Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Apr 1938

Vol. 70 No. 12

Private Deputies' Business. - Civil Service and Arbitration (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that the Government should immediately establish machinery whereby conditions of employment in the Civil Service and other matters which may from time to time be in dispute between the Government and the Civil Service would be settled by agreement between representatives of the Government and of the Civil Service associations, and, in default of such agreement, would be submitted for decision to an independent arbitration board, the awards of which, subject to the overriding authority of the Oireachtas, the Government would undertake to implement.—(Deputies Costello and P.S. Doyle).

Mr. A. Byrne

As one who was interested in this matter in days gone by in another House, and helped in some small way to get what came to be known as the Whitley Commission appointed to deal with the grievances of civil servants as they existed at that time in both countries, I have not yet heard from the Minister any satisfactory reply, or any reasonable objection, as to why he will not appoint a somewhat similar commission. It may not be known to a number of people how that commission got its name. A discussion on the grievances of civil servants had been going on for some little time in the House of Commons. The deputy chairman of the House was Mr. Whitley. The House very reasonably took into consideration all the points made by members for the appointment of something like an arbitration board, a board not with full powers but with sufficient to investigate and make recommendations. Mr. Whitley, who chanced to be in the Chair at the time, was asked by the House to accept responsibility for the formation of a commission to consider the reasonable claims of the civil servants of that time. The British Ministry at the time very wisely accepted the recommendation of that commission which it set up to make recommendations to the Treasury. Since that date the Whitley Council, as it is now known, has given great satisfaction. Sometimes it has received the praise not alone of the Civil Service staffs, but of the general public and the Government itself. So far as I know, it has given satisfaction to both sides.

I think the Minister would be meeting the wishes of members on all sides of the House if he would now say that he is prepared to appoint a committee to make recommendations. I make the appeal to him that I made in the British House of Commons 20 years ago, namely, to give our officials here the same opportunities of putting their grievances before a board of fair-minded people, people who do not in any way think that they are whittling down the powers of the Ministry or of the various Departments. With previous speakers, I press forward the appeal that has been made to the Minister to accept the proposal in the motion.

Mr. P. Smith

The Deputy can go to the dance now.

Mr. Coburn

And he can pay for it.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

This is an extremely important question. The civil servants are, of course, a special body of people who are extremely efficient along the traditional lines on which they work. It is not easy to make a comparison about that efficiency. Business efficiency may be different, but as far as we know they are placed in a rather exceptional position. Directly they appear to be controlled by the people of this country and the elected Government. The Minister for Finance in that Government is the person responsible for their welfare, and to my mind he is not likely to do any serious injury to the Civil Service, because the country as a whole would not tolerate that. The civil servants are urging this matter. We can see that from the circulars which we received this morning from an organised body of civil servants. I am sure that every other member received one as I did. One has to ask what all this means.

It is my candid opinion that civil servants, if they did succeed in getting an arbitration board set up, might not improve their interests. That board might take into consideration general conditions, and might possibly come to the conclusion that there was a degree of, perhaps, overpayment. That would be a rather serious risk, because I take it that, if this board was set up, civil servants would be prepared to accept whatever the board considered to be just, proper and right, not with a view to protecting civil servants, which is the Minister's duty, but with a view to protecting generally the people who have to foot the bill. Now, I take it that the ordinary Minister for Finance would hardly be likely to consider any change or any increase of remuneration under normal conditions. I am quite positive that conditions in the Civil Service are so attractive that, when examinations are held, there is great difficulty in deciding who is first, second, third, fourth or fifth or who is in the 100th place. The reason for all that is that life in the Civil Service is a protected life and highly attractive. Life in other occupations is open to all the vicissitudes and chances that life holds. The civil servant is, so far as I can see, reasonably well protected. Personally, if I believed that there was any serious grievance in the Civil Service I would be one of the first to do what I could to alleviate it, and I am quite satisfied that that would be the attitude of every other member of the House; but I have come to the conclusion that this pressure is a little unreal, and that the people faced with the responsibility of government, or Parties here, might not adventure on such an expedition. If a board were set up whose rules did not compel the Minister to accept their recommendations but which could be used to ventilate grievances—I do not know if there is such a board in existence—it might possess some satisfactory features, but I do not think that it is advisable to take the control of civil servants out of the hands of the people. I do not believe that that would be a good step, and I do not think that civil servants should have anything to do with the political issues of the time. We see what is taking place all over the world. We see democracies replaced by dictatorships—by Communism or other "isms" which are equally dictatorial and of the vilest possible character. To impose something upon a community that a community is not prepared to stand often leads to those excesses. It cannot happen in a country like this, nor will it happen, in my opinion, in any country where our people constitute a substantial proportion of the population.

The presence of Irishmen in any country abroad is a guarantee against any such thing as an upheaval or any running away from the principles of democracy. They are the only countries which are really safe. In a country like this, I think that civil servants have no great reason for pushing forward such a question as this. I believe they are extremely well protected by the Minister. If they are not, the people of this country are always prepared to see that a Minister is put there who will do them justice. As a body, they will be far wiser and possibly better off in the future if they rely on that system.

We talk a lot about the exodus from the country. I read many statements in newspapers, many lectures and many speeches on that calamity. A civil servant here is protected against any sudden rise in the cost of living, and, so far as I know, that protection, known as the cost-of-living bonus, operates flatly up to a certain figure, whether a man is married, has dependents, or is single. Up to a certain figure, he gets all these advantages and is assured against the extra cost. He is living in a city. His expenses are far less than the expenses of the farmer down the country. His cost of living is lower. That statement must be examined at some future time or as soon as possible, because the farmers and their workers are living under changed conditions. There are inventions, there is bus travel and motor travel, and, with all that sort of thing, their cost of living is increased out of all proportion to the cost of living here.

