Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1938

Vol. 72 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 5—Office of the Minister for Finance.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £49,189 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1939, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Airgeadais maraon le hOifig an Phághmháistir Ghenerálta.

That a sum not exceeding £49,189 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster-General's Office.

Mr. Norton

I move that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. I do so for the purpose of calling attention to a matter which I think must concern this House and which must concern the public at large. That is the problem of growing discontent in the Civil Service. It is quite obvious to anybody who takes any interest in the Civil Service or who reads the reports of meetings of the Civil Service that there is growing and widespread discontent in that Service. I may say, and I have some experience of Civil Service matters, that that discontent arises in very large measure from the attitude and hostility displayed by the Department of Finance towards Civil Service organisations and by the very definite and systematic effort made by that Department to stifle, where it cannot openly suppress, the efforts of Civil Service organisations to find an outlet for the effective representation of the grievances from which their members suffer.

For the past 14 years there has been a body in existence. True, it is of very doubtful existence but, theoretically, at all events, it exists. It is known as the Civil Service Representative Council. Why the word "Representative" is still used to describe that body it is very difficult to say, because practically nobody recognises it now except the Department of Finance whose child it is. I doubt if meetings of the council are held, but if it does meet, perhaps one or two bodies representing a half-dozen people might go there. But, generally speaking, the Civil Service Representative Council is despised by everybody who has any use whatsoever for machinery of an effective and impartial character. The council itself was established by the previous Government and its weaknesses and vices have been perpetuated by this Government. The council has no power to reach agreement with representatives of the staff. The Constitution prescribes the right of Civil Service organisations to be represented at meetings of the council by representatives of their own choice, and after matters have been fully discussed at meetings of the council no decision can be got beyond a promise that the representatives there will tell the Minister for Finance what has happened; in due course he will hear from his own representatives on the council and then he will say what he proposes to do.

Perhaps no more classic example of the utter futility of that council was provided than by the case they had before them from the women cleaners in the service. The women cleaners were most temperate in their demands. They desired to be most reasonable. They made application to be supplied with rubber kneeling mats which could be bought for 3d. each at Woolworths. Half a dozen representatives of the Finance Department listened to this not very big claim. Finally, the establishment officer in the Department of Finance told the women cleaners that he had not had notice of the question that had been raised by them, but that he recognised it was an important question and that, in due course, he would report to the Minister for Finance to ascertain whether authority could be secured for the purchase of these rubber mats, at about 3d. each, for supply to the women cleaners. Could anybody outside of Bedlam, or outside of a comedy theatre, imagine a position of that kind occurring, at a body known as the Civil Service Representative Council — six or seven heads of sections of Departments wasting their time dealing with a matter of that kind, which ought to be adjusted by oral representations and which ought to be met in a reasonable way without that appalling waste of time and artificial profundity which surrounds the discussion of matters at the Civil Service Representative Council? If that is the kind of progress there in connection with such a matter as the supply of these rubber mats for women cleaners, one despairs to think of the kind of progress that would be made in dealing with a matter of much more importance.

This body has now been in existence over 14 years, and during that period it has only brought disillusionment and disappointment to those who at first thought it was likely to be a medium whereby the staff organisations would be able to express their point of view and be assured that that point of view would be listened to with sympathy and understanding. The position to-day, in consequence of the complete breakdown of the worthless Representative Council, is that the Civil Service is seething with discontent and that no effort is being made by the Department of Finance, under the control of the present Minister for Finance, to meet the situation which has been created. We have had, of course, an offer to the Civil Service organisations of a worthless and totally unacceptable scheme of arbitration. That has been rejected and, notwithstanding the Minister's professions to the contrary, I believe it will continue to be rejected by the Civil Service organisations who value their reputation and who have any regard for their self-respect.

Mr. MacEntee

The people have given their answer.

Mr. Norton

Some of the Minister's new supporters and sectarian friends may have given the answer, thanks to the Minister's conversion to Imperialism in Rathmines during the recent election.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy's conversion to republicanism was taken at its worth by the people, too.

