Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 28 May 1953

Vol. 139 No. 2

Civil Service Arbitration—Motion. Resumed.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Éireann approves of the action which, as indicated by the Minister for Finance in his financial statement on 6th May, 1953, the Government propose to take in relation to the report of the Civil Service Arbitration Board presented to Dáil Éireann on the 18th February, 1953, namely, to give effect to the finding of the board subject to the modification that the increases shall operate with effect from 1st April, 1953. —(Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee).)

Mr. Kyne

The amendments put down in the names of Deputy Norton and myself were put there with the express intention of giving this House an opportunity of voting in a positive way for a definite amendment. On your ruling, Sir, these amendments could not be taken. We had hoped to be able so to frame amendments that they would come within the scope of what we had intended but we found that, notwithstanding all the willing assistance which we got, there was no option but to show our disagreement with this motion by taking the line of voting against it.

Deputy Peadar Cowan, speaking here yesterday, took Deputy Norton and Deputies from Fine Gael who had put down amendments, to task because of the fact that they had so failed. He indicated that because of what he called the newspaper propaganda he was led to believe that an amendment would be so framed as to give the award in full and still come within the approval of the Chair. It was due to the fact that he believed we could do it that, with his usual modesty, he took a back seat until he found that it was too late to put in the amendment he had in mind himself.

Let Deputy Peadar Cowan and every other Deputy in this House realise clearly that the present motion before the House is a request from the Government for permission from this Dáil to alter an award made by the board which considered the Civil Service case.It is a request by the Minister for Finance for agreement, and to give him permission, to reduce that award by deducting payments for 21 weeks from the award given. There would be no need for this motion had the Government decided to accept the award in full but because they intend to reduce that award by 21 payments, we are here discussing this motion. I suggest to Deputy Peadar Cowan and to any other Deputy who, like him, is asking what happens if this is refused, that he has a clear indication as to what he should do. He must vote against this motion unless he wants to be lined up with the request that the motion should be carried.

I find it difficult to believe that Deputy Cowan was unable to receive from the interested associations and bodies concerned with this arbitration, any little bit of advice which would indicate to him how he should vote on this motion.

I have with me here a letter from Deputy Cowan dated 28th March, 1953, addressed to an official of one of the organisations concerned with this award. This is his letter:—

"I am in receipt of your letter of the 18th inst. As you are probably aware, I have already spoken in the Dáil strongly recommending that the award be implemented in full.

(Signed) Peader Cowan, T.D."

Funnily enough, on yesterday we found Deputy Cowan stating that he was going to vote for this motion and against the award being paid in full. Deputy Cowan gave as his reason the fact that he expected our amendment, that we had not been able to suit the Chair in that amendment and that because with his usual modesty he waited until he had seen it, he had hesitated to put down an amendment himself until it was too late. I suggest that that reason of Deputy Cowan would be better termed not a reason, but an excuse for voting with the Government. The Government can always, if the House so decides, implement this award in full and if this motion be defeated the Government have the opportunity of saying: "Well, the majority decides here. We do not have to go to the country. We will acceptthe decision of the Deputies of this House. We will give to the Civil Service the full award and we will have, as a consequence, to impose whatever taxation is necessary. Be it on your own heads." It is quite a reasonable, quite a simple thing for the Government so to decide.

They have the other alternative if they wish. If they are beaten, they can say: "We will go to the country. We will let the people decide." That is a matter for themselves but one thing is certain. There are two other Parties concerned. Deputy Norton, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, indicated that, not only were we giving lip service to the honouring of the Civil Service award, but that should he, as representative of the Labour Party, be in any future Government, he would make it part of his policy to see that the lip service he was giving now would then become the positive policy of that Government and that the award, even belatedly, would then be paid in full. Deputy McGilligan, I understand, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party gave a similar promise. I think it is only reasonable that we should propose to vote against this motion because of the fact that it does not give the award in full and that we should also promise that should we, at any future time, form a Government, we would convert into positive action our promises of to-day.