A civil servant with a family here has a splendid secondary school almost next door. His children can go there on a penny tram and return in the evening. All other types of schools are at hand. As every country Deputy knows, children in the country have to trudge long distances to school. Owing to the small population, country schools are widely separated. When these children do succeed in reaching a certain standard of education and look for a position in the city, they are merely apprentices and get the lowest possible pay. Consequently, they cannot live in the city without help from their people at home, whereas civil servants here are in a position to get their children placed, no matter how low the position may be, because these children are living with them. We are, therefore, rapidly creating here a big attraction to people to leave the country districts. The civil servants' examinations indicate that. These examinations do not indicate that the Service is in any way unsatisfactory. It would be very unwise to take the Civil Service out of the control of the Minister, who is responsible to the people, and to put it into the control of an arbitration board which might be composed of any type of nominee. It is not at all likely that the board would find there were grievances. They might possibly find the opposite. That is the reason I say that, if set up, this board should only be empowered to point out any grievances that might exist and the deciding factors should still be the people's representative It might happen that this board would do injury to the civil servants. One cannot foresee that, under present conditions or any other likely conditions, they would introduce any vast improvement.

We have a considerable social service. It is one that everybody here is agreeable to maintain. It is a good thing to have. Some people say it indicates poverty. That could be argued, but it, certainly, indicates that we are a cultured people and make an effort to relieve the hardships of our less fortunate brethren. There is no doubt that in the country districts, that is a heavy burden. It is extremely hard on the people, under present conditions, to meet the cost of this service but they are meeting it. If we are going to create here, on the edge of this island, in the City of Dublin, a place that will attract the whole rural community, I wonder what the result will be. The result will be continued impoverishment and, possibly, want of talent on the land, want of education, and want of amusement. The result would be that we would all have to live in cities and communities, and nobody would be left in the rural areas.

I think that this proposal should be very seriously considered. We should compare the lot of the civil servant with that of the man who administers £6,000, £8,000 or £10,000 as a farmer down the country. We should compare his uncertainty and the slavery he has to endure with the position of the civil servant here. We should compare the position of that farmer's wife and children with the position of the wives and children of civil servants in the city. It is lamentable that the salaries of one type of civil servant should be so low. I refer to beginners in the Civil Service. But they are extremely numerous and I admit, candidly, that it would be extremely costly to try and improve their conditions. Some little improvement might, however, be made.

The next thing that such an arbitration board might find—and I am sure it would come within its orbit—is that we had too many here. I think Deputy Gorey and a good many other Deputies on the other side, as well as some Deputies on this side, in fact nearly all of them, may more or less be under the impression, and with a good deal of reason, that perhaps there are too many. I notice that the higher-paid civil servants, the head men, are extremely hard worked. The Minister for Finance will correct me if that is not true, but I believe that the heads of these departments, superior civil servants, are extremely hard worked, while other sections of the Civil Service do not seem to have a terrible lot to do. It is one's duty to notice these things. I believe that they are not nearly as hard worked as they would be, say, in the Bank of Ireland, or in Arnott's, or in any of these big concerns outside. I think that their life is much easier, that there is less worry and irritation, and less responsibility. Consequently, an examination and that sort of thing, which would undoubtedly fall to the lot of this arbitration board, might leave the position a good deal worse than it is. Personally, I am not in favour of any interference with the powers which the Minister for Finance enjoys to-day, and if I am to any extent, it is to this extent, that the arbitration board will be extremely well-controlled and that its findings will not be binding on the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Lavery

This subject of an arbitration board being set up in the Civil Service has been debated in this House on a number of occasions and we have rarely heard the Government view, if the Government has a view on the question, put very clearly. I do not know whether Deputy Corry and Deputy O'Reilly, who have spoken from the Government Benches, are to be taken as expressing the Government view on the matter. If they are, the view, apparently, is that the Civil Service is too well-off. Deputy Corry suggested that it is overpaid. Deputy O'Reilly has just suggested that it enjoys advantages which are not shared by the rest of the community. All that may or may not be so, but even if it is the Government view, it is scarcely the matter now under discussion. So far as the subject-matter of this motion has really been touched upon by speakers from the Government Benches, Deputy O'Reilly's view is that the Civil Service ought to trust the Minister. I think I am not misrepresenting what he said. He said that they may be worse off if they secure the right to endeavour to attain agreement as to their conditions of service, and, failing agreement, to have their rights determined by an arbitration board. That is scarcely the point either.

Surely it is to the advantage of this country that we should have a contented Civil Service, an advantage to this or any country that persons who have to carry on the work of government on the official side should be contented and satisfied. Whether they are right or wrong in considering they have grievances—there are very few bodies of people who have not grievances—surely it would be to the advantage of the country that they should have the opportunity somewhere of airing these grievances in a proper way and having them adjudicated upon. Workers in other spheres of life have, in default of other methods of settling their grievances, to resort to what may be called direct action—the strike, and weapons of that kind. It is certainly not at present to be contemplated that the civil servants in this country will contemplate such steps to remedy their grievances. But such a state of affairs might come to pass, or, even if it did not come to pass, a situation might easily arise in which suppressed grievances, not vented in that way, might cause grave damage to the fabric of the service.

