As to this amendment——
Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill, 1933—Committee (Resumed).
Consideration resumed of the following amendment:—
To delete sub-section (1) (a) (v).— (Deputy Norton.)
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
The following amendment stood on the Paper:—
To delete sub-section (1) (b).— (Deputy Norton.)
As the amendment has not been moved, it cannot be discussed.
Can it be introduced on the Report Stage?
If it is not moved now, presumably it can.
Amendments 34 and 35 not moved.
The following amendments stood on the Order Paper:—
36. In sub-section (3), line 52, after the words "District Court" to add the words "nor to any transferred officer as defined by the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act 1929."
44. Before sub-section (2) to insert the following sub-section:—
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act no deduction shall be made from the salary of any person in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann:—
(a) who was appointed with a special agreement as to the amount of his remuneration and who for the purpose of accepting such appointment gave up the practice of any profession or occupation in which he was actively engaged at the time of accepting such appointment, or
(b) who was appointed subsequent to the 6th December, 1922, with a special agreement as to his remuneration and who for the purpose of accepting such appointment gave up an appointment in the service of any other country, or
(c) who had the option of remaining in the British Civil Service and who voluntarily agreed to be transferred to the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann and was so transferred on the 6th December, 1922, or
(d) who was appointed to any post, office or situation in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann with a special agreement or understanding as to the amount of his remuneration.— (Deputy Costello.)
I wonder would the Deputy postpone amendment 36 until we reach amendment 44, as amendment 36 seems to be almost identical with paragraph (c) of amendment 44.
I think the two things are really different in scope.
If the Deputy desires, he may have a decision on amendment 36, but if amendment 36 were defeated paragraph (c) of amendment 44 could scarcely be moved.
I shall move amendment 36 now and, if it meets with your approval, sir, I can deal with paragraph (c) of amendment 44.
There is a close connection between them.
There is a certain connection between them.
Very well.
The object of amendment 36 is to secure that those people who were transferred to the Government of the Irish Free State after the Treaty and when this State was set up should be exempted from the provisions of this Bill. The object of that exemption is to secure, in the first place, a certain measure of justice for those people; in the second place, to secure the efficiency of the Civil Service; and, in the third place, to secure a certain measure of economy. The people who are dealt with in this amendment are not those people who claimed their rights under Article X of the Treaty at a time when the bonus figure was rather inflated, and when they were in a position to get very good terms at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. The people who are covered by the amendment are those who preferred to take their chance with an Irish Government and with the Irish people, and who gave their services to the Irish people. They were anxious to remain on, they remained on, and are not the class of people who were anxious to take a very favourable opportunity of getting a good pension and a good lump sum. They formed the nucleus of the Civil Service at a time when a very efficient Civil Service was badly needed in this country. It will be remembered that in 1922 conditions were, to say the least of them, somewhat chaotic. New institutions had to be built up, and entirely novel machinery had to be established in this country. The credit for the smooth working of that machinery to-day is due very largely to the people who came over to the service of this State from the British Civil Service in 1922. Anybody who has had any contact with them will know that in every way they gave very loyal and very efficient service to the State.
I should like to point out that we are not now in any way parochial. Whatever our relations with Great Britain may be at the present moment, I suppose at some time or another we will have normal relations with them, and we will always have some sort of normal relations with the other international entities in the family of nations. We will have economical, political and international discussions with them. That class of discussion requires that there should be at the service of the State the best brains possible, if we are to get the best out of our negotiations with any of those countries. The best brains are to a large extent available amongst the men who are covered by this amendment. They have proved that in their negotiations with the most highly-trained and efficient civil servants of the British Government in the last ten years. I will say that the credit of many a good financial negotiation and settlement between this country and Great Britain is largely due to the efficiency, integrity and loyalty of the civil servants in those discussions. Many of them came over here on the express invitation of the Irish Government in 1922. They were required for the very technical branches of the Civil Service. Their experience was absolutely vitally necessary for this State at that time. They came over on the distinct understanding and representation, which I believe can be found on the files of Government Departments, that they would get fair treatment, and that the contract that was made with them at that time would be firmly kept. This Bill breaks that contract and, to that extent, imposes upon them a considerable injustice. It is all the greater injustice when it is remembered that their colleagues in the British Civil Service have suffered no such cut as is contemplated in this Bill. Although the project was moved some years ago in England, the Commission that was set up to inquire into public economies in the service in England definitely reported that it would be unfair and unjust to impose any cut on civil servants; that they gained no advantage from the boom periods, and that it was not either just or equitable that in bad times they should suffer more than any other section of the community.