Mr. Norton

The Minister's speeches in the election were worthy of his speech at the court-martial. I was calling attention, Sir, to the fact that the failure of the Department of Finance and of the Minister to provide an adequate medium, whereby the Civil Service staff organisations could express their feelings in a manner that did not result in these feelings being stifled, was causing grave and growing discontent in the Civil Service. The Civil Service organisations feel that they have no means at present available to them of securing an impartial judgment on any claims they may submit. The position is that claims submitted by the staff organisations may be transmitted to the Department of Finance for sanction or a viewpoint, but the invariable experience of the staff organisations is that the Department of Finance simply has no regard whatever for the merits of the cases submitted and is merely concerned with rejecting every claim, irrespective of its merits, if the claim is likely to cost money; and in many cases even claims which cost practically no money are rejected because of the attitude of hostility displayed by the Department of Finance towards the Civil Service organisations.

I think that anybody taking the long view of the Civil Service, recognising that it is an Irish institution, that it serves the Irish people, and that its business is to function in the interests of the Irish people, could not but be concerned with the development of that state of affairs, and sound commonsense and statesmanship ought to dictate to the Government and to the Department of Finance the necessity of adopting a much more reasonable and a much more conciliatory attitude towards the reasonable claims which have been made, and will continue to be made, by Civil Service organisations. Civil servants, after all, are Irishmen. They live here, and they conduct their business here in the interests of the Irish people, and they are entitled to fair consideration and fair treatment from whatever Government functions in this country, either to-day or at any time in the future. We are being told now that it is almost national treachery to urge that an arbitration tribunal should be established so that it could impartially express judgment upon claims made by Civil Service organisations. In this connection, it should be remembered that civil servants are asking for no more than that the promise that was freely made to them in 1932 — the present Government wanting to get votes at the time — should be implemented, and that a genuine scheme of arbitration should be established to enable the claims of Civil Service organisations to be adjudicated upon. It is not so many years ago since this Government was offering arbitration to Mr. J.H. Thomas on the question as to whether the disputed moneys were due to Britain, and we had no less a person than the Taoiseach declaring in this House that, even though it might constitute a heavy burden on the State, he would recommend to the Dáil the acceptance of the findings of that tribunal. The civil servants are asking for nothing more than that, but apparently it is much easier to offer arbitration to Britain, and accept the consequences of such arbitration, than it is to implement the promise that was freely made by the present Government to the civil servants in 1932.

As if they were public enemies, and worthy of the condemnation of the Irish people, we had speeches made in the recent election which, I think, were the most disgraceful speeches that were ever made about civil servants in any country. Some of these speeches could have been ignored where they were made by irresponsible people, but one would expect the Minister for Finance to have some pretensions to responsibility, and not to engage in some of the intemperate tirades which distinguished him in the recent election. One would think that civil servants were Public Enemies No. 1, judging by the speeches the Minister made in the recent election. Of course, one gets to know the Minister for Finance, and when the civil servants get to know him better they will know that intemperate utterances are characteristic of him, and that he cannot be relied upon in these matters to keep his head for five minutes if the keeping of his head prevents him from engaging in some of these florid utterances which distinguish him in this House and outside it.

Then we had another demonstration of mock indignation that the grievances of the civil servants were being made Parliamentary issues? Who started making their grievances Parliamentary issues? In 1932, during the election of that year, we had the present Taoiseach declaring in the Rathmines Town Hall that Fianna Fáil, if elected to office, would establish an arbitration board to deal with the grievances of the civil servants and would set up an inquiry into the whole question of the cost-of-living bonus and its effect on the salaries and conditions of civil servants. To show that that was not just a stray utterance by the Taoiseach, we had a Fianna Fáil manifesto, published a couple of days afterwards, in which it was again declared that one of the things for which Fianna Fáil sought a mandate in that election was the establishment of an arbitration board and the setting up of an inquiry into the cost-of-living bonus and its effect on salaries and conditions generally in the Civil Service. Was not that making the grievances of civil servants a Parliamentary issue? Was not that statement by the Taoiseach, and the issue of that manifesto, a clear indication that in that year, at all events, the Fianna Fáil Party were making the grievances of the civil servants a Parliamentary issue? Of course, the Fianna Fáil Party wanted to catch votes by doing so. Then, in the same election, we had a leaflet distributed outside all the Government offices, on the eve of the 1932 election, repeating the promise with regard to arbitration and the cost-of-living bonus, and there was a printer's note at the bottom saying that that leaflet was issued on behalf of the National Executive of Fianna Fáil. That was not, of course, making civil servants' grievances a Parliamentary issue. Since then the Government has changed. The Party that made these promises has changed. It is now the Government and does not want to be encumbered by any of its past promises or haunted by the ghost of its past speeches. It wants now to pretend that it is a crime against the nation, against Parliament and against the Government that civil servants, themselves Irishmen, should ask Parliament to intervene in order that they get fair treatment from the State which they serve. A classical example of the type of misrepresentation which was carried on against civil servants is to be found in a handbill which was issued by the Fianna Fáil Party in Kilkenny. It bears the title "Civil Servants," and under that it says: "Civil Servants are secure in their employment: are paid good salaries: receive cost of living bonus when the cost of living rises: have good prospects of promotion and receive pensions on retirement." It goes on to say: "They have advantages that other sections of the community have not got: theirs is a sheltered occupation: the Government has treated them fairly." Then there is this: "End this humbug: give the Government a majority: vote 1 and 2 Derrig and Rice." What the electors of Kilkenny are asked to believe is that "Mr. Pattison and Mr. Gorey did not consult you when they helped to defeat Mr. de Valera's Government with their votes on the question of Civil Service arbitration." That is the kind of mean, base appeal that was made to every hungry man and woman in the country during the election in order to try to mobilise public odium against civil servants.

