Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Mar 1937

Vol. 65 No. 11

Private Deputies' Business. - Arbitration in the Civil Service.

Mr. Norton

I move:—

That, in view of the promise made by the President to establish an Arbitration Board to deal with the grievances of the Civil Service, the Dáil is of opinion that the Executive Council should forthwith enter into a conference with the Civil Service organisations to devise a scheme of arbitration acceptable to both sides.

In order to enable the House properly to understand the merits of the issue involved in this motion, it may be necessary to remind it of the fact that, in 1932, both in writing and orally, the President promised to establish an arbitration board to deal with the grievances of the Civil Service.

Mr. MacDermot

What has that got to do with the merits of the motion?

Mr. Norton

With the merits of the motion?

Mr. MacDermot

I suggest it has nothing to do with the merits of the motion. This is a very interesting subject, and I honestly wish to hear an illuminating speech from Deputy Norton on it, but we have heard here already ad nauseam about the President's promises on the subject. I care less than nothing about the President's promises.

Mr. Costello

Is this a point of order?

Dr. O'Higgins

Surely the rest of the House is to be considered?

Mr. Norton

Perhaps everybody will leave the House and let Deputy MacDermot get in anybody he likes to speak.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will hear Deputy Norton.

Mr. MacDermot

We have all heard before about the President's promises.

Mr. Norton

If you do not like to listen to it again, you can go out of the House, or out of the country from which you remained absent so long.

Mr. MacDermot

Thank you very much.

Mr. Norton

In 1932, the President went to the Town Hall, Rathmines, and there delivered himself of a speech in the constituency in which the Minister for Finance was a candidate.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

You said that on the last occasion you raised this in the House.

Mr. Norton

I will say more than that on this occasion, too. The President knew that the Minister for Finance was a candidate in the County Dublin constituency and he went to the Town Hall, Rathmines, to deliver a speech on the subject of arbitration in a constituency where he knew, no doubt because of a careful reminder by the Minister for Finance, there were a large number of civil servants resident. There the President said:—

"I believe it is only right that there should be an arbitration board for the Civil Service to deal with matters between the Service and the Executive. We should be prepared to agree that an arbitration board be set up and would assent to an inquiry into the basis on which the cost of living is calculated."

A few days afterwards, the President issued the Fianna Fáil manifesto over his own signature in which he declared:—

"We are prepared to establish an arbitration board to deal with the grievances of the civil servants,"

so that there can be no question whatever that the promise to establish an arbitration board was made. This motion asks, in view of that promise, that the Executive Council should enter into negotiations with the Service organisations for the purpose of devising an acceptable scheme of arbitration. But these are not the only instances of promises by the Government to introduce a scheme of arbitration for the Civil Service. The joint committee of all the Civil Service organisations issued on 8th February, 1932, a qúestionnaire to Parliamentary candidates who were standing in the election in that year. One of the questions in the questionnaire was:—

"Are you prepared, if elected, to press for the setting up of machinery which will provide for the settlement of matters in dispute between the Minister for Finance and the Civil Service by an impartial tribunal, subject to the over-riding authority of the Oireachtas?"

Among the many people who sent replies in the affirmative was Deputy Cooney who was not satisfied with saying "Yes" to the questionnaire, but who felt he had some special mission over and above saying “Yes” because he insisted on writing a letter in addition, in which he said:—

"I intend to agitate in the future, as I have in the past, for an increase in the standard of wages paid to the lower grades in the Civil Service."

I hope that before the debate concludes Deputy Cooney will come in and tell us what he has done during the past five years to fulfil that declaration of agitation which he promulgated on 10th February, 1932. Deputy Cooney was in good company in this matter. Deputy Donnchadha O Briain said that he was also prepared to press for the establishment of that kind of arbitration tribunal; so was Deputy Eamonn Rice; so was Deputy Donnelly; so was Deputy Seán Brady; so was Deputy Frank Carty, and likewise Deputy Oscar Traynor, now Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Deputy Cormac Breathnach likewise believed in the desirability of that machinery; so did Deputy Briscoe, and Deputy Harris likewise was sympathetically disposed. Deputy Seán MacEntee, now Minister for Finance, was also in favour of the establishment of an impartial tribunal to deal with the grievances of the Civil Service, subject to the over-riding authority of the Oireachtas. The Minister for Finance, like Deputy Cooney, was not satisfied to say "Yes, he was prepared to press for the establishment of a tribunal of that kind" because he went on:

"The Fianna Fáil Party has already indicated that it is prepared to investigate the grievances particularly in the lower ranks of the Civil Service and to provide, for the purpose of settling disputes, an impartial tribunal."

That reply by the Minister for Finance clearly indicates that he did not regard this questionnaire as one which might be received by a candidate at election time and answered “yes” or “no” in any perfunctory fashion. There were two questions addressed to the Minister, and to both questions he was not satisfied merely with an affirmative answer, because he went on further to express his views, independent of the questions addressed to him, so that, in 1932, on 10th February of that year, the Minister for Finance announced that he was in favour of setting up machinery by which an impartial tribunal could be constituted to deal with the grievances between the Minister for Finance and the Civil Service, subject to the over-riding authority of the Oireachtas.

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Deputy be good enough between now and the next occasion on which this debate takes place to give me the full text of my answer?