I spoke the other night on the question of the bonus for civil servants. I drew the attention of the House to the fact that it was not until after the war was over that any proper attempt was made to bring the salaries of the civil servants in any way into relation with the actual cost of living. A very tardy measure of justice was meted out to them somewhere in the year 1920, and from that until the present time a steady drop has been going on in their bonus. Even taking the bonus and their salary, they have no real relation to the pre-war purchasing power of their remuneration. I do suggest to the Minister that those people are deserving of some special consideration in the exceptional circumstances. As I pointed out the other night, they are, as far as I know, the only class of public officials whose remuneration has been related to the cost of living, and whose remuneration rose and fell according as the cost of living rose and fell. They suffered automatically when there was a drop, or an alleged drop, in the cost of living. Of course, it has always been the case—and I think the present Government purported to recognise that it was a good case— that the bonus really did not adequately relate their salaries to the pre-war purchasing power of their basic salaries, or to the existing cost of living.
I do appeal to the Minister that those particular men, who are prepared to give loyal service to this State, and who do not want to take the terms that are secured to them by the Act of 1929 but wish to remain in the Civil Service of this State, should get certain exceptional treatment under this Bill. I again repeat what I repeated the other night, that this part of the Bill, so far as it affects transferred officers, will in all probability effect no economy whatever. The Minister claims that he will save £57,000 from the cut in civil servants' salaries, but it is quite clear that even if only 40 or 50 of these transferred officers accepted their rights under the Act of 1929 the amount of compensation that will have to be paid to them by way of a lump sum will more than wipe out the £57,000 saving which is proposed to be effected by these provisions. In addition, annual pensions will have to be paid to them and somebody will have to be secured to take their place.
I do not intend to spend much time on this amendment, except to point out that the House has just decided without a division——
In the absence of the persons responsible for the amendment.
The Deputy was in his place and could have called for a division. The House has decided without a division to make this measure apply comprehensively to the general body of civil servants.
What was the arrangement with the Labour Party?
If I were to adopt the manners of the Opposition Front Bench I should tell the Deputy to shut up.
Was that what the Minister told Deputy Norton?
Order!
The House has just decided to include within the scope of this measure the general body of civil servants, and I cannot see that any case can be made for conferring a special benefit upon one section within that general body—a benefit, right and privilege that has not been extended to them by any existing legislation. Beyond making the transferred officer amenable to the same sacrifice as every other class of public servant is called upon to suffer under this Bill, this measure does not deprive him or does not operate to deprive him of any right he may have under existing legislation.
If the transferred officer feels aggrieved he can go to the Compensation Board set up under the 1929 Act and he can argue his case there. I do not see that any case can be made for anything over and above that benefit which he has now as distinct from any right which may be enjoyed by any other public servant. I do not see that any good case can be made in equity and I submit that Deputy Costello has not even tried to make it. He is putting his plea for this particular class on the basis of expediency. He said that they constituted the best brains in the service and that if there were to be any negotiations with Great Britain which would lead to a settlement of the present economic dispute, these are the people upon whom we should have to rely. In point of fact that is not so. The men who would probably immediately advise the Government in regard to the details of any financial settlement, or any settlement of any sort, with any other country at the present moment are not in the main transferred officers. Some of them are men who were never in the British service. Some of them were certainly not in the British Civil Service at the time of the Treaty, but on the contrary had been driven out of the British Civil Service previously. Some of them are men, who, because of the rapid promotion which they enjoyed subsequent to the Treaty could not possibly be covered by Article X. Therefore, even on the grounds of expediency, so far as the transferred officers are concerned, there is not any good reason why they should be treated any differently to the rest of the Civil Service.
It is not permissible either in the present conditions of the country to argue that if any of these men were in Great Britain now they would be enjoying higher salaries than they are here. There are some officers who came over, and for whom Deputy Costello has not spoken yet, subsequent to the passage of the Treaty, who are not transferred officers within the strict interpretation of that term, who could possibly say that, but our answer to them—as our answer must be to every other person who tries to equate salaries and conditions of service here to those enjoyed in comparable posts in Great Britain —is that the conditions of the general mass of the people here are not what they are in Great Britain and that we, a comparatively poor agricultural community, cannot afford to pay our public servants at the higher rates which are paid in Great Britain.