Let us examine this leaflet for a few moments and see what is in it. "Civil servants are secure in their employment." There are over 4,000 of them in the Post Office service who have no security of employment whatever. They may be dismissed at a moment's notice. Of that number, 2,500 have less than 30/- per week, and well over 1,000 have less than 20/- per week, even when the cost of living bonus is added to their basic pay. "Civil servants have good prospects of promotion." Four thousand people in the Post Office have no prospects of promotion whatever. It is unprecedented ever to hear of them getting any promotion, and they receive no pensions on retirement; but yet the electors of Kilkenny and elsewhere are being asked to believe that every civil servant in the country "is secure in his employment, is paid a good salary, gets a pension on retirement, and has good prospects of promotion." That leaflet was issued to deceive and prejudice the people.

Mr. MacEntee

Tell the Dáil the truth about the 2,000 who are getting 30/- a week. Tell the Dáil that they are part-time postmen.

Mr. Norton

The Dáil apparently is not as stupid as the Minister, and can understand. No one in the Dáil wants any enlightenment on the matter except the Minister. Some of his officials may help him afterwards. You may, of course, at an election where you issue a leaflet of that kind, get a majority which may justify you in saying that you are not going to introduce a decent arbitration scheme for the Civil Service. By misrepresentation and by an appeal to greed, envy and avarice, you may be able to play off one class of the community against another, and you may create a temporary friendship which will give you a majority of that kind and appear to justify you on the basis of majority rule in turning a deaf ear to the demand of the Civil Service for fair treatment; but you do not suppress the demand for fair treatment or for justice merely because, for the time being, you get votes in the whirlwind of an election which lead you to believe that you can suppress that demand.

Civil servants and every other class in the community have the elementary right to demand justice from Parliament; the elementary right to ask Parliament to listen to their grievances, if they cannot get satisfaction in the presentation of these grievances elsewhere. The fact that, for the time being, you may be in the position of being able to say to civil servants: "We have now a majority which will refuse to establish a genuine arbitration board," does not by any means mean that you have heard the end of the unanswerable demand which can be made in this and in every other country where similar circumstances exist by civil servants for the establishment of a genuine arbitration board. The refusal to concede that reasonable claim, the refusal to endeavour to establish a mutually acceptable scheme of arbitration is, in my opinion, calculated to impair the efficiency of the service and to intensify the discontent which exists in the service.

If the Department of Finance and the Government were to take the wise view they would see the danger to the State services and to Parliament generally of continuing to pursue an irresponsible and hostile policy of that kind. It is not going to improve the efficiency of the Civil Service and is not going to enable civil servants to give what they want to give, namely, loyal and enthusiastic service to any Government elected by the Irish people. Even at this stage it would be well for the State, and well for the people, if somebody in the Executive Council would display much more prudence and much more statesmanship than has so far been displayed, and that some effort were made to establish conciliation and arbitration machinery of a kind which will satisfy the reasonable demands of the Civil Service organisations on the one hand, and at the same time will provide, by making Parliament the over-riding authority, reasonable protection to the community against any preposterous awards by an arbitration tribunal.