I think it is the duty of Deputies to give fair consideration and a fair decision on the question now before us as to whether or not the award should be given in full. In giving that consideration, they might remember—and I suggest they should—that the Civil Service and the various people who come under that heading, have not the same rights as the ordinary organised worker outside these categories. If you are a member of my union or any union affiliated to the T.U.C. or the C.I.U., and go before the Labour Court or some other form of arbitration seeking an award and find that your employers, having agreed to go before that court, refuse to implement the award, you have a weapon to bring to bear on them. Workers outside have the greatest of all weapons, the rightto deny their services until the employer is convinced, through necessity, that it is in his own interest to pay their lawful dues. That right to strike in an industrial dispute, call it what you like, is, in the national interest, denied to or taken from civil servants. Because of the fact that they have relinquished that right, I think we have an added burden on us, as Deputies, to give fair and reasonable consideration to their claims. We are placed here to-day in the position of saying to the Minister whether or not we think that he, acting in the name of the Government, is about to give a fair decision. We are appointed in the name of the people of the country and that burden is imposed upon us to come to a fair decision.

I should like to give the reasons that influence me in coming to the decision I have come to. No. 1 is the fact that arbitration was agreed to by both sides. There were two parties to it, the Minister on behalf of the Government, and the organisation officials on behalf of the civil servants. That was a bargain freely entered into and it naturally implied, once arbitration was decided upon and the board was appointed, that the award would be honoured. I think that fair play and honour demand that the result of the arbitration, once agreed upon, should be accepted. This very principle, as Deputy Norton proved yesterday, was accepted by the Minister with one reservation only—that only in exceptional circumstances would it happen that the award would not be implemented in full and that even then he would pay as much as he could and in the following year pay whatever back money, as it is known in trade union terms, was due.

I agree with Deputy Norton that if the Minister is taking advantage of that clause, it is his duty to show the exceptional circumstances that exist to justify the decision he proposes to take. I think it is his duty to convince the Dáil. From what I have heard of his reasons, his only explanation is that they had not budgeted for the extra money which payment of the award in full would entail and that it would need certain extra taxation which the Government did not proposeto include in the Budget. Deputy Norton and Deputy McGilligan disposed of that argument pretty quickly when they pointed out that there was £2,500,000 in the kitty and that a carry over of considerably less than that amount would suffice in normal circumstances.

I might point out at this stage that the "back money" issue was of the Government's own creation. The Government received the arbitration award on the 18th November. Had the award been implemented immediately the question of back money would have covered only a little over two weeks, since the recommendation dated only from 1st November and the back money involved would have been a very trivial sum at that stage. The payment of the award from the 18th November would, while amounting in the ultimate to the same figure, have been spread over the period in equivalent weekly, fortnightly or monthly increases and these increases could have been carried without any exceptional expenditure on the part of the Government.

I regret the decision of the Government to get out of implementing the award in full because I feel that action will have a bad effect on the country as a whole. Up to this employers have accepted the decisions of the Labour Court because of their desire to hold the goodwill of their employees; they will now have the excuse: "Why should we not try to get out of this; look at what the Government did in the case of the civil servants?" We in the trade unions may have difficulties with our own members because of this decision. Trade union officials take their positions in a reasonable and responsible way and they endeavour to ensure that the Labour Court awards are accepted, because we feel that, having gone before a court which has been established and recognised by us, we are more or less in honour bound to accept its decisions. We may in future find ourselves faced with the position that our members may prove unreasonable and try to kick against an award and the employers in that case will be able tosay: "Why should we not hold it up? Did not the Government do that when it suited them? Why should we give retrospective pay?" Both parties to the Labour Court agreed not to be bound legally by its decisions but to accept them in a spirit of honour and fair play and that spirit was gradually growing throughout the country. I think this refusal to implement an arbitration award made by a fairly constituted arbitration board will do great harm. This refusal on the part of the Government will knock the bottom out of the existing goodwill between the employer and the employee generally. Furthermore, I suggest it will cause distrust and suspicion in the minds of those who work for the Government. I am tired telling employers that a discontented worker is a bad worker and the Government may find, as employers elsewhere have found, that they will lose more than they will gain if they force this decision.

