asked the Minister for Finance if he is in a position to state the terms of the reported agreement with regard to the interpretation of Article 10 of the Treaty.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Interpretation of Article 10 of Treaty.
asked the Minister for Finance whether he can now inform the House as to the intentions of the Government in regard to compensation under Article 10 of the Treaty, whether he proposes to introduce legislation in the matter as outlined in his statement to the House on the 22nd day of February, 1928, whether any agreement has been reached with the British Government on the issues involved in the Wigg-Cochrane controversy; and, if so, whether he can state the terms of the agreement reached.
The Government has had under consideration for some time past the difficulties which have arisen in regard to the amount of the compensation payable under Article 10 of the Treaty to transferred officers who are discharged or retire in consequence of the change of Government. Neither the British Government nor the Government of the Saorstát has ever entertained any doubt as to the principles on which the compensation payable should be assessed, and the difficulties referred to arose, in the main, as a result of an interpretation being put upon Article 10 of the Treaty which was contrary to what both Governments believed to be the true meaning and intention of that Article. We have always adhered to, and frequently reiterated, our desire to carry out in full the obligations undertaken by Article 10 of the Treaty in respect of the transferred officers concerned. With a view to securing to those officers a fair and impartial consideration of their claims we set up early in 1922 an Advisory Committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Wylie, to advise the Minister for Finance as to the principles on which the compensation of claimants under Article 10 should be assessed. In assessing the amount of compensation payable to individual applicants we invariably acted on the awards or recommendations of the Wylie Committee without regard to whether or not the official view coincided with views embodied in such awards or recommendations. In making their recommendations the Wylie Committee had regard to the principles on which the superannuation and pensions of transferred civil servants would have been calculated had they remained in the service of the British Government. The British Treasury, in a Minute of 20th day of March, 1922, had declared the basis on which those portions of a British civil servant's superannuation allowances which are granted in respect of the cost of living bonus should be calculated. That Minute of March, 1922, became effective before any transfer of service to the provisional Government took place. It was accordingly applied here in the calculation of the amount of those portions of the compensation payable to transferred officers which were referable to the cost of living bonus in the same way as if those portions of that compensation were an annual allowance, or a gratuity payable to a civil servant receiving a superannuation allowance from the British Government. The application of the Treasury Minute involved
(a) that so much of the compensation awarded as consisted of an allowance computed on the cost of living bonus should be calculated originally and revised quarterly with reference to the current cost of living figure.
(b) that the said portion of such compensation should not at any time exceed, in the case of any particular officer, the amount at which it would be calculated if it were computed by reference to the cost of living index figure on which the cost of living bonus paid to such officer immediately before his discharge or retirement was calculated (this limitation was referred to as the overriding maximum), and
(c) that so much (if any) of the compensation payable to a transferred officer as consisted of a gratuity or lump sum payment should, in so far as it was computed by reference to the cost of living bonus, be computed only on 75 per cent. of the appropriate cost of living bonus.
Proceedings were instituted in our courts by two of the transferred officers to whom awards of compensation had been made in accordance with recommendations of the Wylie Committee and in strict compliance with the principles laid down in the Treasury Minute. It was contended in these proceedings that those principles were not applicable to civil servants who were transferred to the Provisional Government and to the Government of the Irish Free State. The House is familiar with the history of the Wigg-Cochrane action. The case came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee advised that the Treasury Minute could not—to use the words of the Report—"affect the rights of officers who at its date had been transferred to the Government of the Irish Free State." In fact, the civil servants concerned had not been transferred until after the date of the Treasury Minute so that it was manifest from the Report itself that the Judicial Committee had based its advice upon a fundamental mistake with regard to the historical facts underlying the issues involved. When the advice of the Judicial Committee was delivered (on the 3rd day of May, 1927) the British Government agreed with us that the interpretation put on Article 10 of the Treaty by the Judicial Committee was contrary to the undoubted intentions of the framers of that Article and that that interpretation, if carried into effect, would in the results defeat those intentions.
In a statement which I made to the House on this matter on the 22nd of February, 1928, I pointed out that it was clear that "some of the opinions expressed by the Judicial Committee in the case referred to would, if given effect to, result in more favourable treatment under Article 10 of the Treaty being accorded to transferred officers in the matter of bonus than they would have received had they remained in the British Civil Service or than transferred officers who elect to remain in the Civil Service of the Saorstát would receive on ultimate retirement in the normal course under the Superannuation Acts." I added— what was then and is now a matter on which the two Governments were in the fullest accord—that "such a result was not what was intended by Article 10 of the Treaty." I then outlined proposals for legislation to confirm the awards already made on the recommendations of the Wylie Committee and to make these awards binding in law. These proposals included one for the setting up of a Tribunal somewhat on the lines of the Wylie Committee whose duty it would be to hear and determine all pending and future claims for compensation under Article 10. This statutory tribunal in assessing compensation would be required to adhere in the treatment of bonus to the basis applicable to officers in the British Civil Service immediately prior to the transfer of the officers to the service of the Provisional Government. In a statement in the House of Commons on 23rd February, 1928, the British Government accepted the view that it would not be equitable that the transferred civil servants should receive more favourable treatment in the matters in question than if they had remained in the British Civil Service, and intimated that the British Government were prepared to concur and cooperate in giving effect to the proposals which I had outlined in the Dáil.