I do not know that Deputy Costello founded his argument on expediency, but what I am going to argue is not founded on expediency at all. I want to found myself on principle or at least such recognition of principle as we can ever get from the present Government. The whole question of these transferred officers came up on a debate on an amendment moved by the late Deputy Finlay to the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill on 19th May last as reported in the Official Debates, Volume 41, column 2087. At a certain point in the course of the debate I aroused the annoyance of the President and I am sorry he is not here to-day to find out just what is his new position in relation to the position he took up on that day. On that occasion the argument had been made by the President and his legal adviser, the Attorney-General, to the effect that civil servants' rights were not being interefered with by reason of anything done in relation to the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill. We were told further that whether there appeared to be any interference with the rights or not by reason of the Articles of, Agreement for a Treaty being taken out of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill, 1922, that did not matter because there was a recognition of the principle involved and of the equity of abiding by the principle. When that interesting remark was made, having a little better capacity to forecast what the President and these people were likely to do once they got the Oath out of the Constitution and the Treaty broken to a certain extent, I said:—
"We are told we have a foundation on which to build an interpretation. If you remove the foundation the interpretation stands. I do not care whether that is so or not, but I may say that is not what civil servants want. The civil servants want security. They want the Treaty security."
The President then said:—
"They have got it."
I then remarked:—
"Not on the President's interpretation of the Treaty; certainly not upon any interpretation of the Treaty given to it by the President. No civil servant would take office relying upon the interpretation the President would put upon anything. No civil servant would take office relying on a guarantee which would be subscribed to by that man's autograph. No civil servant would accept as secure anything on the oath of a man who would be prepared to swear that a certain phrase was a mere empty formula. We are told that the civil servants have got to accede to something founded on the Treaty. What will be the position after the Treaty is removed? We are told that the interpretation gives the civil servants all the security they want. I am quite content that that will not please them. I am quite sure that that is not what the civil servants will agree to, and in the circumstances we are going to press this amendment."
We had the illuminating response from the President at that moment:—
"Is it suggested that there is not good faith"?
We can see now whether there was good faith or not. We then had a long speech from the Attorney-General, who proved quite clearly to his own mind as a lawyer that the new position of the civil servants was stronger than anything we had under the Treaty.
We had further this remark from Deputy Norton who was then quite reckless of what happened civil servants as long as he got the Oath removed from the Constitution:
"Deputy Finlay of course knows perfectly well, if he would only admit it, that the rights of transferred officers as set out in the Transferred Officers (Compensation) Act, 1929, are safeguarded in a much more definite fashion by this legislation than they are safeguarded under the ordinary meaning or even by the legal meaning of Article X of the Treaty."
Then Deputy Norton, to show his folly in relying on the President's promise, went on:—
"We have had a definite assurance from the President that this is not an attempt to get behind the 1929 Act and I think the civil servants of the country who want to continue to serve this State would very much prefer to have their rights recognised and guarded by an Act of this Legislature as it now stands than in the contentious way set out in the Treaty."
Deputy Norton pinned his faith on what the President had said. He went on:—
"We got a definite declaration that the rights are safeguarded. There is no attempt whatever to interfere with whatever basis the 1929 Act has in relation to Article X of the Treaty."
When the President came to conclude the debate he said, as reported in column 2107.
"I may say in preface to what I am going to say that I think it is quite unnecessary for me to say that they are legally safeguarded, but over and above that legal safeguard, that international safeguard, if there is any particular value in my saying it as President, I say that there is no intention whatever to interfere with the rights of civil servants in this legislation, none whatever. They are amply safeguarded."
Deputy Finlay interrupted with a question and the answer given was:—
"The position with regard to it is this: Article X, in so far as it gave them any rights, has gone. This is a document, an agreement, which is completely setting aside Article X, because it gives effect to the intention that is actually in the Bill itself—‘For the final determination in accordance with their will'—that is a final document, a new Treaty if you like. It is an international document safeguarding their rights, and their rights are not dependent upon Article X. This is the document on which their rights depend."
At this point there was an interruption by Deputy Cosgrave, who asked:
"Might I ask the President one question? Is it open to the Legislature at any time to repeal, alter, or amend that Act as it stands?"
that was a definite question—
"Is it open to the Legislature at any time to repeal, alter or amend that Act as it stands?"
and the President gave a specific answer. He said:
"It is not, because it embodied an international document. There was an international agreement."
Let us discuss this matter on the ground of principle and not on the ground of the President's answer to that question.