Civil servants, are, after all, human beings. The question has been asked as to whether the Labour Party can afford to support a move to give more money to highly paid civil servants, to the people in the soft jobs? While this award may cover some highly paid civil servants, it also covers thousands upon thousands of ordinary working men and women—auxillary postmen, permanent postmen throughout the country, linesmen and telephone operators, clerks—and it will eventually bring within its scope the Army, the police force, and the employees of local authorities. The county managers will find it necessary to secure sanction to-morrow for increases to their staffs equivalent to the increases granted by the Government to its employees. Why should it be necessary, therefore, for me to offer any apology as a Labour Deputy for claiming that postmen in Waterford, the men working on the telephone lines, the girls behind the post office counters and all the other Government employees in lowly paid occupations should be given the same rights and the same pay, particularly in relation to back money, as the employees in other Government and semi-Government occupations such as the E.S.B.,C.I.E., Aer Lingus and so forth. I do not suggest that the employees in C.I.E., the E.S.B., Aer Lingus, or in any other Government or semi-Government job have received too much. I do suggest, however, that in all fairness the Government employees in Waterford City and County are as much entitled to retrospective payment as are any workers anywhere else in the country. The wives and dependents of these workers, who have gone into debt in anticipation of the Government honouring this award, are entitled to demand of me as a representative of Waterford constituency that I must in honour support the implementation of the whole award. This House is not called upon to decide whether higher paid civil servants or lower paid civil servants are entitled to the award. Once the award is made by the arbitration board we are bound to accept it. I presume that body went into all the facts and figures to discover how much, if anything, should be given and how far back it should go. It is not our function to say that we do not think the award is right. It is not our function to say that we think it is wrong. All we are required to do is to implement the award. The Government motion proposes to cut the award by 21 weeks. The Government accepted arbitration. It is not for the Government now to refuse to implement the award of that arbitration merely because they do not like it. The present attitude rather suggests a policy of: "Heads I win, tails you lose" with the civil servants losing all the time.

Arbitration was agreed upon and freely entered into by both sides. Because the present attitude of the Government sets a bad example to employers generally and to the nation as a whole, because workers are being deprived of their rights and because honour and fair play demand that we should accept a contract into which we freely entered, I propose to vote against the motion in its present form.

Mr. D. Costello

I have very little to add to what has been said by the Opposition speakers on this motion. It seems to me that there is a very simpleprinciple of justice involved in this matter and that the Government's attitude is a flagrant breach of their duties to the civil servants after the award made by the arbitration board last November. There was an attempt in the House yesterday to misrepresent the attitude of the Fine Gael Party on this motion and I think it is necessary, in view of what was said yesterday, to reassert the reason why the Fine Gael Party is voting against this motion.

We are voting against this motion because it does not implement the award of the arbitration board. We believe that that award should be implemented in full. Attempts were made to put down amendments to this motion in order to ensure that the Dáil would give expression to its opinion that the award should be implemented in full. Those amendments were ruled out of order. The only way, therefore, we can demonstrate to the country our opposition to the Government's attitude in this matter is by our votes in voting against this motion. I want to make it quite clear that we are not voting, as was suggested yesterday, against the increase in the salaries which the Government are now proposing to bring in. We are voting against the Government's attitude in not implementing in full the Civil Service arbitration award.

As I have said, we believe there is a simple principle of justice involved. An arbitration board agreed to both by the Government and the staff side of the Civil Service was set up. That board met in November of last year and heard the very strong arguments put up by the officials on behalf of the Government against the case put up by the staff side of the Civil Service. After considering the various arguments put up by both sides, the board made an award which was substantially less than was asked for by the staff side of the Civil Service.

I think it should be recorded that it was as early as July of last year that the demand for increased salaries and allowances was made by the Civil Service. In August of last year the general council failed to get agreementand the matter was then referred to arbitration which was held in November of last year. At the hearing of that arbitration board the staff side asked for retrospective payment to July, 1952, on the basis that the cost of living had increased by approximately 20 per cent. from the date of the previous award in July of the preceding year. The arbitration board considered that argument and considered the arguments put up against the retrospective payment to July of last year and decided against it. Instead, they advocated an increase in pay dating from the 1st November or, in other words, a couple of days before the actual hearing before the arbitration board.

That recommendation was not a retrospective recommendation. The findings of the board were, in fact, before the Government on the 18th November of last year and, in spite of the claim by the staff side for payment from the 1st of July of last year, the proposed increases advocated by the award only dated from the 1st November of last year. In those circumstances, I cannot see how the Government could fail to grant to the civil servants, if they were going to give the increase, the increase from the date as recommended by the arbitration board. Instead of this, the Government utilised to the full the powers given to it in the agreement for conciliation and arbitration between the official side and the staff side and managed to stall any decision for the three months laid down in the conciliation agreement.

The Government then in presenting its Budget states it is going to give the proposed increases but only from the 1st April. It seems to me that it is a matter of simple justice. If the Government decides that the cost of living had increased; if the Government decides that increased allowances and salaries should be given to State servants; if the Government decides that the increase should be given on the terms suggested by the arbitration board who had heard all the arguments for and against the increase, I thinkthe Government should also have given the award from the 1st November.