I think it is only reasonable that this House should express the view that it would be advisable that there should be done here what is done in other countries, and that this large body of important people, performing most important work in the State, should have, if not a voice in the political affairs of the country, at least some opportunity of having their grievances ventilated, adjudicated upon and determined in a proper way. It is no remedy to say that they can trust the Minister. I suppose the Civil Service has many advantages, but undoubtedly there are individual and class grievances. Undoubtedly, individual civil servants and classes of civil servants have been harshly and hardly treated, and they have had no opportunity of having those grievances aired, ventilated and adjudicated upon.

Apart from all that, it is a new point of view for the Government, if it is the Government point of view— we have not heard the Minister for Finance, although this debate has gone on for a considerable time—that there should not be that arbitration, negotiation, agreement if possible, and, failing agreement, a proper arbitration tribunal to determine rights. The situation undoubtedly is that in the year 1932, at a time when the Fianna Fáil Party were seeking the suffrages of the country, in the most unequivocal terms the President of the Executive Council, as he was assumed to be, made a solemn and deliberate promise to the country in general and to the Civil Service in particular that, if returned to power he would provide arbitration machinery. That is undoubted: it has never been denied and cannot be denied.

Apart from that announcement made by the President about-to-be, it is common knowledge that the Fianna Fáil programme or plan, as set out in placards and notices through the country in the year 1932, stated that one of the projects which they would put into operation, if returned to power, as they subsequently were, would be to establish a system of arbitration for the Civil Service. So far as I know, the position taken up until the present moment has been that the Civil Service has been offered arbitration, not that arbitration is something which they ought not to claim, but that, subject to certain alleged constitutional difficulties, arbitration has been offered to them. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance, when he comes to take part in this debate—if he does take part in it—will change that view and express a different view or whether he will adhere to it. The scheme of arbitration which was presented or proposed by the Minister, and was very promptly rejected by the Civil Service staff organisations, has been often explained in this House and exposed for the pure sham which it is.

The House will remember that there were limitations of every kind hedging in the proposed scheme of arbitration. Sufficient is it to say that the Minister for Finance had prior veto on the subject matters which might be referred to arbitration, and he had subsequent veto on the awards of the so-called arbitration tribunal, enabling him either to put them in force or to withhold their application at his own discretion. However ridiculous the scheme proposed by the Minister may have been, it was scarcely as ridiculous as the suggestions made by the Brennan Commission for its scheme of arbitration, on which I think the Minister's scheme was based. It would be humorous to consider the terms on which that recommendation was based if the subject-matter were not so serious for a large and important class of the community. I should like, however, to refer the House to a paragraph of the report of the Brennan Commission on this subject, to show what passed for arbitration in the minds of the Commission and afterwards passed for arbitration in the mind of the Minister and in the scheme formulated by him. The interim report, paragraph 53, dealing with this question of arbitration, having agreed that some scheme might be put into force, said:

"It would in some respects be convenient that at the inception of the scheme the Minister for Finance, in order to make it intelligible to the Civil Service, should indicate without prejudice the sort of disputes which he might be prepared to allow to go to arbitration, but we contemplate that this indication should be expressed very generally, that it would be chiefly concerned with mentioning exclusions, and that in any case it would purport to be given for the sake of illustration, and could not afterwards be quoted as to imply any obligation on the Minister to agree to refer any specific dispute to arbitration. It might, we think, convey that the Minister would be prepared to consider favourably the reference to arbitration of any dispute respecting the pay or other conditions of service of any class of civil servants, subject to the proviso that any financial or other important considerations of policy involved do not appear to him to render the dispute unsuitable for treatment by arbitration. It might also convey that the Minister would not on any occasion recognise any obligation to assign reasons for declining to refer the dispute to arbitration. It should be unnecessary"—the report continues —"with such a procedure to attempt to frame any exhaustive catalogue of matters not intended to be referred."

I think the House will agree that any scheme called an arbitration scheme based on recommendations of that kind is nothing short of an absurdity. It is hardly complimentary to the intelligence of the civil servants that the report should open with the words that "in order to make it intelligible to the Civil Service" the Minister should indicate that any reference of disputes is without prejudice; that the classes of dispute which might be referred are to be indicated by exclusion, and that no obligation is to be implied, even when illustrations are given, that the particular class of dispute will afterwards be referable to arbitration, and that there will be no obligation on the Minister so to refer it. Now, of course that is not the idea that any arbitration scheme ought to have. Quite clearly it is the essence of arbitration that the two parties to the matters in difference should have an independent mind brought to bear on that difference, and that the decision ought to be binding upon the parties, subject, of course—as is provided in the terms of the motion before the House—to the overriding authority of Parliament.