Mr. Norton

I have read the full text of the Minister's answer in respect of this particular question. Does the Minister challenge the accuracy of the statement I have made? If he does, I will permit him to interrupt me and allow him to read the answer himself, so as to have it on the records of this House, side by side with what I have read. That, at all events, was the promise made by the Minister for Finance in 1932. His President promised arbitration. The Minister for Finance himself promised arbitration and he was not satisfied with merely saying "yes" to the question as to whether he was in favour of arbitration. He insisted on going further and setting down definitely the views of himself and his Party on the subject of arbitration. It is clear from that that the promise of arbitration was not an isolated promise made by the President in the stress of an election at Rathmines, but the reply to the questionnaire clearly indicates that the Party as a whole promised arbitration to the service, not merely individually but collectively.

We have now asked the Minister for Finance to implement the promise which was then made by him and which was made by the President on behalf of the whole Party. The Minister has offered to the Civil Service what he describes as a draft scheme of arbitration. The Minister's scheme provides for a brand of arbitration which will not be recognised by anybody as arbitration in the sense in which the machinery is popularly and industrially known. Under the Minister's scheme, he is to have a veto over the type of case which the service organisation decides to send to arbitration. So that if an organisation were making a claim on the Minister for Finance for increased wages they could not have the matter even adjudicated upon by the tribunal which the Minister promised in 1932 to have implemented. The Minister under his present draft scheme would be able to say to the organisation concerned that no matter what the merits of their case were, he was not prepared to allow the question to be sent to the arbitration tribunal. That meant that the Minister would not allow any matter to go to arbitration unless he felt he had an overwhelmingly strong case such as would convince the tribunal that the staff claim could not be acceded to. The preliminary veto was not all that the Minister wanted in his draft scheme. The scheme provided that the Minister would have the right to prevent any organisation which desired to bring a matter to arbitration from being represented before the Arbitration Board by a person of its own choice. So that if the service organisation desired to present a claim to arbitration and if the organisation had a full-time official who was familiar with the circumstances of the case, and if the executive of that organisation and the members of that organisation felt that that full-time official was the best person to plead the case before the tribunal, the Minister took good care in his draft scheme that that person would not be allowed to appear before the arbitration tribunal to plead the case for his organisation. Or if any complicated legal points arose in any matter, and the organisation desired to be represented before the Board by counsel, the Minister, under his draft scheme, would also presumably exclude the lawyer from the Board even though his assistance may be of considerable value in elucidating the points at issue. But the Minister's attempt to muzzle the staff organisation did not end there. Not only was he to have a veto over the case which the organisation decided to bring before the tribunal; not only was the chairman to be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce; not only were the full-time officials of the organisation excluded from pleading the case before the board or tribunal, but even if the Minister lost his case before the board he was even then not bound to accept the award and put it into operation.

Instead, the Minister under his own scheme was to have the award of the board treated as a secret and confidential document which could not be published except with the permission of the Executive Council. Nobody, but the tribunal, was to know what the award contained. The Minister was to receive the award as a recommendation, and he was to be fully empowered under his own scheme of arbitration to refuse to be bound by the award even though the award might have been the unanimous decision of those who constituted the tribunal, including the Minister's own representative. That is the kind of arbitration which the Minister has offered. But in my opinion, and in the opinion of every member of the House, irrespective of how he may vote on this issue, there will be a clear realisation that a scheme of that kind does not embody the essential features of arbitration as generally understood; and I have no hesitation in saying that while the Minister may describe that scheme as a draft scheme of arbitration, it has none of the essential features commonly associated with arbitration. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the members of this House, that scheme of arbitration, if indeed it could be called arbitration at all, is not a fulfilment of the very solemn promise which the President made to the Civil Service in 1932. It is not a fulfilment of the promise which the Minister for Finance and the other members of the Fianna Fáil Party made in reply to the questionnaire which, on the 8th February, 1932, was sent to them by the Joint Committee of the Civil Service Association.

I would like now for a few minutes to examine even in more detail the Government's scheme. The Minister wants in this scheme to have a veto over every case that the staff organisation desire to submit to arbitration. It really means, in effect, that the Minister is going to have two preliminary vetoes, because his own draft scheme provides a permanent veto over certain matters which, he prescribes, can never be the subject of arbitration before this or any other tribunal. In his draft scheme of arbitration the Minister says that he is permanently excluding from the consideration of the arbitration board such questions as discipline, conduct regulations, promotions, superannuations, the cost-of-living index figure as applied to basic wages and salaries, recruitment, the grading of work, the organisation of work and the organisation of staff. All these matters are permanently excluded in the Minister's draft scheme and there can be no arbitration upon these in the draft scheme submitted by the Minister for Finance. Then, as if that were not enough, the Minister's draft scheme contains this intimation: "These must not be taken as exhaustive," so that having catalogued a list of matters which can never be the subject of arbitration, the Minister indicates that the list can be further extended by his intimation that "these must not be taken as exhaustive," and that the list may be added to, in fact, any time in the future.

Not content with having a veto over a category of important matters, a permanent veto which can never be evaded, the Minister wants also to have a veto over other matters which in the absence of their being catalogued in this way, are presumably matters which can be adjudicated upon by the arbitration tribunal. So that we have two kind of vetoes. We have a permanent category of cases which can never be brought before the arbitration tribunal because the Minister will not allow them to be brought there, and there is another catalogue of cases not definitely catalogued. He takes power in his draft scheme to refuse to allow any of these cases to go to arbitration, if he so decides, so that you have two kinds of vetoes in the Minister's scheme—(1) a permanent veto over an important category of claims and (2) a veto which may be exercised over a large number of claims in such a way as to prevent even those claims from being brought to the arbitration board and adjudicated upon by that body. The House will readily recognise that that is a scheme of arbitration which has no parallel in this country and, indeed, no parallel in the history of arbitration as applied to the Civil Service in other countries.

