Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1946

Vol. 102 No. 2

Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1946—Report and Final Stages.

There are two amendments which are on the Order Paper.

As we are on Report and as I may make only one speech on amendment No. 1, perhaps the Minister would open the discussion by telling us whether, in fact, he reported last week's discussion to the Government; and, if so, whether he has any statement to make or not.

I had this matter brought to the attention of the Minister for Finance who is the Minister most directly concerned. It seems clear that the revocation of the Order is not practicable. I raised with him the question which was discussed here, namely, whether it was necessary to suspend the operation of the 1929 Act in its entirety because of the stabilisation of the cost-of-living bonus, and discussed the possibility of amending the Order with a view to limiting its effect to retirements consequential on the stabilisation of the bonus.

In the first place, it must be noted that alterations in the conditions of employment of transferred officers, consequential upon emergency conditions, are not confined to stabilisation of the cost-of-living bonus. There were certain other changes—perhaps of minor importance but nevertheless changes—which might be used by a transferred officer to claim the right to retire on Article 10 terms. An illustration is the prolongation of working hours which, in part, still continues and will continue, I understand, until October next. Furthermore, the examination of the matter which it was possible to effect during the past week did not make it clear that a transferred officer claiming to retire under the Act of 1929 in consequence of some alteration in his conditions of employment, other than the stabilisation of the bonus, or the prolongation of working hours, might not have his pension awarded by the tribunal on a basis which did not take into account the stabilisation of the cost-of-living bonus which, if that happened, would obviously create a situation of difficulty and embarrassment for the Minister for Finance.

The most I can say, therefore, on the matter is that while it is not possible to agree to the amendment which seeks to revoke the Order in its entirely, the Minister for Finance will consider to what extent it is possible to amend the Order between now and the appointed day under the Bill, with a view to limiting its operation in such manner as to cover cases like those I have mentioned. It will be possible under Section 3 to amend a continuing Government Order between now and the appointed day, and if the Minister for Finance decides that amendment is practicable, it will be effected. I cannot, however, undertake to say that the amendment is practicable, because it is obvious that legal considerations are involved which will require some examination, greater examination than it has been possible to give up to the present. There is, however, a general feeling that, if legal difficulties can be avoided, it is desirable that the Order should be amended so as to permit a transferred officer to avail of the provisions of the 1929 Act where the circumstances of his employment are altered to his detriment otherwise than in a manner which applies to the Civil Service as a whole, such as the stabilisation of the cost-of-living bonus or the alteration of working hours. I do not know whether this statement of mine meets with the approval of the Deputy—probably not—but it indicates the furthest extent to which it is possible to go, namely, an undertaking to examine the possibility of amending the Order in the manner I have indicated, if it should prove to be feasible to do so, without creating fresh legal difficulties.

Has the Minister anything to say in connection with the revocation of the bonus stabilisation regulations, the delay in revoking which, he said, necessarily, from his point of view, requires the continuance of the Order we are discussing?

No. That is a matter which does not arise under emergency legislation and which, I think, must be dealt with in the House by the Minister for Finance.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 4, line 24, to add at the end of sub-section (1) the words and figures "provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as continuing in force, after the operative date, the provisions of Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order, 1940."

It seems to me that, both in this Bill and the Industrial Relations Bill, the details of which I do not intend to advert to, the Minister is the instrument of Government policy. He says in respect of the Industrial Relations Bill: "I propose now to signalise the end of the emergency, so far as wage control is concerned, by revoking the Wages Standstill Order, and allowing the operation of the free play of collective bargaining as between the workers organised in unions, on the one hand, and employers organised in employers' organisations, on the other." In order that that collective bargaining will be on a kind of order basis, he offers to both sides a labour court, which he hopes will overcome the sharpest points of disagreements until there is a normal settling down in the operation of the principle of collective bargaining. Therefore, the Minister is really saying to the nation: "At the end of next month, the Wages Standstill Order goes. The Government sheds its right to control wages in the way in which that control has been exercised in respect of workers in private employment since May, 1941."

