I move: "That the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Bill, 1929, be received for final consideration."
Orders of the Day. - Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Bill, 1929—Report Stage.
Before the motion is put, A Chinn Comhairle, I think it is incumbent upon the Minister for Finance, who is responsible for this Bill, and who wound up the debate on the Second Reading thereof, to clear up the somewhat obscure position which his statements during the course of that debate have created. He said (col. 667, Vol. 32): "Incidentally I am quite satisfied that this particular case, although we did not set out to destroy the appeal to the Privy Council by means of it, has in fact finished the appeals to the Privy Council.""I think," he went on to say, "it is no longer a question of getting the British Government to agree to kill appeals to the Privy Council. It is only a question of getting them to agree to give the corpse a decent burial." Now, if the Minister really thinks that the result of this litigation has ended appeals to the Privy Council, has he any objection to formulating that opinion in the way we have already suggested as a preamble to this Bill? If he will definitely state, or enter it on the Statute Book of this House, that this Bill is not introduced into the Dáil for the purpose of honouring the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the position of this Party, as I have already indicated, will be radically altered. It is mainly because we believe that the Bill is deliberately intended to give effect to that decision, to honour that decision, even though, admittedly, it does not impose any extra financial liability on the State, that we on these benches are opposing it. Like the Minister, we do not object if the British Government decides, out of the goodness of its heart, to pay to its ex-civil servants in Ireland moneys and allowances over and above what they were clearly entitled to under Article X of the Treaty, but we do object to the British Government doing that as an inducement to secure the recognition in this State of a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and it is for that reason that we are opposing the Bill.
If the Minister at this late stage would say that he will formally make it clear, either by way of a preamble such as I have indicated, or a definite statement in this House, that in introducing this Bill the Government are in no way taking cognisance of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, then our way with regard to it would be much easier and our opposition to it would be much less. Beyond that, I do not think there is anything we can say on the Bill. The Bill is a result of an agreement. We believe that, in some sections at any rate, that agreement is unfortunate. We do not believe that Section 14 of the Bill will ultimately make for the smooth working of the Civil Service in this country. We believe that it will create difficulties for those who, some time or another, will have to take upon themselves the burden and the responsibility of overhauling the Civil Service. We do not like Section 16 of the Bill for the reasons which I have already stated on the Second Reading and, above all, we do not like the fact that the Minister, in making this agreement, did not take the opportunity to deal with the question of absentee pensioners.
But those objections to the Bill are secondary objections only. Our principal objection is, as I have already stated, the feeling which we have that this Bill, no matter what financial responsibility the British may take in connection with it, is primarily designed to secure from the Minister and from this State an acceptance and a recognition of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. For that reason we are opposed to it at this stage.
Might I ask the Minister for information on a point in connection with the Bill? What I want to have made clear is whether a case I have in mind is concerned with the Bill or not. What will be the position of the staff of the late Intermediate Education Board, for example? Will it come under the Bill? Will it be subject to the Civil Service Committee in the same way as those who were definitely civil servants at the time of the Treaty? They were not so recognised, I understand, at the time of the Treaty, but they were recognised as civil servants afterwards, and I would like the Minister to give me some information as to their status if he can. I am sorry that I have not been able to give him longer notice about the question.
The only thing that I think I need say in reply to Deputy MacEntee is this, that the decision of the Privy Council created differences of opinion between the two Governments concerned with reference to the treatment of transferred civil servants. The Government here held that the decision of the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Treaty. The British Government, whatever the individual views of its members were, were bound to hold, until there had been legislation to amend it, that the decision of the Privy Council correctly interpreted the Treaty. In a matter of this kind it was necessary that further agreements should be made and that further legislation should be carried so that the two Governments might again be in a position to be of one mind with reference to the interpretation of the agreement which existed between them. When this Bill becomes an Act it will bring the point of view of the two Governments together.
The Privy Council delivered a certain judgment, holding against us, holding that the Free State was bound to pay certain sums. This Bill does not impose the burden of paying those sums on us. Furthermore, the judgment of the Privy Council was to the effect that all civil servants transferred had certain rights and were entitled to certain sums. While this Bill provides that those of them who retired before 1st March shall be paid those sums, not by us in reality but by the British Government, it also provides that the civil servants retiring after the 1st March shall not be paid those sums. I think that the Deputy can form his own conclusion as to whether or not this Bill honours the judgment of the Privy Council. As I say, the judgment of the Privy Council was to the effect that we were bound to pay certain sums. We will pay none of those sums. It held that all civil servants were entitled to those sums. This Bill provides that one section of civil servants shall receive those sums in the ultimate resort from the British Government and another section shall not receive them at all.
I did not claim that this incident alone would have been sufficient to bring the question of appeals to the Privy Council to the position to which it has been brought. I think there was a movement, a definite tendency, towards getting away from the appeal to the Privy Council, and towards bringing that appeal, which is an anomaly, to an end. The blunders of the Privy Council in this matter have hastened that process very materially to the point, as I have said, that in my opinion the appeal to the Privy Council is really dead, and that we are not likely to be very much troubled with it in the future.
Section 14 will not, in my opinion, create any difficulty. Its object is to make clear provisions that were already in existence, and every provision in Section 14, in so far as it was not perfectly clear in the Act of 1920, has already been fixed by a judgment of the Wylie Committee. That is to say in every matter Section 14 deals with, the Wylie Committee has already given a decision along the lines of the sub-sections of the Bill. So far as Section 16 is concerned, if Section 16 or some similar provision were not there people would be entitled to get full pensions from the Free State, even though they might afterwards have been employed by the Northern or other Government. The effect of Section 16 is to suspend pensions and prevent people drawing, in pensions and salary from two Governments combined sums in excess of the amounts of their salaries before their retirement.
I am sorry I am not able to answer Deputy Thrift's question at any rate in any detail. This Bill does not confer new rights on anybody. It simply confirms the rights which various transferred civil servants had and provides a means of settling disputes, and it provides a tribunal whereby compensation may be fixed and other matters may be determined. I understand that persons who were in the employment of the Intermediate Board at the date of the transfer, that is on the 1st April, 1922, do come under the terms of the Bill. I do not undertake at the moment and without notice to give any indication of what rights they have, but at any rate they come within the scope of the Bill, and will in case of need be able to apply to the Tribunal for the determination of their rights.
That is really the point that I want.
In reply to what the Minister said it appears to me that this Bill is to bring the views of the two Governments into accord. It is a sort of an offering of incense to Cæsar. According to the statement of the Minister, his position is that while the Government are prepared to honour the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with their lips, the British are, on the other hand, honouring it with their pockets. That is exactly what we feel, that because the British are taking upon themselves the burden of the financial responsibility arising out of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Government here are prepared, on the other hand nominally, to accept that decision with their lips. For that reason I think that we must vote against the Bill.
I did not want to interrupt the Deputy again. I would just like to recall to him that so far as people who have not yet retired and given notice on the 1st March are concerned, the statement that he has made could not, by any stretch of the imagination, apply.
Would not the permissive period have expired on the 31st March, in any event?
December.
Deputy MacEntee is rather confusing the issue by constantly referring to the "decision" of the Privy Council.
The advice.
The advice. Other people also advise the Crown.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 44.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Corish, Richard.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Corkery, Dan.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Before fixing the date for the Fifth Stage, I would like to know what the progress of the corresponding legislation in the House of Commons is.
It was passed some months ago.
Completely?
Yes.
Ordered: Fifth Stage to be taken on Thursday, 14th November.