The Minister next wants to prohibit a full-time official and, I think, counsel from appearing before the arbitration tribunal. The Civil Service organisations who would desire to present a claim to the arbitration board are organisations which are officially recognised not only by the Executive Council but by the various Departments in which they function. They are actually in receipt of certificates from these Departments to the effect that they are fully recognised organisations. Although the Minister for Finance officially recognises the organisations, although his Department issued certificates to the organisations to the effect that they are officially recognised as entitled to represent matters on behalf of the members for whom they cater; yet, in this remarkable scheme of his the Minister says: "I will not extend recognition to the full-time officers of these organisations in such a manner as to permit them to appear before the arbitration tribunal and plead cases on behalf of the organisations of which they are the recognised officials." In my opinion that is simply an attempt by the Minister completely and effectively to nullify the official recognition which the Executive Council and the Departments have extended to the Service organisations. When presented with this issue at the Brennan Commission of Inquiry into the Civil Service, four members of the commission—Mr. L.J. Duffy, Mr. Thomas Johnson, Mrs. Mary Kettle and, then, Senator L. Robinson —said:—

"The existing rule which prevents a staff association from sending as one of its representatives to the council"—

they were then referring to the so-called Civil Service Representative Council—

"its own chosen official unless that person is a civil servant, should be revoked."

These four members of the Commission said:

"This rule is a survival from the days before organised negotiation and collective bargaining became the recognised practice in the industrial world. It is indefensible once the principle of association amongst staffs and discussion with their representatives has been accepted. The staff organisation should be trusted to appoint whom they consider best able to present their case effectively."

Those four members of the Commission, when they were dealing with the recognition which should be afforded to full-time officials of recognised organisations, declared themselves as of opinion that the rule prohibiting the full recognition of whole-time officers was a survival from the days before organised negotiation and collective bargaining became the recognised practice in the industrial world. They declared that that restriction was indefensible once the principle of association amongst the staffs and discussion with their representatives had been accepted.

Mr. MacEntee

What did the other 12 who signed the majority report say?

Mr. Norton

The Minister can look after the other 12. These four members expressed that view in respect of this piece of tyranny which the Minister for Finance is now perpetuating. No justification whatever is to be found, either in this country or outside it, for the tyranny which the Minister is endeavouring to perpetuate under this draft scheme of arbitration. In Great Britain, full-time officials of Civil Service organisations are frankly recognised, and, apparently, their contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not bring down the British Empire. In the United States, the full-time officials of Civil Service organisations are also frankly recognised and there, apparently, it is not considered that any great damage is done, because of that, to the industrial, financial or economic stability of that vast country. In Australia, full-time officials of Civil Service organisations are fully and frankly recognised. In New Zealand and in South Africa, the same practice operates. Even in the Six-Counties, the Government recognise a full-time official of a Civil Service organisation. When we survey that portion of the world which consists of Great Britain, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, we find that the only portion of that territory where full-time officials of Civil Service organisations are not recognised is that small piece in which the Minister for Finance, who promised arbitration in 1932, functions. These other countries have not been shaken by the full and frank recognition of the right of Civil Service organisations to be represented by officials of their own choice.

In many of these countries, the standard of prosperity of the people is immensely better than it is here. Most of these countries have much more complicated problems to deal with than we have. Yet, in each and every one of them, there is full and frank recognition of the right of Civil Service organisations to be represented by advocates of their own choice. Here, under what is described as a republican Government, pursuing a radical policy, a Government which, we are sometimes told, is a poor man's Government, a definite and deliberate attempt is made by the Minister for Finance, with what measure of backing from the Executive Council I do not know, to nullify the right of Civil Service organisations to be represented by persons of their own choice. This condition in the Minister's draft scheme of arbitration to prevent full-time officers from being selected to represent their members before the arbitration tribunal is nothing less than a calculated piece of anti-trade union bias, and discloses the real mentality of the Minister for Finance in the matter of trade union organisation and as regards the principle of organisation amongst Civil Service staffs. The tyranny which he has sought to embody in this draft scheme of arbitration has no parallel in countries still subject to democratic government. The only democratic country in the world that I know of where it is sought to perpetuate this piece of tyranny is the Irish Free State, under the present Executive Council and under the present Minister for Finance. I do not know that that is anything of which the Fianna Fáil Party, claiming to be a republican Party, a radical Party and a poor man's Party, are entitled to boast.

That does not end, of course, the limitations in the Minister's scheme. He appoints the chairman. He has two vetoes over the cases to be dealt with. He restricts the right of full-time officials to go before the arbitration board if the members of the organisation they represent so desire; but, on top of all these restrictions, he wants to impose a further restriction, namely, to have a final veto over any award that is made by the tribunal. The staff, therefore, can go to play a game with the Minister for Finance. They can win the game, but the Minister for Finance wants to have the right to chalk up the score. The staff can win the game, but the Minister for Finance keeps the score board and makes sure that he does not lose on the manipulation of that instrument.