But under this Bill he is taking power to continue the Emergency Powers Order made in 1940, the effect of which is to deny to a limited class of workers, approximately 6,000 in number, the remedy which they had in the 1929 Act, if the Government repudiated its obligations under that Act, that is, to accept the continued employment of persons under the same tenure and under the same conditions as to salaries and wages as they formerly enjoyed. In other words, while letting out of the wage control part approximately 500,000 workers who were affected by the Wages Standstill Order, the Minister is keeping within the vice of control, all those civil servants, most of whom enjoyed rates of wages which were no higher in many cases, and in some cases less, than the amounts paid workers in private employment. The Government is doing that by means of the continued application of the cost-of-living bonus stabilisation, and not only that but is preventing those who had a legal remedy against the Government in that respect exercising it under Emergency Powers Order No. 40. I think that action of the Government is unfair.

When the former Minister for Finance was in this House in November, 1939, he spoke of the intention of the Government to set its face against what he said were the efforts of any section of the community to improve its position as a result of emergency conditions. His method of implementing that declaration was to say to civil servants in July, 1940, that they proposed to repudiate the cost-of-living bonus which up to then they were morally and legally bound by. He said that it was part of the Government's policy to peg down wages on the one hand, and on the other hand intimated that the Government intended to control prices. Ten months later the Government made Emergency Powers Order No. 83, the effect of which was to impose a standstill on wages in outside employment. In the period between 1940 and 1941 the Government was definitely unfair to civil servants.

That situation was rectified since. I mean the cost-of-living bonus was stabilised at a higher point, the point it would have reached in 1941.

What would have happened if they had not stabilised the bonus as the Government did in July, 1940? It would have meant that in July the cost-of-living bonus would be related to the index figure 110, and payment would be based on the figure 110 from July, 1940, until January, 1946. What the Government did in the matter is, they continued to pay civil servants on the basis of the stabilised figure 85, and it was only in January, 1945, that they stepped up payment to 110. Every civil servant lost between July, 1940, and December, 1944, the difference between having wages calculated on the index figure 110 and the stabilised figure 85. It is true that partial restitution was made in January, 1945, but bear in mind that they kept the amount of money which these people would have received between July, 1940, and December, 1944, and they are making no restitution in respect of that.

My complaint, and it is a widespread complaint in the Civil Service, is that you took civil servants into the net of wage control in July, 1940, and did not apply wage stabilisation to other workers until May, 1941. Therefore, they got civil servants within the vice ten months earlier than outside workers. In 1946 the Government said to outside workers: "We are letting you out of the vice on the 1st of September, 1946." But they are still keeping within the vice of wage control, and still repudiating the agreement by which they were morally and legally bound, 30,000 civil servants. How can they justify putting civil servants within the vice of wage control ten months earlier than workers outside, many of whom are paid much higher? How could they justify keeping lowly-paid civil servants within the vice of wage control after releasing outside workers from that vice? I think logically the Minister could not defend that policy. I am sorry the Minister for Finance is not here, so that we could hear what light he could throw on a code of conduct of that kind. Personally, I do not think it could be justified.

In his heart I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who has had wide experience in matters of this kind, realises that it is not the kind of conduct that could be justified in ordinary industrial employment, and is not the kind of issue anybody could defend in an industrial dispute. I think the Government are definitely unfair, and that whatever conceptions they have of equity in this matter, they are completely wrong. The Government is purporting now to release everybody within the State from wage control, except a group of civil servants that is subject to their jurisdiction. I do not think that could be justified. I should like to hear the Minister even now, if it is possible, telling us that the Government propose to treat civil servants in the same way as outside workers have been treated in the Industrial Relations Bill, bearing in mind that civil servants have a special claim to treatment, inasmuch as the agreement was honoured when it was particularly onerous to do so and that their wages were stabilised ten months earlier than outside workers' wages.

I remember a Deputy in 1931 expressing very considerable sympathy with the claim of civil servants when the bonus agreement was operating in such a way that they were suffering successive cuts, and I remember the Deputy being very willing to accompany other Deputies to the Government then in office in order to secure some abatement of the grievances and injustices imposed on civil servants by the operation of that agreement. I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, recognising that the facts are as stated, and that civil servants are suffering very considerable hardships, will be prepared to indicate on behalf of the Government the intention to revoke at least the stabilisation Order. Perhaps the Minister would tell us when the Government is going to come to a decision on that matter.