As I said at the outset, we are voting against this motion in order to demonstrate our conviction that the State servants are being badly treated by the Government and should get the award from the date recommended by the arbitration board. I regard the Government, as has been suggested here already, as giving a very bad example to other employers in the State. I think its attitude is typified in many ways by the scandalous way in which they are treating the retired State pensioners. It seems to me that the sum of £62,000, which is the sum that the Minister stated it would cost the Exchequer to increase the State pensioners' pensions, is a negligible sum in view of the huge Budget that the country has to face this year.

I think the refusal of the Government to increase the pensions is but another example of the niggardly manner in which they are approaching their duty as employers. It seems to me to be quite demonstrable that it would be unnecessary to increase taxation in order to give the increased awards payable from the 1st November. As has been said in the Dáil, we are not giving increased awards to a vast majority of highly paid persons in easy circumstances. We would be legislating here for the vast majority of poorly paid decent hardworking people who, by the deliberate action of the Government in increasing living costs, now find in many cases life almost unbearable. We would be giving this increase to persons deserving of the increase. We would be giving it to people who are trying to keep up a decent standard of living, hardworking people who have given in many cases many years of good service to this State. I think that their claim should be honoured. Their case in my opinion as I said at the outset is one based on the simple principle of justice which the Government has flouted by refusing to give the full arbitration award.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

In speaking on this question of the arbitration award, I do not intend to go back over the whole history of this claimbecause it has been very fully dealt with, all the aspects of the matter having already been discussed. But I would like to make it quite clear— I hope I will be able to do so in very few words—what exactly my views are, and how I feel personally in regard to this award and its proposed modification.

I take the view that the Government have been forced to greatly increase taxation and to increase the cost of living all round. Naturally, as a result of that there has been a greatly increased demand for wages. When the Government were taking this action in which I supported them—I believe that the taxation which they have increased since they came into office was absolutely necessary and I do not believe that any subsequent Government which may follow them will find it possible to reduce that taxation—I understood that it was clearly accepted that workers and employers should negotiate an increase in wages to correspond with the increase in the cost of living. Shortly after the cost of living increased, these negotiations commenced and we had them carried on throughout the country. In private enterprise and in State-sponsored concerns, similar negotiations followed as a result of which wages and salaries were increased along the lines on which the award came. I took the view that at no time was it ever accepted that there was intended to be anything in the nature of a limitation or a freeze on the wages or salaries of any particular section of the community.

The question of arbitration for the Civil Service has been accepted by the present Government, but in my view the Government must, naturally, be the final arbiter in so far as matters vitally affecting Government policy are concerned. I do not agree with the delegation of Government responsibility in a lot of matters, as has been suggested by many members of the House. I think that civil servants are in a very different position from other members of the community because they have not the same capacity to fight for wage and salary increases which those other members of the community have. I believe, in thosecircumstances, that they are fully entitled to arbitration.

When this matter went to arbitration, we must bear in mind that the Government case, the case of the Department of Finance, was very ably made. It was made about as well as it could possibly have been made. The facts, as far as the Government were concerned with their responsibility to the community and the taxpayer, were clearly stated by the Department of Finance on behalf of the Government, so that we must accept it that when the arbitration took place the result of it bore in mind the difficulties which beset the Government in dealing with this question of civil servants' pay increase.

The Government is the biggest employer in this country. I think this is a matter of principle, and that it is very wrong that the Government, once they agree that a claim of this nature should go to arbitration, should not honour the full amount. I think it is a very bad example for the rest of the community. I do not see how we can expect private enterprise, State-sponsored concerns or anybody else to honour arbitration if the State itself is not prepared to honour arbitration. In other countries, where for example, devaluation in the currency takes place, it is accepted that the Government customarily adjusts payments in salaries to meet those circumstances.

I, of course, think that the Government had a perfect right to postpone a decision on this. I do not see why they should not have postponed a decision on the matter until the Budget, but I find it very hard to understand the protracted delay there was about this matter. It seems to me it should have been possible, some time ago, to decide to what extent this claim should be dealt with. At any rate, if the Government wish to leave the matter over they have a perfect right to do it, and they have done so. But, quite frankly, looking into the financial position as I can judge it at the moment, I do not see why the back money in this award should not be honoured, even if the Government honestly believed that it could not be met this year. Surely it should bepossible to give some undertaking that it will be met in the future.

