Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jul 1941

Vol. 84 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Vote 5—Office of the Minister for Finance.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £48,720 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chuníoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Airgeadais, maraon le hOifig an Phághmháistir Generálta.

That a sum, not exceeding £48,720, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1942, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster-General's Office.

The sum of £24,500 has already been granted under the Vote on Account.

Mr. Cosgrave

After that very able explanation of the Minister, and at this late hour, there is only one point to which I would direct his attention.

Some 25 years ago, there were certain officials in the service of the British Government here in this country, who were informed that, on a given day, if they did not enlist with the Colours their service would be determined, and those of them who did not respond to the call had their service terminated. Subsequently, some of those people were re-employed and, eventually, about 1922, practically all of them were reinstated in the service. The interruption operated in a peculiar manner against the length of service which they were entitled to count in order to qualify for superannuation. The exact terms of the particular cases are beyond my recollection at the present moment, but, in essence, what they came to is this: that after having had a given number of years' service they were entitled to get into a class that was known as "established", or some other term such as that, which specified that a man was giving pensionable service. In some of those cases the requisite number of years had not been served before their services had been terminated, and the sum and substance of the whole story is that when some of those officials went out of the service, according to the age rule, the computation of their years, qualifying them for superannuation, came under the supervision of the Ministry of Finance.

Now, the general impression amongst those of us who were in public life for those last 20 years or so was that there should be no bar put to a man's service by reason of its interruption for political causes, and quite a number of people were reinstated in the service after the change of Government in 1922. Quite a number of persons who had lost their service in other firms in Dublin, and who had the same bar, were also restored to the service of the various companies in which they had previous service. In the calculation for the superannuation of those officials, however, in whatever manner the calculations were made, they were operated to the disadvantage of those officials, and, in consequence, men after having had something like 20, 30, or 40 years' service, as the case may be—the exact number of years, as I have said, escapes my recollection— went out.

Now, there is no doubt whatever but that the political circumstances of the time interrupted their service and reduced the number of years which, if it had not been for that interruption, would have given them a larger superannuation. The amount involved is not considerable, and the legislation of this State for the last 20 years bears evidence of attempts made by both the last Government and the present Government to remedy peculiar anomalies, losses, or other disabilities which persons suffered by reason of the political experience or history of that period. Except for these servants, now, I do not know of any other class in which those disabilities are at present being suffered by people. The number, as I have said, is not considerable, and the amount involved is not considerable.

It is unfortunate that now, 25 years after the first interruption of their service took place, those men, having taken an attitude which, 25 years ago, would have been looked upon as a patriotic stand of theirs, have now to see, in the declining years of their lives, a reduced superannuation and a smaller pension. Indeed, in cases like these, where the numbers are few and the amounts inconsiderable, it is more than a pity that reconsideration should not be given to those cases, and I think we should view the regulations, not only with mercy but with charitable consideration for the difficulties of the times in respect of those particular persons.

Mr. Davin

I want to raise two matters. First of all I should like to know when the Minister for Finance, in particular, or the Government hopes to be in a position to make a policy pronouncement on the reports of the Banking Commission. This commission was set up shortly after the general election in 1933 and sat for four years in secret and heard evidence from representatives of all classes in the community. The reports were issued over four years ago and, presumably, have been under the consideration of the Minister or his predecessor or the members of the Government during that period. Can the Minister hold out any hope that, within his period as Minister for Finance, or before this Dáil is dissolved, a policy pronouncement on this very important matter will be made by him or somebody else representing the Government?

Six weeks ago in this House the Minister gave an assurance that he would release for publication the reports of certain commissions and tribunals which were set up several years ago. He has carried out that assurance so far as the Drainage Commission report is concerned and the report of the Dublin Bakery Tribunal has also been circulated to Deputies. But the report of the Transport Tribunal, which is in the possession—

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Minister for Finance has nothing to say to that.

Mr. Davin

He is responsible for the cost of the publication and circulation of the report.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is not in order on this Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As long as the Deputy asks a question and leaves it at that it is all right.

Mr. Davin

I want to know if the Minister has withheld the cost of the publication of the report of the Transport Tribunal.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No.

Mr. Davin

Then, if he is not the Minister responsible, and I admit that, will he use his influence with the responsible Minister to see that the promise that he made to the House six weeks ago is carried out within a reasonable time?

Mr. Cosgrave

The answer is in the negative.