On the 19th May, 1932, President de Valera was asked was it open to the Legislature at any time to repeal, alter or amend that Act as it stands? There was no quibbling there, no saying that they were only amending it in a small particular, as regards salaries. There was no quibbling to the effect that they were giving rights and only taking away some, and no unnecessary talk about the condition of the country or one class of servants as against another, and no argument based on expediency. The direct answer was given that it is not possible to amend, repeal or alter that Act because it is embodied in an international agreement. There was an international agreement. It is not quoted in the Official Reports, but if my memory serves me right that remark was greeted with scornful laughter. That Transferred Officers' Agreement could not be repealed, altered or amended because it was embodied in an international document.
The President is now in Rome performing certain holy exercises and the Minister for Finance is left behind to perform the unholy exercises.
That is not very good taste.
We had the clear cut declaration that it is not possible to amend, alter or repeal the Act with regard to the transferred civil servants. Notwithstanding that declaration, that is what is now being done although we had the specific assurance that it was not possible and for the reasons stated that there was an international agreement. The Minister for Finance bases his argument entirely on expediency. He does not hesitate to say, or to imply that the Act is being amended or altered, but he says it is only being done in one particular, that it is a mere matter of pay.
Will the Deputy quote where I said that?
I heard the Minister. If the Minister likes to change what he said I shall wait to hear the new gloss he wishes to put upon it.
The Minister did not say it.
He made the same case. He said that it was an outrageous thing for any body of civil servants to claim a peculiar position that they did not get. But that is what they did get under the 1929 Act and under the Treaty. He is changing these rights. He is altering the Treaty rights and the Act of this Legislature which was supposed to have established these rights upon a firmer foundation than the Treaty, and for the reason we see to correct the finding of this Legislature. Behind these Acts, in case the findings of this Assembly should lapse we had an international agreement itself. Now the international agreement has been broken, and the Minister has taken care that the breach will not be shown up too openly, because we have had, on a section previously debated, the statement from the Minister for Education, who was then acting for the Minister for Finance, that there would be no assurance given that that particular section would not be used as a defence before the Compensation Tribunal, if any civil servant went there to establish his right to the old rights which he might claim.
We saw, running through the speech of the Minister for Education, that there was going to be considerable use made of this section to defeat the civil servants. I do not blame the Minister for Education because he was left here without much information; but he read from a brief before him, presumably that of the Minister for Finance, and he gave, presumably, what were intended to be the arguments and position of the Government and it was clear enough. These civil servants were not going to be allowed to remain in a privileged position and the mere fact that they had rights guaranteed to them by this Legislature and by an international Tribunal, is not going to matter. Expediency comes to the Minister's aid. The country, he says, cannot afford it. But the country can afford to break this agreement, and the country may find, to its cost, that it would have been better to keep the agreement, even one of this restricted type as well as of the general type, for the breach of which we are now suffering so severely.
On an earlier section on which this matter was discussed there was one phrase in the speech of the Minister for Education which was pretty clear. There was an implication running through the whole of his speech that this amendment was intended to defeat the rights of the transferred officers. Here is an amendment put down to protect the officers, and to leave them in their old position, leaving it open to the Minister if he can by negotiation to secure from these people the recognition of the present deplorable condition of the country so that they ought to bear their share of the suffering inflicted upon the country. It is still open to the Minister to get them to do that, and to secure for himself the money so badly needed. But if this amendment being specific and to the point, as to the transferred officers, is rejected there cannot then be any doubt that the Government do intend to break this agreement. I should like to hear the Minister address himself to the point, leaving out expediency, as to whether or not there is a definite breach by the Government, that notwithstanding any agreement, or any legislation of this House or any previous agreement as between this country and Great Britain these people are to be defeated in their rights, I do not care in what numbers, how large or how small, and whether there is going to be a breach of this agreement and of the international agreement.
I should like to say that it is not the first time that Deputy McGilligan has been the victim of his own fluency. He has spoken at considerable length upon a subject of which he knows nothing. In my speech I made it quite clear that there was no interference with the rights of the transferred officers. I do not know whether Deputy McGilligan knows of what the exact right of a transferred officer is. It is merely this, that if at any time a transferred officer feels that his conditions of employment have been altered to his detriment he can go to the Compensation Board established under the 1929 Act. That is the only right he has and that right still exists to him. The Government, under the 1929 settlement, was at liberty to alter or vary in any way they liked the position of any transferred officer in the service. The only thing they could not do was to prevent him from going to the Article X Board. There is nothing in this to prevent any transferred officer, who feels that he has a grievance, from exercising the only special right and privilege that he has as compared with any other officer in the Civil Service, and that is to go to the Compensation Board and have the matter adjudicated upon and determined.