I may say that, in a matter of principle like this, I as an Independent Deputy would prefer to vote for an increase in taxation in order to honour the award rather than modify it I would prefer to vote for, say, an increase in the price of petrol or an increase in the price of cigarettes even if we have to face it, rather than, once having agreed to negotiate an increase in salaries as a result of the cost of living which followed action that we had taken here—I would, as I say, prefer to increase taxes rather than not to pay this portion of the award. I want to make it clear that my attitude on this is not by any means a censure of the entire policy of the Government, but I do personally believe that the back money in this award should be met or that an undertaking should be given that it would be met in the future. I, personally, feel as an Independent Deputy that I cannot support the motion not to pay that back money.

Mr. Hickey

It is rather a pity that we should be engaged discussing this matter which is undoubtedly a very important matter from every aspect. I speak on this as one who has had a good deal of experience in cases that went to arbitration. We have often been accused by industrialists in many parts of the country that we would not accept arbitration on many vital matters which were pending as a result of long disputes. On a few occasions we did agree to arbitration. The arbitration resulted in a most unsatisfactory way for those whom I represented at the time. Despite, however, the unsatisfactory result of the arbitration, so far as we were concerned, we loyally accepted the findings of the arbitration even though we were dead against them.

I think it is a serious matter for the Government—I do not mind what Government is in power—that that is the practice it is now sought to introduce as far as the Civil Service is concerned. I would like to remind the House that there is a vital principleinvolved here, apart from the question of arbitration. There is the question of the justice of the claims of those who are looking for an increase in their salaries and wages. Of 5,405 part-time civil servants, there are 4,675 receiving under £4 per week; there are 150 receiving between £4 and £6 per week, and 580 receiving over £6 per week. Of the 26,747 whole-time civil servants, 2,500 have under £4 a week; 8,500 have between £4 and £6 a week; 7,600 have between £6 and £8 a week and 2,800 have between £8 and £10 a week. I have often had to represent workers and I have experience of this matter. The arbitration board awarded civil servants on £4 a week an increase of 8/9 per week. I am speaking now quite impersonally about the whole matter. Imagine an increase of 8/9 a week to a man who is earning £4 a week at the present time, with the present purchasing value of £4. Imagine also an increase of 11/- a week to a man earning £6 a week at present. When we are speaking on this matter it is well to bear in mind that, within the past 13 months, an agreement was reached between the employers of this country and the trade unions that a minimum increase of 12/6 a week should be given to all workers in view of the rise in the cost of living.

I do not want to repeat many of the arguments which have been advanced by other speakers in favour of payment of the award from the 1st November last and for that reason I suggest that the Government should end this matter by observing their obligations to the civil servants who are just as much entitled to justice as the industrial workers. A sum of £900,000 back pay in respect of the period from 1st November last to 31st March last which was awarded by an impartial tribunal, is the cause of all this debate and, in fairness, the Government should abide by the award of the arbitration tribunal and honour it in full. The House has heard the figures which I have quoted. In view of the fact that there are so many lowly-paid civil servants who are finding it increasingly difficult to exist on their present salaries, the Minister should pay the back money in respect of the period in question.

Mr. Cogan

Recently, among the farming community, there has been a good deal of criticism of the Government in relation to their giving this award to the civil servants. In the journal of Macra na Feirme, the young farmers' organisation, there is a very sharp criticism of the Government for abandoning, as the article alleges, the stand which the Government had taken in regard to the payment of this arbitration award. I think that the writer of that article seems to be under a misapprehension. The Government did not take the stand that the award would not be met but they postponed coming to a decision until the Budget.

The motion before the House proposes that this award shall be granted as and from the beginning of the financial year. I think that, in so adjusting the salaries of officials, the Government are endeavouring to meet the situation arising from the increased cost of living. There has been a good deal of condemnation of the Government by members of the Opposition in regard to the increased cost of living. Apparently those people who charge the Government with an increase of 20 per cent., 21 per cent. or 22 per cent. in the cost of living ignore the fact that the cost of living increased by 11 per cent. before the change of Government and that, since the change of Government, there has been an increase of approximately the same amount, that is, 11 per cent. Nevertheless, it is an increase and it must be taken into account. While many people who are not dependent on State salaries or incomes and who have to pay rates and taxes may resent this concession, I think it is justifiable. The people who are voting against this motion are, apparently, trying to face both ways. They are trying to prevent civil servants from getting this overdue increase and at the same time they are probably trying to pose as standing for it.

Mr. Hickey

Do not accuse me of that.

