asked the Minister for Finance if he will state if the recommendations of the recent arbitration board in respect of Civil Service salaries have been received by the Government, and, if so, if he will inform the Dáil of the terms of the recommendations; and, further, whether the Government intend to give effect to them.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Civil Service Arbitration Recommendations.
asked the Minister for Finance if he has received a recommendation from the Civil Service Arbitration Board on the salaries of civil servants; and, if so, if he will state the terms of the recommendation and what action the Government propose taking in the matter.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state on what date the Government received the report of the Civil Service Arbitration Board on the recent application for an increase in pay by Civil Service organisations; when it is proposed to publish the report; and if he will indicate when any increases recommended in the report will be paid.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 20, 21 and 22 together.
The report of the Civil Service Arbitration Board dealing with the subject matter referred to in the questions was received on the 18th November, 1952. Under the terms of the agreement concluded with the Civil Service staff associations, the Government is required to present to Dáil Éireann a report from the chairman of the board within three months of its receipt, or, if at the expiration of the three months the Dáil is not sitting, then on the first day of the next sitting. No report is to be published before submission to Dáil Éireann.
Prolonged investigation and consideration will be necessary before the Government is in a position to take a decision in this matter. The report cannot be submitted to Dáil Éireann until that decision has been taken.
Is the Minister aware that, in consequence of the increased cost of living, increases are being granted to workers in both private and municipal employment? Is he further aware of the fact that those employed in the State service had every reason to expect that they would receive an increase as a consequence of the hearing by the arbitration board of their claim and that that increase would be paid before Christmas? Does the Minister now suggest that he proposes to hold up this report until the Dáil resumes in February next and that no increase will be granted in the meantime notwithstanding the substantial increase that has taken place in the cost of living?
There is no justification whatever for the implications contained in the Deputy's supplementary question. The terms governing the conciliation and arbitration scheme are set out in black and white and the Government is not obliged to submit the report to Dáil Éireann until three months have elapsed after its receipt by the Government. The position is so serious that I think the Government is entitled to have time to consider the implications of any action which may be taken in consequence of the report and I do not propose, therefore, to add anything to the reply I have already given.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that the Tánaiste, who is now acting as Taoiseach, made a statement at a public meeting in Dublin on 12th May, 1951? Is he aware that that statement was published in the Press on 13th May, 1951, and that the Tánaiste stated:—
"It has been suggested also that Fianna Fáil would terminate the arbitration systems which had been set up for civil servants. He did not know if those systems had worked to the satisfaction of public officials. They seemed to have delayed rather than facilitated the adjustment of salary rates. But if the Civil Service organisations were satisfied with them they were quite prepared to allow them to operate unchanged, and would give effect to any wage or salary increase resulting from them."
Does the Minister not propose now to implement the promise made by the Tánaiste together with his own promise made to the staff associations when he saw them in March of this year?
No Minister could possibly deal, by way of question and answer, with all the misrepresentations contained in Deputy Norton's second supplementary question.
Is it the intention of the Minister for Finance to wait for the passage of the full three months before making a report to the House in this matter?
I have not indicated that.
Is not three months the maximum and not the minimum period?
Surely the Government, in the interests of the general body of the taxpayers, about whom Deputies on the other side profess to be so concerned, is entitled to take full advantage of any provision or any feature of this scheme.
The Minister must be aware that many thousands of people are vitally interested in the Government's decision in this matter. May I ask the Minister if he will give his decision before the Christmas Recess?
I have nothing to add to the answers I have already given to the various supplementary questions that have been put to me. This matter requires full and careful consideration in the interests not merely of some thousands of people but of all the taxpayers and of their families. It is in that light that the report of the arbitrator will be viewed.
Is it the Minister's intention to wait for the passage of the full three months before putting the report before the House?
It is my intention to ask the Government to consider this report carefully. I cannot say when, as a result of that consideration, they will be able to submit their decision to the House.
Has the Minister already asked the Government to consider the matter or is he still waiting to put the report before them?
Question No. 23.
In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I will communicate with the Deputy.