I have put down the motion to refer back the Estimate in order to express that point of view, and I hope it is a point of view which will find an echo in other parts of the House.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not going, at this stage, to indicate what steps the Government propose to take to deal with the issues which were before the people at the last general election, one of them being that which Deputy Norton has raised in the House to-day, and what in the future is going to be the relation between public servants, Parliament and politicians as we know them in this country. It was not of our seeking or of our volition that the Civil Service was brought within the ambit of the debates which have taken place in the Dáil recurrently year after year during the past five or six years. If civil servants have been brought into politics they have to thank Deputy Norton and those associated with him for that. There was not a session in this Parliament, as I have said, during the last six years when much more urgent matters might have been considered if we had not motions in the name of Deputy Norton and others — motions put down in Private Members' time — which he and those associated with him clamoured to have discussed here. Deputy Norton and his friends took upon themselves the responsibility of defeating the Government on an issue affecting civil servants and they compelled the Government to go to the country upon it. The Government have got their verdict and their mandate from the country and will exercise it.

I deny that there is any real discontent in the Civil Service. I deny that there is any real discontent amongst the great mass of civil servants. Any discontent there is is largely of the Deputy's own creation. If civil servants have any reason to be dissatisfied with their position, that is due entirely to the manner in which Deputy Norton has endeavoured to utilise his position as Deputy for Kildare to create political organisations inside the Civil Service. He himself, a representative of civil servants, sits in this House as leader of a political party. He had in the last Parliament, as colleagues, the servants of Civil Service organisations sitting here as members of a political party. How can any person dissociate the Civil Service from politics when he has brought civil servants into politics? When in politics, they have to take whatever consequences may follow on action such as that taken during the last Dáil when they circularised every Deputy asking him to vote against the Government of the day, the Government elected by the people and the Government in whom the people have placed renewed confidence. That was a very ill-judged thing to do but it was done upon the advice of those who associated themselves with Deputy Norton and Deputy Heron in the last Dáil.

We have been told that certain bodies have brought disillusionment and disappointment to the Civil Service. It is Deputy Norton's policy that has brought disappointment and disillusionment, not merely to the Civil Service, whose cause he has ill-served, but to the Labour Party which he almost wrecked by tying it as a sort of tin-can to the Civil Service tail. I do not know anything so misjudged as the manner in which, during the period he has been leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Norton has utilised the fact that the farmers and workers returned him to look after their interests — the farmers and agricultural labourers and the labourers in the small towns — to subordinate their interests to the interest of a section of the community who, I might quite frankly say are, as everybody recognises, comparatively speaking, much better off than the general body of those who voted for Deputy Norton and his colleagues at the last general election. I have no fault to find with the personnel of the Civil Service. I have, many times, when they were attacked in this House, paid tribute to their loyalty, devotion and zeal. I am quite confident that the great mass of civil servants are loyal servants of the Government, the State and the people but I have every reason to believe that there are, inside the Civil Service, elements which place politics before their profession and endeavour, while enjoying the comparative security of the Civil Service, to intermeddle in public affairs in a way which it is not proper that servants of the State should intermeddle.

The Deputy said that the Civil Service is moderate in its claims. I should say that the general body of civil servants are but those who constituted themselves spokesmen and leaders of the agitation which was waged here during the last four or five years were certainly not moderate in their claims. When this matter was last before the House, I discussed at great length the question of arbitration and I am not going to re-open it. I had hoped, before I sat down then, to make some reference to the evidence which was given by those people who set themselves up as spokesmen for the Civil Service and I say they were not moderate in their claims. I have published some extracts from the evidence of these gentlemen. I wish to put them on the records of the House so that it will be known, once and for all, what were the "moderate claims" of some of these organisations. Take the evidence given by Mr. Archie Heron, who, I believe, is Secretary of the Clerical Officers' Association. What does he say? He was asked:

"Is it the intention of the scheme that, in any case where a matter of remuneration is referred to the arbitration board, that remuneration should, in such a case, in fact, be prescribed not by the Minister for Finance, as it is at present by law, but should be prescribed by the arbitration board"?

The answer was:

"In effect, it is, subject, of course, to the overriding authority of the Oireachtas."

The old tag! Then, he went on

"The question of the constitutional position, I think, could be got over by the Minister or the Executive Council, as the case might be, in this particular matter delegating their power and their responsibility to the arbitrator or to the arbitration board."