I do not know whether the Minister still adheres to the suggestion that there is some constitutional difficulty in the way of setting up an arbitration tribunal which shall have power to bind, on the one hand, the Minister, and, on the other hand, the civil servants, or the class of civil servants concerned in the dispute, subject naturally to the control of this House. On the last occasion when that matter was debated here, that was one of the main points made. That point was first made in the report of the Brennan Commission to which I have referred, and it has been relied on over and over again here in this House. As Deputy Costello pointed out here in moving this motion, if there was any constitutional difficulty under the old Constitution, which he denied, a full opportunity was offered of removing that difficulty when the new Constitution was being framed. But Deputy Costello expressed the view, and I think it is the view entertained by every lawyer who has given any attention to the subject, that there is no such constitutional difficulty, and that a scheme of arbitration can easily be devised which will protect the authority of Parliament in dealing with any financial consideration or other matter affecting civil servants which might be determined by the arbitration board. Therefore, the view which I should like to submit to this House is that the civil servants have a right to have their grievances, if they have them, ventilated and determined by an independent board. I say it is only right that a body of persons who, whatever security they may have and whatever advantages they may have, are precluded from expressing their views in so many ways open to others, should be given this particular method of ventilating and having determined any grievances or difficulties which they may have. I think it is only right to say that the persons who have chosen that particular career are persons of a type to use fairly any opportunities of that kind given to them. Whether they do so or not, if a proper arbitration board or tribunal is established, I have no doubt the Service as a whole and the particular individuals who may be involved in any dispute would loyally accept the decisions of that tribunal.

It is within the knowledge of this House that a certain class of civil servants have already the protection of a legal tribunal. A very large body of the civil servants who are transferred officers, that is, officers who served before the Treaty, officers who served before the institution of the Irish Free State, are protected by the operations of the tribunal set up under the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Act, 1929. The Government have there, in the operations of that body, a clear precedent for setting up a similar body to determine the grievances and adjust the rights of the civil servants as a whole. I am not suggesting, of course, that equal force ought to be given to the decisions of an arbitration board as are given to the decisions of that particular tribunal. That tribunal was, of course, set up, under the international agreement which the Treaty contained, for the protection of civil servants who were being transferred from one Government to another, but I do say that in the operations of that tribunal the Government have a headline. With proper limitations, it could be adjusted so as to form a very suitable arbitration tribunal. I think in the eight or nine years' experience which the country has had of the operations of that tribunal, it has gained the respect of the civil servants with whose rights it deals, as well as the respect of the Government and of the people. Representatives of the Ministry of Finance on the one hand, and representatives of the transferred officers on the other hand, with an independent chairman, have been able to give fair and just decisions upon the rights of an important body of civil servants. Although I have had some experience of that tribunal, I have never heard any person challenge the justice or efficacy of its work or decisions. If that can be done for officers transferred from the British Civil Service, there is no reason why it cannot be done for the general body of civil servants, again, of course, subject to such proper limitations as the circumstances require. I should like to add my voice to the voices of those who have spoken in this debate in asking the Minister to consider setting up a real scheme for negotiation and arbitration.

My reason is that it has to be remembered that what the motion suggests is not merely an arbitration tribunal to determine rights—that only comes secondarily—but the primary object of the motion we are discussing is that machinery should be provided for enabling the civil servants, by negotiation, to arrive at agreement with representatives of the Government on matters connected with their service and on the remedy of grievances. I should think that most disputes would be capable of being solved by arbitration and negotiation. At the moment they have neither a tribunal nor anything else. The attempt has been made here to set up a representative council. I do not know that that is the precise description of the body, but it was equally as futile as was the scheme of arbitration. It was simply a place where the staff organisation could meet representatives of the Ministry and discuss matters, but it would be futile to call such a system a system of negotiation. It had no power to make decisions or recommendations. It only had power to discuss. For that reason I should like to add my voice to what has been said as to the desirability, in the interests of the civil servants, in the interests of the Government, and in the interests of the country as a whole, to set up such a scheme as will make the civil servants a body of contented servants of the State, satisfied with their conditions and provided with proper opportunities of ventilating their grievances and seeking to have them remedied.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I listened with great interest to the contribution to this debate that was made by Deputy O'Reilly, and I think his remarks gave food for thought as illustrating the difference of viewpoints between a Party in office and one out of office. Deputy O'Reilly's objection to granting arbitration to civil servants is the fear that it might reduce the remuneration of the lower grades of the Civil Service. He expressed the opinion, at the same time, that the higher grades were not overpaid, that they were very able, hard-working men, and that the great danger was that the lower grades might lose something they have at present. That, surely, is a new point of view, and my mind travels back to a large poster which I saw displayed on behalf of Deputy O'Reilly and his colleagues at a certain election. On that poster was displayed a list of the salaries of these very able and efficient higher civil servants, and that exposure of the salaries of these overpaid officials at the time was accompanied by a statement that no official of the State should be paid more than £1,000 a year. The view has changed on that policy, evidently.

Now Deputy O'Reilly and, possibly, his whole Party have discovered that, although they said at that time that they were not opposed to the lower grades being improved in their remuneration, it has become necessary to reverse that policy also. At that time, the higher paid civil servant, according to them, was being paid too much and the lower grade civil servant being paid too little. Now, apparently, it is the other way about—the higher grade civil servant is not being paid too much and, if there were arbitration, there was no danger that they might lose something. I do not know if the Minister is impressed by that. Perhaps he would be tempted to grant arbitration if he were convinced that that were so, but Deputy O'Reilly's remedy is to trust the Minister. Well, I am sure that the Minister is a very important man, but his leader is more important, and the civil servants trusted the Minister's leader when he made this statement in 1932, and we know what the result has been. The change of mind on the part of the Minister's leader reminds me of the remark made by the late Mr. Gladstone on a famous occasion when he was asked about a pledge or a promise he had given when in opposition, and when he took office he was reminded of this pledge and he was invited, just as we are asking Mr. de Valera, to redeem that pledge. Mr. Gladstone's reply was —and Mr. de Valera, or the Taoiseach, might adopt it as his own—that when he gave that undertaking he occupied a position of greater freedom and less responsibility.