Following a debate in the British parliament on 25th April, 1928, the British Government thought it advisable, for reasons with which we are not concerned, that the question at issue should be referred back in some general form to the Judicial Committee under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833. We did not oppose this proposal. The Judicial Committee was not being approached by way of a "petition for a re-hearing" of the Wigg-Cochrane case, but by special reference to it at the instance of the British Government of a general question upon which the British Government alone now sought for its own purposes the advice of that body. Furthermore, as I have already stated, the British Government and the Government of the Saorstát were in complete agreement as to the intention of the framers of Article 10 of the Treaty, and we had therefore no interest whatever in the result of the reference. Though in no sense parties to the reference, we agreed, in response to the urgent request of the British Government, that counsel on behalf of the Attorney-General should appear before the Privy Council with a view merely to ensuring that every relevant fact and legal argument should be put forward. The Report of the Judicial Committee was delivered on the 13th day of November, 1928. It is unnecessary for me to comment upon the opinions expressed in that Report. Our position and our rights as party to the Treaty were in no way affected by the Report. The view which had previously been expressed by the British Government and by ourselves— namely, that the intention of Article 10 of the Treaty was that the civil servants in question should receive treatment as favourable, but not more favourable, than if they had continued in the service of the British Government, remained and still remains entirely unaffected by that Report. We have always been unalterably determined that the taxpayers of this country should not be forced to bear a heavier burden than that imposed by Article 10 of the Treaty as interpreted in accordance with the intention of the framers of and the parties to that Treaty. For some time past informal negotiations have been proceeding between the Attorney-General and counsel on behalf of the Transferred Officers' Protection Association in an endeavour to arrive at an adjustment of the claims of the different interested parties. The matter has also been discussed between the British and the Government of the Saorstát, and I am now in a position to announce that an agreement satisfactory to all parties concerned has been reached. By that agreement a distinction is made between those civil servants who have been discharged or who have given or may give notice of retirement before the 1st day of March, 1929, and those who may be discharged or give notice of retirement after that date.
In respect of the former class it has been agreed that their compensation should be payable without reference to the Treasury Minute of March, 1922, so far as that Minute relates to the overriding maximum and the calculation of lump sum payments on the basis of 75 per cent. of the cost of living bonus. The British Government have agreed to recoup the Government here the difference between the amount of compensation payable to those officers on that basis and the amount which would be payable if compensation had been calculated in accordance in all respects with the Treasury Minute referred to, so that no additional burden will fall on the taxpayers of the Saorstát. In regard to those officers who may give notice of retirement or are discharged on or after the 1st of March next, it has been agreed that the provisions of that Minute shall apply to the assessment of their compensation. This agreement has been reached as a result and in consideration of the accepted undertakings of the Government to define with greater clarity and more precision the position of the transferred civil servants. Legislation will be introduced by us at the earliest possible date to give effect to the agreements arrived at, and for that purpose also the British Government have undertaken to introduce the necessary concurrent legislation on their side.
The Bill will extend the time for notice for retirement under Article 10 until the 5th December of the present year. It will also make clear the position as regards the compensation of an officer who is able to establish a claim that he has been detrimentally affected by alterations in his duties or conditions of employment; and of a promoted official whose promotion would have been attained in the normal course at the time it was granted had the British remained here. These provisions do not on balance involve us in any additional liability.
Provision will also be made for the setting up of a Statutory Board under the plan indicated in my statement to the Dáil on the 22nd February last.
The Board will consist of an equal number of representatives of the transferred officers and of the Minister for Finance, presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court or the Circuit Court. All questions of fact and law including the right to compensation in individual cases arising upon claims under Article 10 of the Treaty will be determined by the Board and their decision will be final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to or review by any tribunal whatsoever. The setting up of the Board will provide an inexpensive and readily accessible tribunal by which claims for compensation can be expeditiously determined. Subject to what I have already said, all decisions in the matter of compensation taken on the recommendation of the Wylie Committee will be confirmed and made binding in law. Subject to the insertion of the provisions I have indicated, the Bill will substantially embody the proposals outlined in my statement to the Dáil on the 22nd day of February, 1928.
Throughout the negotiations which have now eventuated in the settlement of a difficult question the Government has had in view two main objects, namely, to honour to the fullest extent the obligations undertaken by Article 10 of the Treaty and to secure contentment amongst those transferred officers who desired to continue in the service of the State. Both those objects have, I think, now been attained. The arrangement secures to the taxpayers of this country what was contended for by us all through these discussions, namely, that they should not have to shoulder a burden which it was never intended by the authors of Article 10 of the Treaty that they should bear. The passing into law of the proposals for legislation will remove from the minds of those officers who intend to continue in the service of the State any unfounded fears of treatment while remaining in the service which they might consider unfair, and so ensure an attitude of confidence which is so essential a requirement for efficient and loyal service. The proposals to be made in the Bill have been accepted by all the interests affected by the measure and the Government hopes that in the circumstances the proposals will be acceptable to all parties in the House. It is anticipated as a further beneficial consequence of the settlement that few retirements from the service will take place.