The Minister says that the only right they have is to go to a Compensation Tribunal, but they had the right to go to that tribunal under the conditions which existed, and they could not be met by anybody appearing on behalf of the Ministry with the comment: "The Oireachtas has decreed otherwise since."
There is nothing of that nature in this Bill.
The section reads: "The making under this Act of a deduction from salaries paid under a contract of service shall not operate to terminate such contract." Can the civil servant claim for the future that, because of his emoluments having been reduced below the point agreed to originally, his contract has been terminated? Is this the effect? Can he go to the Compensation Board with that established? He can not. He is prevented from doing so by this Act. If what the Minister says is correct, why did not the Ministry accept either the amendment that was put down to Section 5, which would have left the transferred officers in their old position, or accept the amendment that is being discussed, which is to the effect that this shall not apply to any transferred officer as defined by the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929?
What is the purport of that amendment?
To prevent this measure from operating.
To exempt transferred officers from "cuts"?
Yes, certainly; because these officers were brought over here on a particular salary basis and they had a right to get retirement and added years' pension if these salaries were changed to their detriment. That right is taken away from them now.
They still have that right.
They still have the right to go before the Tribunal, but with the Tribunal now prejudiced against them because it must take cognisance of this Act, when it becomes an Act, and of this phrase: "The making of a deduction from salary shall not operate to terminate such contract." Surely, they may go to the Tribunal with an empty right, but what chance have they of succeeding with Section 5, as it stands, in the measure?
I should say they have every chance.
The Minister's colleague refused the other day to give an assurance to the House that Article V would not be used as a defence by the Minister when any transferred officer would go before the Tribunal Board. Why would the Minister's colleague not give that assurance? I say that it was because they had to take either of two positions—either because the Government had determined to use it as a defence if the transferred officers went before the Compensation Tribunal, or that they had not yet made up their minds to use it as a defence but wanted to leave the position clear that they could use it as a defence if they so desired. What other reason, except these two, is there? If it makes no difference, why should they not foreswear such a defence? The Minister says that Section 5 has no application. Why could we not have got the assurance that it would not have been mentioned to the Compensation Tribunal? Despite repeated questioning, the Minister for Education first of all refused to give the assurance and, by implication at least, his refusal meant that it was going to be used as a defence, and the Minister himself knows that it is going to be so used. Civil servants can go now to the Compensation Tribunal, we are told. It is on a par with the empty formula—with the autograph book! The attitude of the Government is: "We will preserve our honest faces to the world. Our old reputation is unsullied, such as it is. These officers can go to the Compensation Tribunal, but we will see that they will get no compensation. We have effectively prevented that in this measure."
On this question of transferred officers and their rights under this section, I think there is a section of transferred officers that should have their position defined and their rights, if they have any, defined. It is a section of officers—I do not know, technically, whether they are transferred or not—but they are those who were dismissed prior to the Treaty for their national activities. Some of them were reinstated subsequently and some were not. It might not be quite 100 per cent. correct to say that those who were given new employment were reinstated.
I doubt if the official view is that they were reinstated on exactly the full terms and conditions that they would be serving under had they never been disturbed. Have these officers, who were so reinstated—I use that word for the want of a better one—the same rights as transferred officers to go before a Compensation Tribunal, as explained here by the Minister, if they feel aggrieved under this section? Further, have those who never took up any employment any rights preserved after this Bill, or does the Minister take any cognisance of their case? My two points are, first, that I should like the Minister to say if those officers who have taken new employment since the Treaty have the same rights as transferred officers in the fullest sense; and, secondly, have those who did not take up new employment any of their rights as old civil servants preserved?
I do not think that arises under this.
So then, if an officer did not serve his country he has rights, and if he did serve his country he has no rights?
That is what Deputy McGilligan is trying to preserve.
The Minister will not answer. He says it does not arise, but if they did not serve their country it would arise.
The matter which the Deputy raised is not relevant.
I am only trying to get an answer from the Minister.
The Deputy cannot complain if he does not get a reply as the question was not relevant. The amendment deals with transferred officers as specifically defined under a certain Act.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 59.
Tá
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margarct Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Amendment declared lost.