Mr. Cogan

I would not put Deputy Hickey into that category of persons. That kind of trickery is only operated by some of the slicker leadingmembers of the main Opposition Party. For example, Deputy McGilligan suggested that the defeat of this motion would imply the payment of the full award to civil servants. I do not think that that suggestion could be sustained. This motion must be passed in order to give the civil servants the award which the Government propose to give them. Therefore, I see no reason to vote against the motion.

I heartily approve of the manner in which Deputy Kyne, for example, met this question. He said that he was prepared to vote for increased taxation in order to provide the necessary funds for the payment of the back money. Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll also adopted the same fair and honourable attitude. It should be accepted by all fair-minded members of this House— although it is not accepted by the main Opposition Party — that the Government cannot increase expenditure without increasing taxation. A question which arises in this connection is whether or not it would be of any great benefit to civil servants generally to pay the award as from the 1st November last and at the same time to increase taxation. After all, it is inevitable that the burden of that increased taxation would fall upon the people who would be receiving the additional money. I think that the view taken by the Government that taxation has reached its limit and ought not, under any circumstances, be increased is correct. Inside the limits of the existing revenue, I think it is the duty of the Government, as far as possible, to meet the just demand of employees and I think that that is what is being done under this particular motion.

Much mention has been made during the course of this debate to part-time civil servants. Their position is difficult and, to a great extent, unenviable. Last week we heard a former Minister express his anxiety to get back into office in order to dismiss a number of those part-time civil servants. That expression of vindictiveness on the part of the ex-Minister concerned is an indication to this House of the jeopardy in which those part-time civil servants stand and of the insecurity of their position. Now that thisincrease in salary is being given as awarded by the arbitration board, I hope an effort will be made to give further security to a larger number of civil servants, to put them into an established position so that they can feel secure and feel that they will not be hurled out of office because someone has allowed a song to be recited on Radio Éireann in regard to the battle of Baltinglass or a matter of that kind.

It is time we ought to respect the employees of this State and treat them with due regard. I do not agree personally with the general principle of arbitration as between the Government and civil servants. Other machinery should be established for the adjustment of salaries and wages of State employees. The Government's position in regard to their employees should be that of an arbitration board as between the taxpayer and the employees of the State, and no other body should intervene. In the event of a fluctuation in the value of money or if there were increases or decreases in the cost of living, there should be an automatic adjustment of wages and salaries up or down according as the cost of living fluctuates. I do not think it is right for any Government to delegate to a completely outside and independent body a function so important as this, which involves a very large amount of public expenditure and implies the imposition of a very considerable amount of taxation.

I hope something of that nature will be done in the future and that the precedents which were set up by another Government, of delegating every awkward question to some outside body, will not be followed in the future; that instead, we will have a regular and ordered system of dealing not only with public finances but with employment in the State service and with the management and administration of the country generally. If salaries are fixed for State employees on their appointment and if the value of money alters in the course of that employment, there ought to be machinery by which that salary is automatically adjusted in accordance with the rise or fall in the value of money.

Mr. Rooney

I consider that the speech from Deputy Cogan was completely dishonest in relation to the facts. He mentioned that this motion proposes to give the terms of the award and date it from the 31st March and that if it were defeated to-day in the Dáil the civil servants would not be paid the award, because this motion was defeated. Deputy Cogan went further to say that the Fine Gael Party would not honour the award—in spite of the fact that a clear statement was made by Deputy McGilligan that, in the event of the defeat of the Government on this issue and in the event of a change of Government, the civil servants would be given justice in this matter. That is a clear statement on record. Then we have Deputy Cogan coming in here trying to twist the position so far as the Opposition Parties are concerned.

It was well known when the Budget of 1952 was introduced that it was going to create difficulties for all sections of the community. At that time an effort was made to depress the wages of the workers by asking them not to seek increases, but it was natural that when the cost of living did rise we had the Tánaiste some time later saying that in the ordinary way these people by negotiation would balance the position by seeking increases in pay. The civil servants are also people who must depend on their earnings from one month to another and they are entitled to compensation in relation to the rise in the cost of living. We heard Deputy Cogan trying to weaken the claim by saying the cost of living had gone up only by about 11 per cent. in the last two years.

We know very well that, apart from the steep rise in the cost of living since the Budget of 1952, the purchasing power of the £ has dropped approximately 1/6 during that time. If we multiply that by £4 or £5 a week, we can add that loss on to the steep rise in the cost of living. Deputy Cogan offered the argument that the taxation limit has been reached and that has been made clear by the Government and their attitude in relation to it is clear. But I remember that, since the date on which the Taoiseach mentionedthat the taxation limit was reached, several increases in taxation have taken place. Wireless licences were increased by 7/6 within a week of his statement.