I presume we will have an opportunity of discussing this whole matter when the Bill that the Minister for Finance has referred to is introduced. I do not, therefore, suppose that there will be any good done by discussing the matter now. Could we know, first of all, in or about the date when this Bill that the Minister has referred to will be ready for introduction?
Very shortly, but I could not tell to within a few days.
Inside a couple of weeks?
Probably.
I am sure it will be satisfactory to all civil servants to know that their rights are safeguarded.
The statement very definitely made now by the Minister for Finance, that in safeguarding these rights no additional expense will be put upon the Irish taxpayer, is, of course, satisfactory. I wonder what is the quid pro quo that has been given to the British Government? What understanding has been arrived at or what guarantee has been given? Am I to take it that the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this matter has been accepted? Is that the position?
Repudiated—definitely repudiated.
It was definitely repudiated, but I would like to know, definitely and clearly, if we are now to understand from the statement made by the Minister that the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that the Minister for Finance has repudiated more than once, in this House and elsewhere, is now to be accepted by him—if it is accepted by him as an overriding authority over the legislative authority of this House? Will the Minister tell us just now whether there will be any additional expense for the taxpayers in the Irish Free State in respect of civil servants who will retire, or may retire, after the 1st March? He has guaranteed that there will be no additional expense in relation to the payments to be made by pension, compensation or otherwise to the civil servants who have already retired. I did not catch all that the Minister read out in his statement, and I would like him to repeat that part of it in which I understood him to say that there will be no additional expense to the Irish taxpayers arising out of any retirements of civil servants after the 1st March next, or after the later date to which an extension is to be granted. I would also like to know if there is any truth in the statement frequently made in the Press that the agreement arrived at in this matter has relation to the question of the coinage—the change in the coinage that recently took place in the Saorstát. The Minister did not refer to it, but the Press have been frequently referring to it, and it would be satisfactory to everyone to know whether there was any relation between the agreement arrived at in the Wigg and Cochrane case and the satisfactory agreement we were told was arrived at in regard to the change in the coinage.
In reply to the supplementary question of the Deputy——
I did not put it as a supplementary question. The Minister may call it so if he likes.
It follows the rule of the ordinary question and answer.
With reference to whether the Privy Council decision has been accepted or not, if the Deputy will read the answer over carefully when he sees it in print he will better understand the position. So far as I am concerned, what I have said all along was that we would pay no more in consequence of any decision of the Privy Council in this matter, and we are not paying any more. With regard to further retirements, I am satisfied that the arrangement with the serving transferred officers, taken as a whole, will save us money, because I think the effect of the negotiations which have been going on for a long time, and the result of them, have undoubtedly been that notices have not been sent in which would be sent in, and most probably notices of retirement will be withdrawn. The discussion of this question of Article 10 was never at any time connected up in any way with the question of the coinage.
What about the Privy Council—have you accepted their judgment?
I will ask the Deputy to make that out himself.
I understand the point is this—that the clear repudiation of the authority of the Privy Council to interpret a section of the Treaty otherwise than as interpreted by the Executive Council has been effectively upheld by the Executive Council.
I would like to remind the Minister of the statement he made in an interview with the "Irish Times," published on 15th November, 1928. He said, referring to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council:—"It has nothing to do with us"—that is, the Executive Council of the Free State—"When the original decision was given we made our position perfectly clear. We said it was an entirely inequitable decision, a decision which we could not accept and which we have no intention of accepting. Really, we are not interested." That statement was made, I take it, by the Minister, having in mind the fact that the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State had given a contrary decision. Now he is throwing over the decision of the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State by accepting the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I think that the Deputy will find that all that is in the portion of the interview which he has read out can be found in slightly different words in the answer I have now read. In regard to the main question of the Privy Council, that was dealt with by the late Kevin O'Higgins here at great length, and was a subject of discussion at the last Imperial Conference. It will be a subject of discussion again, and the attitude of the Government has not altered from what it was when Mr. O'Higgins spoke.
The Minister has given an assurance to the House that in these negotiations he stood by his own slogan, "Not one farthing more." Will he give an assurance now that the Irish taxpayer, as a result of this arrangement, will not be involved in any further payment?
I could give that assurance.
The statement of the Minister was that a decision of the Privy Council interpreting a clause of the Treaty was of no interest or importance to this House. That, I take it, is a statement which is now upheld.
I have said the same thing about that particular decision as I have said now.
When will this legislation be introduced?
Very soon. I could not give the exact date.
Will any payment be made to these civil servants by the Exchequer before the Bill is introduced?
I could not say.
I think the House should know.
The House will know as soon as I know myself. I have not considered the matter.
Will the Bill be drafted here or in London?