Mr. Costello

The answer to Deputy Davin's question is that the Department of Finance does not use influence; it uses financial pressure. There are two points which I want to raise on this Estimate. The first point, I think, is one that is peculiarly appropriate to the Estimate. It is a point that has been overlooked for some time. In effect, the Department of Finance in respect of this point are, if not actually breaking the law, at least ignoring the law. There is a section of the Civil Service (Regulation) Act that the governance of the Civil Service—I am not purporting to quote the section but am speaking from recollection—is to be provided for by regulations, which regulations must be laid on the Table and be subject to the criticism of this House and of the Seanad. It has been decided in our courts that that is the proper method by which the general administration of the Civil Service, which is the peculiar responsibility of the Department of Finance, should be regulated, supervised, and carried out.

There have been no regulations of any importance made under the Civil Service (Regulation) Act dealing with the general governance of the Civil Service, speaking by and large, since 1924. That particular provision in the Civil Service (Regulation) Act has been consistently ignored and, I believe, deliberately ignored and the Department of Finance got away with it, if I may use that expression, for many years. They were, however, caught out in a particular case or series of cases, but actually went on with, after they had stopped the particular hole made by that series of cases, and are still continuing the old practice of governing the Civil Service by Department of Finance circulars, instead of by regulations made under the Civil Service (Regulation) Act that was passed by the Oireachtas.

That Act provided that both Chambers, the Dáil and the Seanad, should have some sort of control over the governance of the Civil Service by the Department of Finance; that those regulations which dealt with admission into the Civil Service, promotion inside the Civil Service, and the general regulation of the conditions of civil servants while in the service, should be subject to revision, at least to some extent; that the regulations should be subject to the authority of this House and of the Seanad.

From the time of the passing of the Civil Service (Regulation) Act up to the present moment, to my knowledge only two regulations have been made, which were of a most peculiar character. The first regulation was made, I think, in 1923 or thereabouts, and provided that civil servants should hold their office at the will and pleasure of the Executive Council. The second regulation provided in effect for depriving civil servants of their cost-of-living bonus. There was no effort made during all those years from 1923 until 1940 to provide a code of statutory rules and regulations for the proper administration of the Civil Service. The statute law dealing with the Civil Service provides that there should be such a code. It has been consistently ignored by the Department of Finance all those years, and I think it is time that public attention was directed to this matter.

It has been established by the decision of our courts that the Civil Service is no longer a prerogative. The Department of Finánce acted until that decision, and have since acted in spite of that decision, as if the Civil Service was being run on the old Crown prerogative. They ignored the fact that the Civil Service is now a statutory body, that the Civil Service is subject to statute, and that its administration and regulation ought to be the subject of regulations, statutory in character, which would be subject to the control of this House and of the Seanad. I think it is high time that attention was called to this and that the Department of Finance should produce a code of regulations for the general governance of the Civil Service. It is convenient to follow the British procedure, based on the Crown prerogative, that the Civil Service should be governed by circular. One of the greatest industries in this country is the emission from the Establishment Branch of the Department of Finance of circulars dealing with Civil Service matters such as pay, pensions, hours of work, holidays, and all the rest, and also providing that, although the Dáil and the Seanad will not sit on Church holidays, nevertheless the civil servants of this State must not be allowed the half hour that the British Government gave them during the old bad times to go to Mass. All these matters are very conveniently dealt with in the Establishment Branch of the Department of Finance by circulars. They are doing that, in my opinion, flagrantly—if not actually—in breach of the Civil Service (Regulation) Act. They have done that actually in breach of the strict letter of the law—certainly in flagrant violation of it.

Attention was called in court to the fact that the Civil Service (Regulation) Act required a general code for the administration of the Civil Service, and it is right and proper that this House, and the Seanad, should have some say, not perhaps in routine matters, but on the general principles which should guide the Department of Finance, and particularly the Establishment Branch of that Department, and on the principles which should guide the Minister in the various matters that arise in connection with the governance of the Civil Service, leaving if you like routine matters to be dealt with by circular. This House, at least, should have the opportunity of discussing the whole matter of the general code of administration of the Civil Service. In the old British days orders in council, passed by His Majesty in council — a polite euphemism, meaning the Crown prerogative— to some extent did the same thing. There has been no effort to lay down any principle here, and I suggest that it is time the Department of Finance—one of the chief Departments —should introduce it and obey the law. They are always asking other people to obey the law. The Revenue Commissioners are very keen on other people doing so. It is about time the Department of Finance obeyed the law, and set about doing what it imposes on others, when the Act of 1924 provided a code of rules and regulations for the general governance of the Civil Service in this State.