The Government was to surrender its rights and prerogatives under the Constitution, refuse its duties, and disclaim its responsibilities under the Constitution in order to meet this moderate claim of Mr. Archie Heron — that, so far as the effective control of almost £6,000,000 of expenditure was concerned, it should not rest with the Government, but should be vested in three or five people not answerable to the Dáil or to the Oireachtas, or to the community for the expenditure of public money. That is what Deputy Norton describes as a "reasonable and moderate claim."

Mr. Norton

The claim I made provided for the over-riding authority of the Oireachtas, and you know that.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy ought to try to be intelligent.

Mr. Norton

It is not easy with you.

Mr. MacEntee

That is the sort of interruption I get from the Deputy. This question was then put:—

"In fact, by acceptance of the arbitration award, on its being made the Executive Council would be expected automatically to recommend the expenditure? — Yes.

Its constitutional function would become an automatic function at that stage? — Yes.

You admitted this morning that the putting into operation of that method of appeal against an arbitration award involved, in fact, the putting out of the Government? — Yes."

The position that was going to be created, according to this so-called moderate claim, was that the Government, which has responsibility to the Oireachtas, was to deny that responsibility and say that its first responsibility was to be to this arbitration board, even to the extent that the Government might be put out. A Government which had secured, as our Government has secured, the unmistakable confidence of the people, was to permit itself to be put out of office by accepting the yea or nay of an arbitration board, even if it did not consider that the award of the arbitration board was one which could be justifiably imposed upon the people. Thus, according to Mr. Archie Heron, the Secretary of the Clerical Officers' Association, the moderate claim its members made was that the Government should forswear its constitutional responsibility to the Oireachtas, and should say that its first and foremost responsibility was to the arbitration board by undertaking in whatsoever circumstances to give effect to its award. Then this question was put:—

"So that it is evident that the overriding authority of the Oireachtas cannot operate in the normal method of financial control? It leads in effect to putting out the Government, but it does not result in providing control. It would appear so if it was referred to as a remedy for difficulties brought to your notice?"

The answer of Mr. Heron to that was: "I do not regard it as a defect, really." Thus, in fact, a position having been created in which he himself had to admit that there was no safeguard for the taxpayer and no safeguard for the public purse under this proviso about the overriding authority of the Oireachtas, he came along and admitted, with a candour which was unwonted, that he did not regard that as a defect really. Of course, we knew there was no safeguard for the taxpayer in this silly reservation about the overriding authority of the Oireachtas. We regarded that as a grave defect and, in order to safeguard the taxpayer, we took the only course open to us, and that was to say that no arbitration scheme would be put into operation here which did not leave the Minister for Finance and the Government free to discharge their full responsibility, not merely to the Oireachtas, but to the people who sent the Oireachtas here to look after, not the interests of any one section, but the interests of the community as a whole. In fact, if Deputy Norton, Mr. Heron and all the others had their way, the Government would become no more than the kept men of certain of the Civil Service organisations. I am glad to say that the people did not stand for that.

Here is the evidence of another representative of one of these Civil Service organisations which has brought the whole cause of the Civil Service to disaster. It is the evidence of another secretary who also circularised members of the Oireachtas, and who thinks possibly that he may be protected by Article 10. The question was:

"That merely puts it legally in order, if I may so express it, but it takes away thereafter, so long as he agrees to that arrangement, any discretion he may have?"

the "he" being the Minister for Finance. The answer was "Quite." The next question was:

"Particularly any possibility of exercising his judgment having regard to possibly very great changes in the budgetary position?"

The answer to that was:

"That was the point I endeavoured to deal with in my opening remarks. We think the Minister should have no discretion in regard to the payment of fair wages as ascertained in the manner I have suggested by the Arbitration Board."

Then, this question was put:

"Would you agree that it (the overriding authority of the Oireachtas) is not a means of ensuring that an unreasonable award of the Board should be ineffective?"

The answer was: "I agree", so that this other witness, spokesman for the Civil Service, explodes, just as Mr. Heron exploded, the whole contention of those who were trying to make people believe that this proviso about the overriding authority of the Oireachtas would prevent the general body of the citizens from having an unjustifiable and unendurable award imposed upon them.

Again, we have the evidence of another representative of the Civil Service. He was asked:

"Do you propose to expect the Government in advance to bind themselves by the statement that they would put into operation any findings which the Arbitration Board proposes?"