Mr. MacEntee

No one is bound to buy a wireless licence unless he wants to listen to the improved programmes.

Mr. Rooney

It is an increased charge. The price of sugar was increased during the last week.

A Deputy

Tell the House how you would pay the award without increasing taxation.

Mr. Rooney

The money is already there to pay and it was made clear in the course of the Budget debate that it was there.

Mr. O'Donnell

We can decrease those warlike stores.

Mr. MacEntee

Hand the country over to your friends?

Mr. O'Donnell

Who are our friends? Mr. Butler and company were your friends last year.

Mr. Rooney

The Government has been trying for long enough to panic the people with these war cries and this year they are to spend £1,500,000 on Army equipment, which will be out of date within 12 or 18 months from the date it is delivered here. I do not believe it will be delivered here during the next 12 months. I do not believe it can be delivered here; so that money will be there then to pay the arbitration award.

We must remember that the claim for this increase was established. By putting their case before the arbitrator, the civil servants left themselves open either to win or lose. It cannot be said they won their case very well but they succeeded in getting an award. Whether this motion is defeated here or not to-day, I believe we will probably have a change of Government and in that event we will be in a position to pay the award in full. There is no point in Deputy Cogan or anyone else saying that if this motion is defeated it means we are voting against an increase for civil servants. It means that we are votingagainst the principle of giving them only half of what they are entitled to and that we are voting for the principle of giving them their full rights.

Mr. Blowick

Just before the Minister speaks, I would like to make a few remarks. Much has been said about the merits and demerits of this motion. We must take into account two categories, those who will have to meet such an award and those who receive it. Since the last Budget there has been a good deal of talk on the Government side, particularly by the Minister for Finance, about the grandiose schemes he has in mind. At one moment he says he must cut down expenditure, that he must save, and he holds himself up as being the protector of the taxpayer. At the same time, he has his two hands down to his elbows in the taxpayers' pockets. The taxpayer is getting to know all this and to realise that the Minister's hands are in his pockets. It is all very well to talk about throwing these huge sums of money around, but we must take into account that there are in this country quite a vast number of people who have to foot every bill and who have no means of increasing their own incomes. Self-employed people form the vast majority of the people of the country—small farmers, small shopkeepers, tradesmen, hackney car men both in the city and down the country, men making a living with their lorries or tractors, men with small public-houses. There are 101 others I could mention who have been virtually put out of business. The Minister told us yesterday that this award was the equivalent of a tax of 3d. per lb. on sugar. In view of the peculiar statements which the Minister has accustomed himself to making of late, one does not know whether to believe him, but we have to accept his statement as being truthful. If he tells us that this award means an additional taxation of 3d. on the lb. of sugar——

Mr. MacEntee

I did not say that. Do not misrepresent me. I said that if we wanted to raise £2,400,000, from a tax on sugar, it would represent an excise or customs duty of 3d. per lb. on sugar.

Mr. Blowick

What is the difference?

Mr. MacEntee

There is a slight difference.

Mr. Blowick

Tell us the difference.

Mr. MacEntee

Go ahead now.

Mr. Blowick

What is the difference?

Mr. MacEntee

One is a hypothetical proceeding and the Deputy is endeavouring to suggest that there is a tax of 3d. per lb. on sugar.

Mr. Blowick

If I used the words which conveyed that impression, it was unintentional. What I understood from the Minister was that if he wanted to raise the amount of this award from a tax on sugar, it would be the equivalent of 3d. per lb.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely.

Mr. Blowick

I wonder what the Minister intervened for, then, seeing that we are in agreement on the point, and seeing that I was not misquoting him.

Mr. MacEntee

The nuance was somewhat different.

Mr. Blowick

There are quite a number of people in this country who have no means of increasing their incomes and who have been virtually put out of business by the action of the Minister in increasing taxation. I think it was Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll who said that the high cost of living was due to increased taxation and that increased taxation was necessary and so on. I want to assure him that increased taxation was not necessary.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Indeed it was.

Mr. Blowick

It was not. The Minister for Finance has been challenged time and time again from this side to point out what are the debts that we left behind, or are supposed to have left behind, which made the high taxation necessary. He could not point to one. He does gabble occasionally about Marshall Aid which his own Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Taoiseach agreed to in Paris in August or September of 1947, five months before they went out of office.

Mr. MacEntee

That is not so.