Mr. McGowan

I have not very much to say on this matter. However, about two days ago I was walking into Leinster House, along with somebody else, and we saw three gentlemen coming along the street. Two of them were robust gentlemen, evidently healthy and full of the joy of life. The other gentleman had a woe-begone, worn-out appearance and was a very peculiar-looking species of individual. I asked the person with me: "Who is that?" He replied: "That is So-and-So, the civil servant." Well, I began to think and to ask myself what is the reason. So, having heard some of Deputy Costello's speech here, and also Deputy Heron's, I began to think that there were views with which I should have been familiar and with which, unfortunately, I was not.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely, the speeches were not as impressive as all that?

Mr. McGowan

They were. In fact, I think they were the only impressive speeches from this side of the House so far.

Mr. MacEntee

Depressive, perhaps.

Mr. Costello

Depressive for the Minister.

Mr. McGowan

At any rate, I found that this species of individual that is known or called a civil servant, in this great country of ours and under this Heaven-sent Constitution under which, we are told, everybody is to have freedom of everything—if you want the sun, moon and stars, you have only to put up your hand and bring them home—I found that this much-lauded individual, known as the civil servant, had not, and has not, even the rights of an ordinary unemployed man. An unemployed man, if he makes a claim for home assistance and is refused, has the right of appeal to an arbitrator. Other people, in similar positions, or in positions perhaps not as high or as remunerative or important as the civil servants, have also the right of appeal and have the right to have their grievances ventilated and inquired into. Perhaps the gentlemen on the right-hand side of the House can supply lots of reasons as to why the civil servants should not possess the same rights as people in a less superior or important position, but I cannot see any reason for that state of affairs.

Deputy O'Reilly and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party were inclined to cast aspersions on the work that civil servants are supposed to carry out. The Deputy thought that they were not hard-worked, and he compared them to bank officials. I am sure Deputy O'Reilly himself is a hard-working Fianna Fáil Deputy. Let us compare the position between the civil servant and the person in a bank. If a bank official makes an error, if he has a bad head on a Monday morning and is a bit snappy with his customers, the average customer, particularly if he has an overdraft, cannot come into the Dáil and ask a question about the bank official's conduct. What is the position in the case of the civil servant? We all know that the civil servant has to meet the public, Deputies from all sides of the House, and people from all parts of the country. The civil servant's actual manual or mental work may not be very great, but I think he has to have a rather thick skin, because he has to put up with a great deal. He is harassed on one side by one set of Deputies who want such-and-such a thing. And then he is harassed by Deputies from the opposite Party, and between the two of them the only thing I can compare him to is a Christmas cracker. If he makes any error in carrying out his work, he can be held up to public ridicule, with detrimental results to himself. He is always in the public eye, and even his small actions may be made the subject of a great amount of public criticism. Therefore, I do not think we can compare a civil servant with individuals in a bank or individuals in any other occupation of that nature.

On the question of arbitration, I think anything that could possibly be said has already been said. I should like to refer, however, to the type of arbitration that has been offered, or which the Minister says he is prepared to offer at some time. The position is that a board is appointed by the Minister. The civil servant cannot have a paid official from his organisation to plead his case before this board. I am a great believer in specialists, and if the Civil Service have an organisation and an official whose duty it is to inquire into the well-being of the civil servant and his grievances, obviously that person is the proper person to appear on behalf of civil servants generally and put forward their case. Such a man should be permitted to put forward matters of fact. I am not advocating money for lawyers, but if the occasion arose there is absolutely no reason why a civil servant should not be allowed to bring in legal aid if he so desires.

Mr. Corry

I partly guessed that was what you were at.

Mr. McGowan

There is absolutely no reason why the civil servant, if he wishes, should not engage legal assistance. Deputy Corry realises, no doubt, that there is a great want of legal talent on that side of the House. Perhaps if they had a few more in the Party they might not be in the predicament in which they are to-day.

Mr. MacEntee

They would know the difference between Italy and Spain, anyhow.

Mr. McGowan

I am prepared to meet the Minister, and even Deputy Corry, in open debate on any matter of that sort that may arise, at any time they like. With regard to this so-called arbitration board, if it comes to a decision the Minister for Finance may say: "I am not abiding by this; I am not going to recognise this award," and that ends it. I think this type of arbitration simply amounts to going to law with the devil and having the courthouse in hell. What chance has any civil servant in those circumstances? I seriously suggest that the civil servants are responsible for carrying out the government of this country to a great extent. They have a great deal of responsibility, and I suggest that they should be given some opportunity of ventilating their grievances. That is a fairly reasonable suggestion and I cannot understand why they will not be given the facilities they ask for. I have analysed this thing carefully, and I have tried to be fair to the Minister and tried to see what reason he has got for his peculiar attitude on this matter. I expect, like most of us, he is first a politician, and if he could avoid making himself unpopular with the voters I expect he would like to do so. I suppose he likes to do the popular thing.

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly.

Mr. Corry

And in a Dublin constituency.

Mr. McGowan

Yes. I expect the Minister would like to be popular.

Mr. MacEntee

If it were not contrary to the public interest.

Mr. McGowan

The Minister must have some good reason for not doing the popular thing.

Mr. O'Brien

Invincible honesty.