This is the Minister's scheme of arbitration. This is the scheme of arbitration to implement the promise made by the President in Rathmines. This is the scheme of arbitration which is to implement the promise of the Minister for Finance when he said on the 10th February, 1932:

"Yes, the Fianna Fáil Party has already indicated that it is prepared to investigate the grievances, particularly in the lower ranks, of the Civil Service, and to provide, for the purpose of settling disputes, an arbitration tribunal subject to the overriding authority of the Oireachtas."

This is the scheme of arbitration which is now offered by the Minister for Finance in fulfilment of that very specific promise made by him on the 10th February, 1932, over his own signature. The scheme which is being offered to the service organisations is a thoroughly and absolutely unsatisfactory scheme. The service was promised in specific and definite language by the President and by the Minister for Finance and by a number of other members of the Fianna Fáil Party that an impartial tribunal would be established to settle differences, subject to the overriding authority of the Oireachtas. We are offered now a spurious, counterfeit scheme which the Minister nicknames arbitration in fulfilment of this definite and specific promise made by him and other members of his Party. The service was promised arbitration in 1932. Now it is offered a miserably anaemic advisory board with none of the functions usually associated with arbitration, and devoid of all the essential features commonly associated with the machinery of arbitration in every circumstance in which that machinery is invoked for the settlement of disputes.

Is it any wonder then that the service organisations have contemptuously rejected this miserable scheme which was offered to them by the Minister, a scheme which does not fulfil what the Minister promised to give and what the President promised to give in 1932: a miserable scheme which is not arbitration, which is even a very poor type of advisory board. Of the many organisations in the Civil Service only one puny Departmental organisation, with a membership to put it generously, of about 100 could be induced, in the first instance, to accept the Minister's scheme. I doubt if, even now, when they see the weaknesses, the pitfalls and the muzzles with which this scheme bristles that any single organisation could be induced to give the Minister's scheme a trial.

Bad as the scheme was, unacceptable as the scheme was, shadow though it was of the promises made by the President and by the Minister for Finance in 1932, the service organisations endeavoured to secure a conference with the Government in order that their views on arbitration and the Government's views on arbitration might be discussed, and an effort made to reconcile the differences and to bridge the gulf between the organisations on the one hand and the Executive Council on the other. One would imagine that, with the headquarters of the Government in the City of Dublin, and with the headquarters of all the organisations being situated in the same city, there would not be any difficulty whatever in obtaining an interview with the Minister for Finance or some other members of the Government, or perhaps, with some officials of the Department of Finance in order to discuss these matters, but no! The Minister for Finance does not do things in that simple way. That is too smooth and too simple for the Minister for Finance. The Minister wanted as complicated and as cumbersome a method as could be devised in order to have this matter discussed. He wanted to have the views of the organisations on his own scheme. That was prescribed by him as a necessary condition of any consideration by him as to whether he would subsequently arrange a conference. The Minister was told by the service organisations that the Government's scheme of arbitration was utterly unacceptable to the service organisations, and he was asked to arrange for a discussion on a scheme which would embody certain essential features of arbitration which the service organisations desired to secure.

The service organisations indicated that they would regard a scheme of arbitration which would be acceptable to them as of necessity including five essential features. I shall read for the House those five essential features prescribed by the service organisations, so that the House may have an opportunity of passing judgment on whether the claim made by the organisations in this respect was in any way unreasonable or extravagant. Bearing in mind that they were freely promised by the Government that an arbitration board would be established, the staff organisations asked the Minister for Finance to convene a conference to discuss an arbitration scheme containing the following essential features:—

"(1) The chairman of the board to be appointed by agreement between the Government and the staff organisations.

"(2) Each party to be free to select its representative on the board and its advocates before the board.

"(3) Each party to have the right to bring before the board any claim within a previously agreed category without veto by the other party, the board alone having the power to decide whether a particular claim falls within the agreed category.

"(4) The Government to give effect to the award of the board, subject to the overriding authority of Parliament.

"(5) In the event of a dispute as to the meaning of an award, the board to determine its own findings."

These were the five reasonable features which the service organisations desired should be embodied in an acceptable scheme of arbitration. One would have imagined that, having been promised by the Government that an arbitration tribunal would be established, that having been told by the President that he believed it was only right that such a tribunal should be established to decide the matters in dispute, there would have been little difficulty in securing a conference with the Government to discuss so eminently reasonable a claim as that put forward by the service organisations. But it was not so easy to secure a conference with the Government. The service organisations were treated to long, verbose letters from the Department of Finance telling them that the Department of Finance wanted their detailed views on the Government's draft scheme of organisation, although they had been told in a number of letters that the scheme was utterly and absolutely unacceptable because it was not a scheme of arbitration at all.

Efforts were made by the Service organisations to try to stop the interminable correspondence which threatened to go on in the matter by pressing for a definite conference, but the Minister for Finance was like Pharaoh —the more efforts were made on the subject, the harder his heart became. The President was then asked to intervene in order to end the deadlock which had arisen between the Minister and the Service organisations and, instead of the President trying to deal with the matter along some new and reasonable line, we were treated to an exhibition of logic-chopping from the President, explaining why it was not possible to make the scheme any better. We were told by the President that the scheme submitted by the Minister for Finance goes as far as is compatible with the Constitution. Fancy the President, in 1937, being concerned with the compatibility of his promises with the enforced Constitution which he has denounced in this House on dozens and dozens of occasions. For every other purpose, the Constitution has been periodically denounced by the President, but in respect of arbitration it was a very sacred and sacrosanct document which could not be touched by the President, and although he would mutilate it and carve it up for any other purpose— and is about to do so again shortly— he was not going to subject it to the most minor surgical operation in order to get over the difficulties which he alleged he saw in respect of giving effect to his promise to establish an arbitration board.