The second point I want to raise is a minor one, but it is of some significance. I wish the Minister would use his influence to stop not only what happens in his own Department, but in every other Department.

Mr. Davin

His whip.

Mr. Costello

If the Deputy wishes I am prepared to accept that word, and to have it used in connection with letters written by the Department of Finance of a routine nature by minor officials beginning "A Chara, I am directed by the Minister for Finance" when the Minister for Finance has not the faintest notion what that minor official is doing in writing a letter the subject matter of which he has never heard. Every letter that goes out from any Department written by the most junior and irresponsible official invariably starts: "I am directed by the Minister" which is a flagrant lie on the face of it, and incidentally one in which the present Minister for Finance was somewhat personally involved in court, where it was laid down that that particular form of locution ought not to be used; and that in any case that came to court where there was necessity to produce authority, the mere production of a letter starting with the words: "I am directed by the Minister," when the Minister neither directed nor knew anything about it, was not sufficient. It is about time that that absurdity, which had its origin with the origin of this State, was rooted out of official correspondence.

Mr. Hickey

I must that I am rather surprise at the manner in which the Minister is providing money for building houses and the price that has to be paid for that money. At present we are building some houses, and we find it very hard to get money at 4 per cent. That is a big price to pay for money, but it cost 5¼ per cent. to get it under the local loans. I wish to know why we are paying such a high price.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not come under this Estimate.

Mr. Davin

The Minister's salary is on this Vote.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Housing and the financing of housing does not come under it.

Mr. Davin

I submit that the Minister is not earning his salary if he is not carrying out the promise he made that plenty of money would be available for housing.

Mr. Hickey

I put the question to the Taoiseach last August and he said there was no difficulty about money. I have a statement that was made by the Minister for Supplies that the difficulty was not money. I was on a deputation last week when the Taoiseach said that money was never the problem and that it had never held up their work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not a problem for this Vote, which is concerned with the office of the Minister.

Mr. Davin

The Minister's salary is on this Vote.

Mr. Hickey

Does it not also provide for the payment of staff, and am I not entitled to ask why things are not being done?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may deal with the question of salaries if he likes, but not with the price of money.

Mr. Hickey

Not even for old age pensions?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. There are separate Votes for that.

Mr. Corish

Does not the Local Loans Fund come under this Vote?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have not heard of any of the cases that Deputy Costello referred to concerning the administration of the Civil Service.

Mr. Costello

I got one of these letters this week.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No case came personally under my notice. Every official who writes a letter by direction of the Minister is personally authorised so to do. No official signs a letter unless he has a personal authorisation from the Minister so to do. I saw that there was reference by a judge of the High Court to that matter in the last few weeks and I intended to have it raised and dealt with. It is a fact that no official writes letters of that type unless he is personally authorised by the Minister so to do. No office boy writes that type of letter.

Mr. Costello

It was done within the last week.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I learned of a case last week.

Mr. Costello

The Minister only wakened up to it last week.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

A judge made the statement last week and I learned that that procedure was questioned. The Deputy dealt up a nasty bit of criticism to his colleague who for ten years flagrantly violated the law.

Mr. Costello

The Minister has been doing it for ten years also.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No. I hope the Deputy will address a flagellation of the same kind to his colleague, as, according to him, it is well deserved. I think if Deputy Cosgrave dealt in that way with the regulations he was acting fairly wisely. He has a fairly wise head in certain matters, and that is one of them.

Mr. Costello

That means that the Minister is going to continue flouting the law.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Let the Deputy take it what way he wishes.

Mr. Costello

Is that right?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Take your choice.

Mr. Costello

But I have no choice.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If it pleases the Deputy, it pleases me.

Mr. Costello

But it displeases me.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Anything to satisfy the Deputy.

Mr. Davin

Is this a conversazione?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

As I promised Deputy Davin, I asked yesterday about the Transport Tribunal Report, and I was told that it has been in the hands of the printers for some weeks. I hope—certainly not before the Adjournment—later in the year to have presented to the House a Central Bank Bill and that we will have all the pundits giving their views on finance, when the Minister for Finance will also have some views to give. I should be glad at any time Deputy Hickey wishes to go into the financing of housing, or any other activities.

Question put and agreed to.