Mr. McGowan

I argued the matter out with myself. I looked up a few dictionaries and a few Dáil Eireann reports and I even read Irish history and I could not find any logical reason why the Minister should adopt this extraordinary attitude. He says to the civil servant: "Come in here, my boy; you are going to do what I tell you and I will pay you what I like"— perhaps I should not have said that, and I will not say it, but the Minister goes on to say: "You have no right of appeal and if you do not do what I tell you, out you go." That may be wrong, but I gave in my own mind to the Minister what I would term a fair crack of the whip and, logically, I had to decide against him. I am anxious to hear what argument he is going to put forward for adopting his peculiar attitude. He is sacrificing his political future and perhaps he will tell us why. I await his reply with anxiety.

Mr. O'Neill

I am very sorry the Taoiseach was not present during this debate because I feel that he is to a great extent responsible for the attitude that has been taken up on this side of the House with regard to this matter. The Taoiseach is a man for whose personal honour I have great respect; however much I may differ from his political outlook, I firmly believe that when he says a thing he means it. If there is one thing more than another which he boldly proclaimed to be part and parcel of his programme in 1932 it was this matter of arbitration for the Civil Service. It was one of the outstanding things in the great plan. Now, what is the position with which we are faced some six years after that important pronouncement was made? Remember, it was not only a pronouncement, but a solemn pledge, and I take it the Taoiseach, in making a solemn promise before an election, meant to carry out that promise.

I know that others in this House would not pay the same regard to election pledges or promises. One back bencher of the Fianna Fáil Party once told us: "Do not mind those things; they may have been election promises, but they were merely statements." I do not think the Taoiseach would equate a political promise or public pledge with a mere statement. I am sorry he is not here, and I hope that before the debate ends somebody will tell us, with authority from him, what he really meant when he made use of the words in that promise. He should be here himself to do it.

We have had a good deal of talk during this debate about liberty and freedom and, as Deputy O'Brien says, those who are in office always show a different complexion and outlook from those who are out of office.

Mr. O'Brien

On both sides of the House.

Mr. O'Neill

In the same way, those who seek the most liberty for themselves are the first to deny even some of that liberty to others, and that is precisely the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party, and of the Minister in particular, towards this claim of the Civil Service for an arbitration tribunal. I do not think it is at all necessary to enter into the principle of what might be determined by this arbitration tribunal, or what matters it might have to determine. Those are things that can easily be decided. What we are seeking to establish and what the wording of this motion sets out very clearly is the principle, and I think that in a House having any regard for democratic principles, the demands made for an assertion of that democratic principle in regard to the rights of civil servants are not very exaggerated. We have been told that if we are going to give any sort of civil rights to civil servants, the next thing will be that they will be taking an active part in politics. I do not think there is any necessity to make a close connection between the two. We want to give them civil rights; we do not want them to be active politicians. I think it would be a negation of any sort of decent government if the men administering that Government were to give expression to any strong Party or personal viewpoints on the policies before the country.

Civil servants in this country have always done their work very well. They are quite entitled to have their private opinions on any matters of public policy, but what we are claiming for them in this motion is that with regard to their own status, with regard to their own difficulties in that administrative capacity, they should have some outlet, or access to somebody, some tribunal, something set up with the authority of this House in which they could have confidence, and something that would see that the great principle of justice would be maintained in regard to the relations between the Government and the Civil Service. I want to speak very strongly on the principle involved here. It is the principle of carrying out the promise of the great Fianna Fáil plan of 1932, and I am sure the Minister will not be in any way worried or ashamed if I remind him of the necessity of carrying out that promise. It is a very important matter that a political party should redeem its pledges. Some of them go before the country occasionally and say: "Our plan is going ahead. We have not yet achieved all the things we set out to achieve, but we are well on the road to the Republic, or to other places." All we ask them to do with regard to this matter is to take some steps towards achieving the end with regard to the civil servants, and towards carrying out the pledge solemnly made by the Taoiseach. I do not think it is asking too much of them—that, at least after six years, one step might be taken towards that very desirable end.

It is in that spirit, because I was desirous of seeing the democratic principle of justice established in this very important matter of the relations between the civil servants and the Government, that I rose to support the motion. I think it is one on which there could scarcely be any difference of opinion and, in fact, I am shocked that the Minister should even for a moment refuse to consider very favourably and sympathetically the claim for this arbitration tribunal. I put it to him that it is nearly time, after six years, the pledge or promise of the plan should be some distance on the road to being redeemed.

Mr. Dowdall

On a matter of personal explanation, the Deputy who has just sat down has referred to a statement of mine in a previous debate with regard to promises and statements. It was a question at the time, I think, of the amount of money which this Party was going to save when they came into power. I said that the condition of things was so bad when this Government came into power that they could not keep the promises made with regard to savings in finance. I believe that, in all human dealings, a promise given should be redeemed, and once any Government, any Party or any man gives a promise effect should be given to that promise, and they should not, as Deputy O'Brien has instanced, give the excuse of Mr. Gladstone when he said he was then in a different position, and in one of less responsibility than when he came in. I am more or less in agreement with the Opposition, in that I think the civil servants, no matter how they are treated—and I am not speaking on the merits of the question—are entitled to arbitration.

Mr. O'Neill

I should like to say that I did not mention the Deputy's name, nor did I have it in mind that he was the person who made the statement. In fact, I thought it was another Deputy.

Mr. MacEntee

In fact, the Deputy took a shot in the dark, and not for the first time.