And the answer was: "That is what we expect". He was asked: "Without knowing what the findings are going to be?" and he answered: "That is what we expect". He was then asked: "Whether the findings involve large amounts or not?", and his answer was: "That is what we considered had been granted to us when arbitration was agreed to". The next question was:

"Can you say that it is simply to be inferred from your scheme that you expect that upon the findings of an Arbitration Board such as you propose being declared, the Executive Council has no further function except to put it into operation?"

The answer was: "That is what we expect". Then, this question was put:

"To give practical effect to it, it must begin with the Executive Council handing over its responsibility to the Arbitration Board?"

The answer was: "If they do, that is what it involves". These demands are what Deputy Norton refers to as "the moderate claims" of the Civil Service. In fact, it would have meant that instead of having a democracy here with a Government responsible to the people for the expenditure of public money, we were going to have here a bureaucratic dictatorship of the worst type, in which the control of the public purse would pass from the people's representatives to those who are supposed to be the servants of the people. As I have already said, I am glad the people realised the preposterous demand which was being made on them by politicians like Deputy Norton, the Secretary of the Clerical Officers' Association, and others of these gentlemen who tried to make themselves the spearhead of this agitation during the past four or five years.

We have not changed in our attitude towards the Civil Service. We are still anxious that we should have a contented Civil Service, and if there is any difference between the position as it now obtains and that which obtained in 1932, it is because the people have changed and because the people have seen how individuals like Deputy Norton have been prepared to use unscrupulously their Parliamentary position in order to politicalise the Civil Service.

Mr. Norton

What about your handbill and your manifesto in 1932?

Mr. MacEntee

This is 1938. The people have spoken on this matter. Deputy Norton went to the people and told them of the pledges which the Fianna Fáil Party gave in 1932. He put the issue before them, and I put the issue, too, in no uncertain terms. Whether my speeches were temperate or intemperate, in the eyes of Deputy Norton, they were, on my part, considered speeches, and the people read them, and the people have given their verdict on them.

Mr. Norton

God help the people.

Mr. MacEntee

It is on that I am going to stand now and henceforward in this Dáil in regard to Civil Service matters. Just take the case that was cited by the Deputy. He referred to 4,000 civil servants who had no security. Every one of those civil servants — and the Deputy knows it as well as I do — is more secure in his job than 90 per cent. of the common people of this country who have to earn their bread and who are taxed to pay for all these public servants. The Deputy was referring to 4,000 people who are probably not established officers, but that does not detract from the fact that they are as secure in their jobs — as long as they do their duty—as if they were established officers, and the Deputy knows that. There are men who spent their lives in the Civil Service in an unestablished capacity and retired from it at the age of 70. But the Deputy did not tell that to the House. Then he referred to some other thousands who are receiving 30/- a week. He did not tell the House that they are part-time postmen, most of them in rural districts, working for perhaps 12, 15 or 18 hours per week.

Mr. Norton

30/- for 15 hours a week.

Mr. MacEntee

I said "maybe."

Mr. Norton

Tell the truth for once.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy knows as well as I do that they are part-time postmen.

Mr. Norton

Tell the truth for once.

Mr. MacEntee

I would not address that admonition to the Deputy. I am telling the House now that when he referred to "the civil servants", as he called them — the "public employees", as they are—who are in receipt of 30/- a week, he was referring to part-time postmen. I am quite prepared to say that they are public employees, but when he talks about a civil servant the idea he conjures up in the minds of most people is a person who has had a certain reasonably high standard of education, and who is employed here in one of the Government offices in Dublin. Certainly, no person listening to Deputy Norton would have imagined he was referring, as I have said, to part-time postmen, most of them in rural areas. But that is the sort of stuff we have had slung around the Dáil here for the last four or five years by Deputy Norton. I hope that this will he the last of it. During the last four or five years we have had this question of the Civil Service debated here during every session, with absolutely no regard for preciseness of statement or a true representation of the facts. As I have said, this issue was forced upon the Government by the Deputy and his friends. They compelled the Government to go to the country on it, and the last general election was fought on this issue. The people have given their verdict on it, and I for one am going to abide by the verdict of the people.

Mr. Brennan

Does the Minister deny the promise made in 1932?

Question—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"— put and declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.