We were told by the President in his letter that the scheme goes as far as is possible, having regard to the constitutional difficulties, but never once were we told in the correspondence what exactly the constitutional difficulties were. There were obscure, and, at times, verbose reference to constitutional difficulties, but never once, in all the letters which were written by the President and by the Department of Finance was there any precise indication of the impediments which were found in the Constitution to prevent the President honouring his own freely expressed promise. Not a single lawyer of eminence was produced in support of the claim made by the President that there were constitutional difficulties which prevented the introduction of a better and more acceptable scheme. Not a single lawyer was produced by the Government to support their contention.

Mr. MacEntee

I presume the Deputy is going to produce some authority to-night to support his contention.

Mr. Norton

I shall make my case in my own way. Of course, the Minister wants to interfere in everything and he wants to tell the service organisations who they shall send to the arbitration board, as if, by any stretch of imagination, the Minister for Finance could be a good judge as to who would be best to represent the staffs.

Mr. MacEntee

I only presume that the Deputy is going to produce some constitutional authorities.

Mr. Norton

Well, it would be strange if the Minister's presumption were right on this matter, seeing that he is wrong so often on other matters. We had Deputy Costello, during a discussion on this matter in the Dáil some time ago, as an eminent lawyer, as a man who is very well known at the Irish Bar, and as an ex-Attorney-General, going on record as saying that he did not know of any constitutional difficulties which existed in the matter of implementing an acceptable scheme of arbitration. That, at all events, is very definite testimony from an eminent Irish counsel that, so far as his knowledge of law goes, and so far as his knowledge of the Constitution goes—and he can claim to have a substantial knowledge of both—he knew of no impediment to the implementation within the Constitution of the promise made by the President to establish an arbitration board. We were told, of course, that these constitutional difficulties were the reason why the President could not introduce a more acceptable scheme of arbitration. We were told, of course, in earlier letters from the President and from the Minister for Finance, that he wanted the views of the staff organisations on his own scheme, and that when he got those views he would then consider whether he would arrange a conference to discuss the matters at issue. That was the pretence up to the 1st of January, 1937. That was the masquerade that was being worked off on the Service up to the 1st of January, 1937, but in a letter dated the 1st of January from the Department of the President, the Service organisations were told:

"The Government has therefore decided not to introduce in Dáil Eireann the Bill which would give effect to the scheme unless the organisations indicate that they are prepared to accept the scheme, and in the event of enactment by the Dáil to co-operate in giving effect to the statute."

So that, while for nearly two years the Executive Council carried on the pretence that it wanted the views of the staff organisations on its own scheme, this letter, signed by the Secretary of the President's Department let the cat out of the bag on the whole matter, because it clearly indicated that what the Government wanted the organisations to do was, not to give their views on the Government's scheme, but to swallow the scheme holus-bolus and to give a certificate as well that they would co-operate in giving effect to the statute which enshrined such a spurious scheme.

We were told that the constitutional difficulties prevented a better scheme from being introduced — that the scheme was as far as the President could go, having regard to certain constitutional difficulties, which could be wiped out, by the way, in respect of every other matter when they interfered with the President, but which could not be removed at all once it came to giving effect to his Rathmines promise. One would imagine, though, that an astute political mind like the President's would not have been slow to indicate the precise constitutional difficulties, if, in fact, any existed at all; but never once was the precise difficulty or difficulties indicated to the Service organisations, and, in my opinion, expressed as a layman but fortified by views which have been obtained from eminent counsel, there is no real difficulty whatever in implementing an acceptable scheme of arbitration within the framework of the present Constitution. If the Government believe there is, have they submitted this matter to the Attorney-General for his views on the matter? Have they got any advice from any eminent counsel that there is any impediment whatever in the way of giving effect to an acceptable scheme of arbitration within the framework of the present Constitution? In my opinion there is no real constitutional difficulty whatever. The Executive Council pretend to see constitutional difficulties, because they now want to ride away from the very solemn promise which was made on their behalf in 1932.

In any case, let us examine for a few moments in what way a constitutional difficulty would arise. An acceptable arbitration board could be established and a case could be referred to that arbitration tribunal. It could be heard by the tribunal. An award could be made by the tribunal. The award could be issued by the tribunal and sent to the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance could consider the award of the tribunal. If he felt that the award was a preposterous award, such as went absolutely counter to the merits of the case and the weight of evidence which supported the case, there would be nothing to prevent the Minister for Finance saying: "I am not going to be bound by an extravagant and preposterous award of that kind." The Minister for Finance in that situation had all the financial control that was necessary for him to have under the Constitution or the Standing Orders of the House. Or, if the Minister for Finance received the award and considered it, he might feel, of course, that it was rather hard luck on him that he had lost the case before the tribunal. He might consider that the tribunal should not have given so much to the staff organisations but that he was bound to accept it having regard to the fact that he appointed the chairman of the tribunal, that he had a representative on the tribunal and that those persons had come to the conclusion that the staff had made an excellent and an unanswerable case for the claim which they made. In that event, the Minister for Finance must, of course, decide, whether he liked it or not, that he was morally bound to accept the award.