Mr. Brasier

I do not think the particular scrap of paper was meant for Deputy Dowdall. It was to some other Deputy on the Government Benches that Deputy O'Neill attributed that statement. This House has not realised that on the change over it inherited a very important Civil Service, fully trained and capable of being adapted to the changes made after the Treaty was signed. I do not think we have realised what we owe to that section of the service which enabled the Government to take up office and to carry on the machinery of government in this country. These men were fully trained. They rendered good service in the past and they certainly rendered splendid service to the new Government that came into office, and enabled them to carry on a Government which was a credit to the country. They were able to adapt themselves to the changed conditions then; they were able to adapt themselves again to the changed conditions when this Government came in; and it is more than probable that they would adapt themselves to the conditions which would arise if another Government, which we cannot contemplate, were to come into office. But one thing against which we have to safeguard them is the Minister, taking stock of the political influence that must take place with any change of government. It is a very pleasant thing for any of us who have occasion to visit Government Departments to get the efficient service and the information we need from men who probably are not taking any part in politics. It would be an evil and an unheard of thing if these civil servants were under the domination of any member of a Government and that they would be in such a position as they might fear to do what was right. I am very much impressed by the fact that our Civil Service is above politics, and that civil servants can render to the country that service which will make the machinery of the Government run smoothly, simply because they are men who are wrapped up in their work and whose aim is to give good service in their Departments. I do not think there is any Deputy here who will not agree with me when I say these men are giving good service to the country. Any Deputy who has had occasion to look for information in any particular Department will agree with that. There is no doubt about it that a very considerable number of civil servants are working very long hours. That is particularly true of those who work in a supervisory capacity. Perhaps it would not apply to the junior members of the Civil Service but there is no question that the supervisory section work very long hours in order to cope with their work. One of the matters referred to in this debate was the promise made to these men that machinery would be set up to safeguard their interests. After all, that is not a promise that the Government should fail to keep. Doing justice to these men will promote efficiency in the Civil Service. Everybody knows that a Civil Service labouring under a sense of injustice cannot render that good service to the country which we have all a right to demand. That would bring about a situation in which a particular political Minister would be prevented from wielding the big stick over the servants of a Department over which he is the head to such a degree as almost to terrify these men to lend themselves to the influence he brings on them. Should that state of affairs be brought about the country will not be receiving that service from its civil servants which it should receive and which it expects to receive. If one can visualise these men labouring under a sense of grievance then it is easy to understand how it might be possible for some of them to say they would not carry on. The result would be that the machinery of the State would collapse. It is in some such way as that that evils are brought about. Our Civil Service did not take such a course. They have never done so. They are asking the House now, and asking it in a thoroughly constitutional manner, to set up machinery which will solve any particular grievance under which they labour. There is hardly any interest in the community that from time to time does not labour under some grievance or other and in these cases adjustments have to be made. I suggest that in setting up this arbitration board the House will be doing something that is equitable. If then it should be found that these men are not suffering any injustice, well no harm will have been done. In conclusion, I submit to the House that it will be doing what is right and just in setting up this arbitration machinery.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Costello to conclude.

Mr. MacEntee

I have been moved to intervene at this stage prematurely, because so far I have not heard a speech in this debate in which any cogent reasons were given for doing what the House is now asked to do. I said I was moved to intervene prematurely by the speech of Deputy Brasier. Having been absent from the House for a considerable period—at any rate from the time that elapsed between the general election in 1933 and the general election of last year—Deputy Brooke Brasier may not be so well informed with regard to public affairs, and in particular with regard to Civil Service matters, as he might be.

Mr. Brasier

Oh, yes, I was well in touch with matters.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, then, I might say through you, Sir, and to the Deputy, that his speech does him no credit. I say that for this reason— that the Deputy is endeavouring to create in the minds of the Dáil and of the general public the impression that this Government is endeavouring to intimidate or terrorise civil servants in order that the Administration might be able to carry out policies of favouritism or partisanship that were not in the public interest.

Mr. Brasier

Does the Minister deny it?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy talked of civil servants being under the big stick of the Minister. I say to the Deputy that the Civil Service and individual civil servants in particular have never enjoyed greater freedom of opinion, and, in matters that related particularly to themselves, greater liberty of action than they have enjoyed under this Government.

Mr. Brasier

In carrying out Government policy.

Mr. MacEntee

I would like to say that civil servants feel a security in their office as long as they carry out their official duties in honour and in honesty. They know that they cannot be interfered with and will not be interfered with, and that they will not be subjected to political influence. They owe that feeling of security to this Government alone.

Mr. Brasier

What about the ex-Secretary of the Department of Local Government and Public Health?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. MacEntee

When we took up office there arose crises in the Civil Service. It would, at that time, have been quite open to this Government to introduce the vicious spoils system into this country. It would have been open to the Government to dispense with the services of every head of a Department.

Mr. Heron

The Minister tried to make the service political.

Mr. MacEntee

Let Deputy Heron be silent on this matter. The Deputy has shown his hand in this debate. It is quite clear now what he wants. If there is one Deputy who wants to politicise the Civil Service, that Deputy is Deputy Heron. As I have already said, I was compelled to intervene prematurely in this debate. I have not unduly interrupted any speaker while this motion has been under discussion, except when I asked Deputy Heron to make his position clear in regard to civil servants in politics.

Mr. Heron

It is clear.

Mr. MacEntee

He says it is clear. Well, it was in order that the House might not be under any delusion as to where the Deputy stands that I interrupted him to ask him to clarify his views upon the civil servant in politics.

