I think the genesis of this Bill is pretty well known to Deputies. By Article X. of the Treaty it is provided:—
"The Government of the Irish Free State agrees to pay fair compensation on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Act of 1920 to judges, officials, members of police forces and other public servants who are discharged by it or who retire in consequence of the change of Government effected in pursuance hereof."
The Act of 1920 provided that claims of officers to compensation should be determined by a statutory board whose decision was to be final and conclusive. The Treaty, itself, did not provide machinery for determining claims under Article X, but only, as it were, laid down the measure of compensation, which was to be not less favourable than that accorded under the Act of 1920. The Government determined, instead of dealing with claims departmentally, to set up a Committee, presided over by a judge, to hear and advise on those claims. That Committee was set up, and Judge Wylie presided over it, and it dealt with a considerable number of claims. Although it was only an Advisory Committee the Government had to make up their mind at the beginning how they were to act in regard to the recommendations that came from that Committee, and the Government came clearly to the conclusion that in the case of such a Committee, with a judge of the High Court as Chairman, they had no alternative but to accept the recommendations of that Committee. The position, therefore, was that although the Committee was not actually a Statutory Committee, whose decisions were final and conclusive, the Government accepted and acted upon all the decisions of that Committee, whether they liked them or not.
After a time litigation arose and two points were contested in the courts: (1) as to whether Article X of the Treaty, as ratified by the Constitution, conferred justiciable rights, and (2) whether the treatment of bonus in assessing compensation on the basis of a Minute issued by the British Treasury in March, 1922, before the transfer of service, was correct. The Supreme Court here held that (1) there were no justiciable rights, and (2) that the treatment of bonus which had been adopted, based upon that particular circular of the British Treasury, was correct. There were certain points about the bonus which were agreed upon between the litigants, and only those two other matters I have mentioned remained for decision by the court.
After the Supreme Court had given its decision the litigants applied to the Privy Council for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal was granted. That matter was discussed to some extent here in the Dáil, when the Lynham and Butler case was being dealt with. As Deputies are aware a Bill was introduced here which became an Act for the purpose of preventing the Privy Council from upsetting a judgment of the Supreme Court here in the Lynham and Butler case, and the view was clearly taken that in that case the Privy Council had acted wrongly in giving leave to appeal. The late Minister for Justice when he was dealing with the Lynham and Butler case referred to the Wigg and Cochrane case and said that we had accepted the view that the Wigg and Cochrane case was one which might be heard by the Privy Council. We took that view, because, first, it was quite obvious that as the officials were British officials who had been transferred to us the British Government had an interest in them. Secondly, we were perfectly satisfied that we were treating these officers fairly, and for that reason without going very deeply into the whole question of the position of the Privy Council, we were satisfied to let the case go to the Privy Council so that the British Government who were interested in those officers, who had been their officers, should be satisfied that they were obtaining fair treatment.
The Privy Council, after the hearing, delivered an extraordinary and incorrect judgment, a judgment believed by us to be baseless and incorrect, a judgment believed by the British Government, at any rate, not to carry out what was the intention of the signatories to the Treaty. The matter was referred again, under special powers which existed, by the British Government to the Privy Council. The second board of the Privy Council which was set up confirmed the judgement of the first on new grounds. We were no more satisfied with the judgment of the second board than we were with the judgment of the first, and we stated, so far as we were concerned, that we were not prepared to pay a single penny out of the Exchequer that we were not liable to pay as a result of the judgment of our own Supreme Court. The whole case, therefore, was left in a somewhat unsatisfactory position, and negotiations ensued between the Government of the Free State and the British Government. The result of these negotiations was embodied in an agreement supplementing and interpreting Article X. of the Treaty. The effect of the agreement is that the extra compensation which certain officers retiring before March last receive in consequence of the judgment of the Privy Council is borne by the British Government. It is provided in the agreement and in the Bill that a Statutory Board be set up, a Committee constituted approximately in the same way as the Wylie Committee, with a judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court or the Circuit Court as Chairman, with two civil servants representing the Minister for Finance, and two civil servants representing the staffs, that all claims and applications for compensation should be referred to that Committee, that the decision of the Committee should be final and conclusive, and that the decisions already given by the Wylie Committee should be confirmed and should be incapable of being re-opened. It provides for certain other matters which might have been in doubt along the lines which had already been adopted by the Wylie Committee. It provides, for instance, that an officer who has received promotion in the normal course shall be entitled to compensation on his promoted salary, on the salary of his new position. The Wylie Committee had acted on that. On the other hand, where an officer receives exceptional treatment, his compensation will be based upon his original salary. It provides that where the officer is required to perform duties which are not analogous to and are unreasonable compared with his duties at the time of transfer he shall be entitled to discharge terms. The Wylie Committee had already acted on the principle which is embodied in Section 14, sub-section 2, of the Bill in that respect.
On the whole therefore what this Bill does is it restores us to the position, so far as the practical aspect of the matter is concerned, that existed before Judge Wylie retired from his Chairmanship of the Committee and before the Committee ceased its operations, with the difference that the Government, which merely accepted all decisions of the Committee as binding on it and accepted them as a matter of policy, will now be legally bound to accept them. In the course of the negotiations which led to the introduction of this Bill and to the conclusion of the agreement the Government has been in close touch with representatives of the transferred officers, and the Bill as it stands is a Bill which has the approval of the representatives of the transferred officers. The Government regard it as a satisfactory Bill. It imposes no principles which involve charges which were not already accepted by the Wylie Committee, and relieves us of the possibility of expensive indulgence in litigation.