It is obvious that the Deputy is not so much concerned with Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order, to which his amendment relates, as with the question of the stabilisation of the cost of living bonus of civil servants. So far as Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order is concerned, while it is true that it withdraws from transferred officers the protection that they were given under the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Act, 1929, I would not agree that the action of the Government was unfair. In so far as the principle of the Act of 1929 and of the section under the Treaty of 1932 relates—that transferred officers should not suffer a worsening of the conditions of their employment—it cannot be said that that has happened to them as transferred officers. The effect of the stabilisation of the bonus on them was no different from the effect upon other civil servants and, when considerations of public interest required it and the Government had of necessity to stabilise the bonus, it was obviously necessary that such stabilisation should apply both to transferred officers as well as to other civil servants. An impossible position would have been created for the Government if the stabilisation applied only to a section of the Civil Service and not to every section.

I do not want the Deputy to take from anything that I have said on the issue of the stabilisation of the bonus the impression that a decision, one way or the other, has been taken in the matter. I would not agree that the stabilisation of the bonus in 1940 was unfair to the Civil Service, even though other non-Government employees did not come under the standstill Order until some months later. I think that if the Deputy will examine statistics relating to wage rates, which are now in course of preparation and will be published shortly, he will find that there was, in fact, very little upward movement of industrial wages during 1940. The civil servants did benefit by the operation of the cost-of-living bonus between the outbreak of hostilities and the date of stabilisation. Most of the industrial workers whose wages were stabilised in 1941 had, in fact, secured no increase in wages as between the outbreak of hostilities and the date of stabilisation. However, that is not a matter upon which I shall enter into any controversy.

The Deputy put a specific question to me. He will have an opportunity of putting that question with the better prospects of a reply—and, may I suggest, greater relevancy—to the Minister for Finance on item 8 of the Dáil Agenda for to-day. I suggest he should put that question to the Minister for Finance. It is obviously his function to speak for the Government on that matter. The stabilisation of the Civil Service bonus was not affected by an Emergency Powers Order. It is not affected in any way by the enactment of this Bill and the decision of the Government in relation to it must take account of other factors than the withdrawal of the standstill in relation to the wages and remuneration of non-Government employees. It is quite clear that the suitability of the present cost-of-living bonus and its method of calculation in the future, having regard to the fundamental change that has taken place in the whole price structure since the cost-of-living bonus was first devised, must also be considered by the Minister for Finance in deciding upon his future course of action in relation to public servants.

I think that it cannot be contended that Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order must remain in force while the bonus is stabilised. Apart altogether from the effect of its withdrawal during stabilisation, the Deputy must also consider the matter to which I referred in Committee, namely, the possibility that even after stabilisation has ended it would still be open to transferred officers to apply to retire under the Act of 1929 by reason of the fact that the bonus had been stabilised in the past. At that stage, when stabilisation ends and when the Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order is no longer required because of the existence of stabilisation, it will be necessary to make some provision then to ensure that the rights of transferred officers will be restored as from that date and that the Government will not have to face the prospect of very substantial retirements by reason of the fact that stabilisation was accomplished in previous years. For that reason, if for no other, I think this Order must be continued until some permanent legislation has been prepared covering that point.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 27; Nil, 50.

  • Beirne, John.
  • Bennett, George C.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Dockrell, Henry M.
  • Dockrell, Maurice E.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Heskin, Denis.
  • Hughes, James.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Larkin, James (Junior).
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Morrissey, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Connor, John S.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
  • Walsh, Laurence.
  • Walsh, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and M. O'Sullivan; Níl: Deputies Kissane and O Briain.
Amendment declared negatived.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 7, Section 9 (1), to insert the words "in writing" after the word "direction" where that word occurs in lines 19 and 20.