I was saying it was open to this Government—to the Fianna Fáil administration when it first took office —to dispense with the service of every head of a Department, because those heads of Departments hold their posts beyond yea or nay at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council. No civil servant, however, was interfered with when this Government took office. No matter what allegations might have been made against civil servants, and they were many, these allegations were not even considered. That was because we took the view that the civil servant ought to secure the protection of whatever Government did take office unless the civil servant was guilty of a manifest breach of trust or did something deliberately which was contrary to the general good or contrary to any particular statute which the civil servant had been called on to administer.

No civil servant has been dismissed or victimised for political or such reasons under this Administration. That was not the position with regard to the previous Administration. One of the first things we had to do was to reinstate in the public service a considerable number of civil servants who had been dismissed or had been compelled to resign for political reasons under our predecessors. As I say, we had a bad example which we might have followed, but we turned our back on the whole of that and we resolved that we should set a high precedent from which succeeding administrations could depart only at their peril. That is the record which Deputy Brooke Brasier has had the hardihood to get up and say was one of favouritism and one under which civil servants were subjected to the Minister's "big stick." I think, as I have said, the speech did the Deputy no credit.

Mr. Brasier

Do you deny——

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, order!

Mr. MacEntee

Every civil servant under this Administration has one thing to do and that is, so far as in him lies, to do his duty honestly by the State and by the public. If he does that, he can abide in the Civil Service with an easy mind as to his future and his security of tenure.

The case in the main for this motion has been argued in the House by two able, experienced and astute lawyers, well versed in the wiles of their profession. The first thing a lawyer does, if he has a bad case, is to try to confuse the issue. Then, if a jury should be sufficiently clear-sighted as to descry the truth through the murk which he creates, he begins to abuse his opponent. Deputies in this debate commenced with the allegation that the Taoiseach and the Party with which he was associated had broken some pledge or another. That has been the keynote of the speeches, starting with Deputy Costello. It was continued by Deputy Eamonn O'Neill and, of course, the tale was carried on by Deputy O'Brien and Deputy Brooke Brasier.

One extraordinary thing about the whole course of the debate was that never once, though we were accused of pledge-breaking, were the terms of this pledge which it was alleged we had broken put before the House. Here it is as it appeared in the Fianna Fáil programme: "We are prepared to establish an arbitration board to deal with the grievances of civil servants.""We would be prepared," said the Taoiseach, speaking in Rathmines on the 20th January, 1932, "to agree that an arbitration board be set up." I have here the white print of a Bill drafted, and ready for introduction in this House, a Bill which would have been introduced years ago but for the attitude of those who profess to speak for the civil servants, the attitude which they have taken up towards this Government and towards the arbitration which the Government had intended to establish.

Mr. Norton

Is it not a sham scheme?

Mr. MacEntee

This Bill provides for the establishment of an arbitration board.

Mr. Norton

A sham arbitration board.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputies may describe it anyway they like, but it remains an arbitration board within the amplest meaning of the term.

Mr. Heron

Does it provide for arbitration?

Mr. MacEntee

It provides for arbitration. What does arbitration mean?

Mr. Norton

With two vetoes.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has given the House the advantage of his absence for the last hour and a half.

Mr. Norton

I wish you would give it the same advantage.

Mr. MacEntee

The House has heard the Deputy at great length on this matter, on a considerable number of occasions. I would have been very anxious to hear him again this evening because, although I do know the Deputy has a habit of repeating himself, I am afraid I should not be quite able to deal with all his irrelevancies in anticipation.

Mr. Norton

I came in to hear your nonsense. Carry on.

Mr. MacEntee

I suppose the Deputy came in here to hear me because he knows that there is more substance in my arguments than in the arguments of those who are his associates. So closely allied are Deputies over there with their colleagues on the opposite side that to-day one of the Deputy's own followers told him it was no use sending him round the country to tell the difference between the Labour Party and Fine Gael.

Mr. O'Brien

That was meat and drink to you.

Mr. Linehan

The Minister talks about clearing the issue. Perhaps he would now try to do so.

An Ceann Comhairle

He must be given the opportunity to do so.

Mr. MacEntee

Am I at liberty to sit down until this smoke-room conversation has diminished? I say, here we have the white print of a Bill ready for introduction which would set up arbitration. I was asked what was arbitration, and if it had not been for the interjections which have been made, I would have proceeded to show that Deputy Lavery gave us what I might describe as a half-definition. It was like a half-truth. Both are misleading. Deputy Lavery was proceeding to give us a half-definition of what is an arbitration board. What does arbitration mean? It means this, and nothing more than this: that, in regard to a specific matter, two people shall agree that it shall be referred to a third person for the opinion of that third person. It does not mean more than that.

What it is intended here to force upon the Government is something similar to that which exists in other countries and which is called by what I think is the somewhat ambiguous and meaningless name of compulsory arbitration, where people are compelled, willy-nilly, to refer their disputes to a third party with power to bind. What is the difference between that and a court? We did not say that we were going to set up a compulsory arbitration court before which, as I have said repeatedly, the Government or the Minister could be haled, as if he had been guilty of some sort of offence, crime or tort.

Mr. Lavery

Have you legal opinion for this?

Mr. MacEntee

The more I have endeavoured to get at the root of this arbitration question, the more I despair of getting any definite light or leading from lawyers. They are in conflict with one another except when they sit on the same side of the House. When they appear in court or, as we have already seen, when they are translated from this side of the House, their opinions in regard to arbitration, the Constitution and other matters of, shall we say, esoteric legal content, are subject to rapid change. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate accordingly adjourned.

The House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Thursday, 7th April, at 3 p.m.