people of Finglas have identified this over a long period as a situation in which they are being used in the battle. It is strange that although the Phibsboro depot refused to provide a service after 7 p.m. in some place and 9 p.m. in other parts of Finglas, nevertheless the number 17A, which operates from another garage, runs until normal closing time. There is a big question mark over the operation of that service when, seemingly, the Phibsboro crew feel they cannot come into the area. It is because the problem has been going on for so long that the level of frustration is so high. I support Deputy Tunney's plea. There is no question but that the people of the area are suffering most. The dispute is a mild one and should have been dealt with in a different manner. Given that the people have been without a service for almost a week the Minister should take the action suggested by Deputy Tunney and introduce a support service as has been done in other locations. It should be remembered that examinations have been disrupted because of this dispute and that this is a particularly difficult time for many young people in the area who have other problems to contend with.
I disagree to a large extent with what Deputy Tunney said in relation to the causes of the dispute. My information is that the dispute arises from the refusal of management of pay CIE busmen their wages for the days when they refused to take out defective buses. The dispute is affecting the people of the north west of the city and they have every right to be angry about it, but the busmen also have a right to be angry with the management of CIE——
The Chair ruled out Deputy Tunney when he went into the merits of the matter.
The Minister must set up an inquiry into the operation of the Phibsboro depot to get the buses back in operation immediately.
I have ruled that part of the debate out of order. The Deputy is deliberately and blatantly out of order.
I share the concern of the Deputies about the difficulties created for those who depend on the CIE service in this area of the city.
I should like to thank the Minister for that.
I can understand the annoyance expressed by Deputies Tunney and Flaherty now and earlier when we considered a Special Notice Question. This is a major inconvenience for their constituents and an impossible situation for many people who must sit examinations and so on. My major concern is to see a very early resumption of services in the areas affected. I hope good sense will prevail, and I appeal for good sense amongst all parties so that the position will be righted speedily. As Deputies are aware, the dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference yesterday. The stage has now been reached when proposals for referring the dispute to a full hearing of the Labour Court are being considered by the parties involved.
As I explained earlier I am keeping the matter under review, but at this stage a decision has not been taken in relation to the provision of emergency transport by the Army. I emphatically reject the contention by Deputy Tunney that if this dispute existed in another part of the city, or another part of the country, the Army would be operating with their transport conveying citizens. The use of the Army transport is always under review in such a situation, but as of now a decision has not been taken to provide emergency transport. During my time as a journalist I have seen some disputes which were about to be settled prolonged because too much was said at a delicate period in negotiations. For that reason I will be brief in my contribution. I am confident that a reasonable approach all round will result in a solution to the problem. There is a desire for such a solution, and it is necessary that the buses should be back very soon. I appreciate the frustration of the people of the area which was eloquently voiced by Deputies Flaherty and Tunney. The matter is being kept under review, and we will take whatever action we consider fit at the right time. I am hopeful that we will see a quick solution to the dispute and the buses back on the road as they should be.
I should like to thank the Minister for his contribution. Will he indicate the time scale in respect of the deliberations to take place at the Labour Court?
The response of the unions is awaited, as far as I know.
Will the Minister indicate if he has any information on reports I have heard that a decision has been taken on an all-out strike for the entire city?
There is no indication of that at present.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 June 1984.