If the award did not involve the expenditure of money, the Minister for Finance would, of course, issue a finance circular giving effect to the award that he had accepted. If something more than the issue of the finance circular were necessary, if, for instance, the Minister felt that the circular had to be reinforced by a cash payment, the Minister would of his own volition come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate and ask the Dáil to pass that Supplementary Estimate in a perfectly free and uncontrolled manner. In that case, the Minister had in his own control the absolute right to initiate the expenditure of money——

Mr. MacEntee

Supposing the Dáil did not pass it?

Mr. Norton

If the Dáil did not pass it, the Minister for Finance was in no way responsible because the service organisations have accepted the position that every award of this tribunal is subject to the over-riding authority of the Dáil. That scheme of arbitration would enable the Minister to have absolute control over the initiation of expenditure inasmuch as it would be on him the responsibility would devolve for initiating a Supplementary Estimate and passing it through this House. If the Minister were being asked to pay an award, which from the standpoint of reason and merit appeared to be preposterous, the Minister also would have a remedy inasmuch as he controls a majority in this House, and he would not, therefore, be bound to give effect to any award which, as the custodian of the nation's interests, he felt was utterly extravagant, having regard to all the considerations which revolved around the matter. The staff scheme provided for an acceptance of the position that the authority of the Dáil would be supreme, that every award made by the tribunal should be accepted, on the one hand, by the staff organisations and on the other hand, by the Minister for Finance, subject all the time to the over-riding authority of this House.

The Minister talks of constitutional difficulties. The President also talks of constitutional difficulties. The President does not see how a better scheme of arbitration could be reconciled with the Constitution, but it is rather strange that these constitutional difficulties have only arisen in connection with the Civil Service scheme of arbitration. In 1932 the Fianna Fáil Party promised arbitration to the Civil Service. In 1932 nothing was done by the Government to implement the promise of arbitration to the Civil Service; but in that very same year, and with the very same Constitution as exists to-day, we had the President standing up in those benches and saying that he was prepared to offer arbitration to the British Government on the question whether we are legally and morally liable to pay the land annuities and the other disputed moneys to the British Government. He indicated further that if the award of that arbitration tribunal went against the Saorstát, the Government would be prepared to pay over the disputed moneys. So that when it came to a question of arbitration with the British on a disputed sum of over £5,000,000 per annum, a sum which is 20 or 25 per cent. of our total tax revenue, there was no constitutional difficulty at all. The President offered Mr. Thomas arbitration and told Mr. Thomas in advance that he would accept the verdict of an arbitration tribunal of that kind. Where were the constitutional difficulties then? We had the same Constitution then that we have now but no constitutional difficulties existed then. No constitutional difficulties existed when the President offered arbitration to Mr. Thomas from the platform of this House, but constitutional difficulties of a make-believe kind have been discovered by the Executive Council now, when they want to sidetrack their solemn promise to establish an arbitration board for the Civil Service. I should like the Minister to tell us, and I would like him to get some of these legal people, who support his view that there are constitutional difficulties, to tell us under what section of the Constitution the President can promise the British arbitration, when a sum of £5,250,000 per annum is involved, when he cannot fulfil the promise of a scheme of arbitration which he made to the Civil Service in 1932. The Civil Service were promised arbitration in 1932 and they cannot get it. Mr. Thomas was not promised arbitration, but the President was tumbling over himself offering arbitration to the British in a dispute concerning a sum which plays such an important part in the industrial and economic life of the nation.

But to get back to the promise; the staff have made a claim for an arbitration tribunal such as they were promised in 1932. The President then promised an arbitration board definitely, and very deliberately. There was no condition attached to that promise. There were no restrictions attached to the promise. There were no implications whatever that the promise of arbitration was in respect of any scheme of arbitration other than that generally known and generally understood.

The staff have claimed that that promise of arbitration by the President involves the giving to them of a reasonable and an acceptable scheme, but the scheme submitted to the staff organisations is not an acceptable scheme and is in no sense in conformity with the promise made to them. The staff have asked for a scheme of arbitration which is in no sense and in no respect in conflict with the Constitution. The Government have been asked to convene a conference in order to discuss the matters at issue, in order to explore the possibilities of agreement, and in order that these alleged constitutional difficulties can be examined; but the Government are not prepared either to convene a conference or negotiate in any respect to try to devise an acceptable scheme of arbitration which could be utilised for the settlement of disputes between the Civil Service organisations and the Minister for Finance, a scheme of arbitration, in short, which would fulfil the very specific promise made by the President in 1932.

The Minister pretends to believe that it is impossible for him to devise an acceptable scheme of arbitration because it would involve the taking out of his hands the power which he believes should be reserved solely for exercise by him. We had an effort by the Minister for Finance, during a discussion on the question of arbitration in this House on 26th March, 1936 (column 521, Parliamentary Debates) to appear in the role of a bogey-man in respect of the constitutional difficulties. He was endeavouring then to pretend that the scheme of arbitration in the British Civil Service was of a kind which had all the limitations such as he was endeavouring to foist on the Service here, and in order to try to ground that absurd and erroneous contention by the Minister he quoted portion of a document issued by the British Financial Secretary and dated the 9th March, 1926. That document was represented as saying:

"But behind all such questions there is an underlying principle which must never be lost sight of. It is that the Government of the day, to whatever political Party it may belong, is responsible to Parliament for the administration of the public service. It cannot relieve itself of this responsibility, or share it with any other persons or organisation. When, therefore, the Government accepted the principle of arbitration for the settlement of disputes arising between the Executive and the servants of the State, in the earnest desire to promote the harmonious working of our institutions under fair conditions of service for all concerned, it could only do so within certain defined limits and it could not delegate to any other authority the duty of determining what those limits should be."