I undertook in Committee to move this amendment on Report.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put, and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I should like to say a word or two on matters which were discussed in Committee and which I undertook to examine. First, there was the suggestion that Government Orders to be continued should be scheduled to the Bill. I intimated that that course had been considered, but that the balance of argument appeared to be against it. I agreed to reconsider the matter but, on reconsideration, I am still of opinion that the balance of argument is against it. The Government Orders set out in the White Paper are the Orders which, so far as can now be foreseen, will be in force on the 1st September. It may happen, however, that some situation would arise which would necessitate the continuance of some other Government Order. If that situation did arise, it could be dealt with by so informing the Dáil. If we scheduled the Orders and had to deal with that situation, it would necessitate amending legislation. On the other hand, if a Schedule appeared to the Bill, it would be generally understood to express the position as it would exist on the 1st September. It may happen that some Government Orders set out in the White Paper may not be necessary after the 1st September and will be revoked before that date, in which case the Schedule would be misleading.

The device adopted in drafting the Bill, including the circulation of a White Paper setting out the Orders to be continued, gave an opportunity of indicating briefly the nature of the Orders which would not be possible in a Schedule without risking certain legal complications. I was also asked whether it was possible to circulate a White Paper setting out the chief Ministerial Orders which will be enforced on the 1st September. It was stated incorrectly during the course of the discussion in Committee that no index of these Orders exists. In fact, an index of all such Orders up to 1st January this year was published in March last. It would not be advisable to publish a White Paper now setting out the principal Ministerial Orders which will be continued after 1st September because many of them will have to be modified or amended and some of them will be revoked before the 1st September.

If we were to circulate a White Paper now it would be accepted as conveying a picture of the position in regard to Ministerial Orders as it will exist on 1st September. Instead, therefore, of circulating that White Paper now, I propose to have prepared an official index of such Orders on the 1st September and published shortly after that date, which will be far more satisfactory from the point of view of those concerned with the administration of the law in any capacity, in so far as it will give them a definite and final picture of the Orders in force on the date upon which the Emergency Powers Act lapses and this Bill comes into operation.

I was asked to have re-examined the provisions of Section 8 to ensure that they clearly oblige the Government to lay upon the Table of the House, and make subject to annulment by the House, Ministerial Orders whether made under the authority of a Government Order based upon this Bill or under the authority of a continued Government Order made under the Emergency Powers Act. I am informed there is no ambiguity about the provisions and the Bill clearly provides that all such Orders made by Ministers in the future, whether under the authority of the continued Government Order or not, must be laid before the House and may be annulled by the House.

I was asked also whether it was necessary to provide in Section 10 that Ministerial Orders and directions have the force of law. It seems quite obvious that it is not necessary to provide in the Bill that these Orders and directions would have the force of law in any event. There is no good reason why it should be deleted from the Bill and the second part of that section, which gives these Orders priority over Acts of the Oireachtas where they are in conflict with them, is necessary. I mentioned, by way of illustration of that necessity, the possibility that we might at some stage decide to reduce the weight of the loaf as in Great Britain. I do not suggest we will do so. I am not at all sure that it proved a satisfactory device in Great Britain but, if we should want to do so, clearly the Order reducing the size of the loaf would be in conflict with the permanent legislation relating to the sale of bread and it is therefore necessary to provide that the Order would supersede the permanent legislation.

We discussed in Committee Emergency Powers (No. 178) Order which removes the six months' time limit on prosecutions under the emergency code. I think it will be possible to provide in the Bill that the scope of Emergency Powers (No. 178) Order will be restricted to extending the time limit from six months to 12 months. I was not able to get such an amendment of the Bill framed for the Report Stage. It may be that legal difficulties will arise in connection with the drafting of the amendment, but, assuming these can be overcome, I will endeavour to have such an amendment inserted in the Bill in the Seanad.

The Order at present removes the time limit and substitutes no other time limit. The effect of the amendment I have in mind will be to alter the time limit from six to 12 months. The Minister for Agriculture is not satisfied, because he thinks that under the compulsory tillage regulations there still may be difficulty in proceeding with prosecutions in the District Court as it is not always possible to complete the inspection of agricultural holdings and get the evidence necessary for proceedings within 12 months from the date of the commission of the offence. If that should happen, there is always the alternative open to the Government of proceeding by way of indictment.

These were the matters mentioned on the Committee Stage that I undertook to look into, and I felt it was desirable that I should inform the Dáil of the result of my investigation.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share