That was the quotation then made by the Minister for Finance and it was quoted entirely out of its context. Let us have the whole document that was issued by the Financial Secretary at the time. Let the Minister for Finance quote here the speeches made by the Financial Secretary in the British House of Commons. That document is a document which has been cooked by the Minister for Finance, deliberately torn out of its context, deliberately used to pretend that it means something which the Minister knows it does not mean. The British Financial Secretary was then indicating, in explanation of his arbitration scheme, that it was necessary to exclude certain matters from the subject of arbitration. He was indicating then that there were certain kinds of cases which could not be arbitrated upon and that he wanted to exclude those cases from consideration by an arbitration tribunal and that he was insisting upon a limitation in respect, of arbitration, such as the staff organisations here and in Great Britain had always been prepared to agree to, namely, the limitation that every award must be subject to the over-riding authority of Parliament.

If the Minister wanted, he could have obtained from the British Treasury a copy of the circular which they issued to the staff organisations in Great Britain on the subject of the establishment of an arbitration court in Great Britain. The circular is dated 14th March, 1925, and it opens with this declaration:—

"I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury to inform you that under the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the detailed arrangements necessary to give effect to the decision of the Government to accept the principle of arbitration for the Civil Service the necessary steps are now being taken to constitute an Arbitration Court."

The circular goes on to deal with the personnel of the court and to deal with the types of cases which will be excluded from consideration.

Mr. MacEntee

They do exclude some cases?

Mr. Norton

Of course they do exclude some, and there has been no indication to the Minister for Finance that it was not possible to get agreement with the staff organisations here on the exclusion of certain types of cases from consideration by the arbitration tribunal. The staff organisations here have been prepared to consent to certain exclusions, but once that category of excluded cases is decided upon, there should be no veto over the other cases which could go to arbitration.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy admits the principle of exclusion?

Mr. Norton

The Deputy has already indicated his view on that matter and the Minister ought to be able to comprehend it. The circular goes on further, and this is the portion which flatly contradicts the manner in which the Minister for Finance endeavoured to use the portion of a previous circular when this matter was discussed in the Dáil in March last year. Paragraph (4) sets out:

"Subject to this limitation, failing agreement by negotiation, arbitration by the court will be open to Government Departments on the one hand and to recognised associations of Civil Servants.... on the other hand, on application by either party, in regard to certain matters affecting conditions of service."

There was no veto there by the Chancellor of the Exchequer over a broad category of cases which he acknowledged could be brought to arbitration and made the subject of decision by an arbitration tribunal. In the last paragraph of the circular it is declared:

"Subject to the over-riding authority of Parliament the Government will give effect to the awards of the court."

So that, far from desiring to impose on Civil Service organisations across Channel the vexatious restriction which the Minister seeks to impose here, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that once you had a certain category of cases defined as cases which were non-arbitrable the staff organisations could bring to arbitration any cases which fell into any other category exclusive of the categories which were non-arbitrable. Once they decided to bring a claim in that category there was no veto by the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the type of case they could bring; and once the case was brought to arbitration and the arbitration tribunal adjudicated upon it the Chancellor of the Exchequer bound himself in this circular to accept the award of the tribunal, subject to the overriding authority of Parliament. The attempt, therefore, by the Minister for Finance to pretend that the British scheme of arbitration has limitations similar to those contained in his draft scheme is utterly contrary to the facts of the situation. If the Minister did not know the position in Great Britain one could understand his disseminating a false impression at that time, but with advisers to guide him on these matters the attempt to give that impression to the House is unworthy of a Minister for Finance.

This motion asks that the Executive Council should forthwith enter into a conference with the Civil Service organisation to devise a scheme of arbitration acceptable to both sides. Is there anything unreasonable, having regard to the Government's very definite promises on arbitration, that they should be requested by this House to enter into a conference with the service organisations to devise an acceptable scheme of arbitration? At one time they used to be in favour of consultation between the Executive Council and the staff organisations. In 1930, when civil servants were agitating against the reduction in the cost-of-living bonus because they felt that the reduction was unjustified having regard to the prevailing high cost of living, an effort was made by the service organisations to induce an all-Party deputation to wait on the Cumann na nGaedheal Minister for Finance to urge upon him that there should be no reduction in the cost-of-living bonus pending an inquiry into the method of calculating the cost-of-living index figure. The present Minister for Finance was an enthusiastic supporter of that claim. The service organisations interviewed the Fianna Fáil Party at that time and also Deputies of other Parties. The Fianna Fáil Party informed the service organisations that they would require time to consider this matter and, on 14th August, 1930, the service organisations received this letter from the Fianna Fáil Party:—

"We have to inform you that the Fianna Fáil Party committee has considered the request made by the deputation from the Cost-of-Living Bonus Joint Committee, which met the undersigned on the 6th instant, and has agreed to appoint Mr. Seán Lemass with another member of this Party to join the deputation to the Minister for Finance for the purpose of advocating: (1) that the constitution of the Civil Service Representative Council be revised, in consultation with Civil Service organisations, in a manner that will be acceptable to all parties concerned."

Other matters are dealt with in the course of the letter, one dealing with the question of an inquiry into the method of calculating the cost-of-living index figure, and another pledging the Fianna Fáil Party to support the frustration of any reduction in the cost-of-living bonus, particularly in relation to the lower salaries in the Civil Service. But, in 1930, the Fianna Fáil Party, in this letter over the signatures of two such notabilities as Seán F. Lemass and Gerald Boland, declared that they believed the constitution of the Civil Service Representative Council should be revised "in consultation with the Civil Service organisations, in a manner that will make it acceptable to all parties."

Mr. MacEntee

Is that not excluding the bigger element in it—the general taxpayer?

Mr. Norton

That was in 1930. After five years of office as Minister for Finance nothing whatever has been done to revise this sterile Civil Service Representative Council, which is not recognised by any of the staff organisations, and exists now only as the boycotted plaything of the Minister for Finance. The body in question is called the Civil Service Representative Council. If ever there was an abuse and misuse of English, it is in the attempt to endow a body, which nobody recognises, as a representative council. That organisation, even before it secured the paternity of the Minister for Finance, had long been recognised as an official muzzle by the staff organisations; and, in 1930, whatever the Minister for Finance may pretend to believe now, his Party then believed it was in need of revision, in consultation with the service organisations, and in such a manner as would make the council acceptable to all parties concerned.

But the point I want to make in connection with this rather remarkable letter is that in 1930 the Fianna Fáil Party believed that the service organisations should be consulted in the revision of machinery in which they were vitally concerned. There is a very definite declaration on behalf of the Party that the service organisations should be consulted in remoulding the Civil Service Representative Council in such a manner as to make it acceptable to the staff organisations.

The Executive Council is now being asked to consult with the service organisations, and to do on the question of arbitration what they promised the Civil Service to do in 1930. The Executive Council is being asked to enter into a conference with the Civil Service organisations to devise a scheme of arbitration acceptable to both sides. Having regard to the promises of the Government, having regard to the contents of this letter, and to the fact that the Government Party got votes in 1932 and 1933 in exchange for their promises on arbitration, is there anything unreasonable in asking the Executive Council to enter into a conference with Irish civil servants on the question of arbitration, when it is remembered that they were so profuse in offering arbitration to Mr. Thomas, who was the mouthpiece of a country that imposed penal tariffs on our produce and engaged in an effort to impose a stranglehold on the political and economic destinies of the country? Apparently anyone can get arbitration from the Executive Council except those to whom arbitration was promised in 1932.

This motion gives the Government an opportunity to redeem the promise which the President made on their behalf. We are being constantly told by Government speakers that they had fulfilled all the promises made by their Party in 1932. Here is a promise which very definitely was not fulfilled. The Minister for Finance and his Party got the votes of civil servants in 1932 and 1933 in return for that particular promise. The promise was used in order to get votes. The Executive Council is now being asked to enter into a conference with the Civil Service organisations so that an acceptable scheme of arbitration may be devised, which will implement the promise to give civil servants some satisfactory machinery under which their grievances can be adjudicated upon by an impartial authority, in which the Civil Service, the Government and the whole community can have absolute confidence. The service organisations are not asking for anything unreasonable. They are asking for a scheme of arbitration which contains features usually associated with the administration of arbitration machinery. If the President and the Executive Council are prepared to enter into a conference on that basis, a satisfactory scheme can be devised within 24 hours, but the service organisations are not prepared to take from the Minister for Finance the scheme described by him as "a draft scheme of arbitration," which bears none of the characteristics usually associated with arbitration.

I submit this motion to the House in order that Deputies may pass judgment on the reasonableness or otherwise of the claim made by the service organisations, and so that the House may have an opportunity of advising the Government on this question. I feel satisfied that if the House were free to vote on this issue there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of the motion. If the Minister for Finance feels that he has a strong and convincing case in favour of his own scheme, and against the attitude adopted by the service organisations, then he should not be afraid to leave the matter to a free vote of the House. He should be prepared to take off the Whips, and to allow the question to be decided by the rules of reason, by the rules of fair play, and by the rules of conduct which usually regulate the attitude of people who promised to support arbitration, and who, on an issue like this, might be willing to do so if only the Party Whips were taken off. A number of members of the Government Party have given a solemn promise to the service organisations to vote for a scheme of arbitration such as these organisations have claimed. If Deputies were allowed to exercise their votes freely there is no doubt whatever that they would do so on behalf of the reasonable claims made by the service organisations. Is the Minister for Finance prepared to allow even those Deputies to exercise their votes freely on this issue? Is he prepared to allow them to exercise their own judgment, in view of the definite promises that have been made to the service organisations, or is he going to force them to tear up the promises they made and to vote not in accordance with their promises or their desires and not as reason dictates?

That is the test as to whether the Minister is reasonable or not in this issue. If the Minister wants to be reasonable the way to show the staff organisations that that is his attitude is to say if he is prepared to allow this question to be judged by the representatives of the people, and to take off the Party Whips. If the Minister does that, I venture to predict that he will not get a dozen Deputies into the Division Lobby with him. They will only be got into the same Lobby with him by coercion. By threats of Party discipline they will be made even to break their promises to the service organisations, rather than be allowed to vote in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. There is nothing unreasonable in the scheme of arbitration demanded by the service organisations, and accordingly I submit this motion to the House, in the confident hope that every Deputy who exercises free and independent judgment will vote for it, and will instruct the Executive Council to take the reasonable course marked out for them.

Mr. Corish

I second.

Mr. Costello

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until to-morrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Friday, 12th March, at 10.30 a.m.