Mr. Cafferky

"An act of unprecedented generosity".

Mr. Blowick

The Taoiseach described it as an act of unprecedented generosity and was quite prepared to be nice and polite to the Americans until he got this loan. At that time, there was no grant in the offing, but he does prattle about that as being one of the alleged debts we left behind. He does not mention, however, that, between grant and loan, we handed him over £24,000,000 of that money which was unspent at the time we left office. However, that has no bearing on this discussion and the Chair will rule me out, if I become so irrelevant. The taxation was not necessary.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

How are you going to pay for the Social Welfare Act, without increasing taxation?

Mr. O'Donnell

If you vote against it, it will not have to be paid for.

Mr. Blowick

The Chair is very likely to come down upon us if we attempt to discuss social welfare on this motion.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Maybe you would put a cattle tax on.

Mr. Blowick

We can discuss it another time, but let the Deputy not be so ingenuous as to believe all the blood and thunder tales the Minister for Finance will tell us. When he has been even half as long in the House as I have been, he will realise that the Minister is quite adept at leading people up the garden. Clann na Talmhan are opposing this motion, but I want to make it perfectly clear that we are opposing it for reasons which are the direct opposite of those put forward by other speakers on this side. I do not see the reason for the laughter and I will give way to the Minister if he will explain the reason for it. We are opposing this motion for reasons which are directly opposite to those put forward by Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Poblachta and Deputy ffrench-O'Carroll. I think the Minister laughed a little too soon.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Blowick

The laugh died very quickly. We are opposed to the Government spending these huge sums of money. I could mention a few of them —the amount the Minister for Agriculture spent some time ago on a racehorse and the amount which was proposed to be spent on new Houses of Parliament, a project which is apparently buried up in the Board of Works.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss these matters on the Civil Service Arbitration Award.

Mr. Blowick

I could quote a half a dozen, if the rules allowed me to do so. We are opposing this motion for that reason. Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Poblachta and other Deputies are opposing it, they say, because of the justice——

Brendán Mac Fheórais

What about the rural postmen? Are you against giving them an increase?

Mr. Blowick

I am stating the reasons why we are opposing the motion. Before any Government can find money to give to one man, they must take it from another and we must take into account the question of justice to both sides, and not merely to one side. I hope that is clear to Deputy Corish, who was long enough a Parliamentary Secretary to have got that into his head. That is the reason we are opposing it. If the Minister could bring in a motion which would improve the lot of the lower paid civil servants, we would feel like supporting it, but we are definitely opposed to the attitude of the present Government in making fat salaries fatter and we are voting against the motion for that reason. I hope that is clear. We must take into account the vast number of people who have no means of increasing their income. We must take these into account. I do not agree with the Minister having his hand in people's pockets so deep as that.

Mr. MacEntee

How deep would you like me to put it?

Mr. Blowick

The cost of living has increased for civil servants and all alike. It is a deliberate policy whichthe Minister has put forward. It is not his own policy but a policy he is getting from sources behind the scenes. I believe the Fianna Fáil Party at the present time have not enough brains to put forward a vigorous constructive policy of their own. Deputy Norton and Deputy Corish know that the Minister for Finance and his colleagues have followed the advice that was pumped into us or was tried to be pumped into us for three and a half years and rejected while we were the Government. They are putting it forward as their policy. The policy the people are getting at the present time is not a Fianna Fáil policy; it is a policy of people behind the scenes and they are dancing like puppets at the end of strings to the music of certain people whom the public do not know.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Was it not public arbitration?

Mr. Blowick

I am not talking about the arbitration board in this case. I am referring to other people who have nothing whatever to do with the arbitration. I am referring to Government policy in general.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I cannot defend that.

Mr. Blowick

I am not referring to the arbitration board. I do not want to be misunderstood. That is what we object to in this and we are opposing the motion for that reason. We are opposed to the Government spending such huge sums of money as this—that and no other reason. I want to make it clear that our opposition to it is for reasons diameterically opposite to the reasons that have been put up by other members on this side of the House.

Mr. McQuillan

The discussion has taken an extraordinary form. I have listened to speakers from all the Parties giving the views of their Parties in this House. While I believe that the Government should have given the award back to November, as recommended to them, I cannot understand the attitude of certain political Parties in this House. It has been stated here by all Parties that civil servants should be kept out of politics, thatpolitics should be kept away from the Civil Service. Straightway all the political Parties proceeded to dump the Civil Service into the political arena and tried to make political capital out of their difficulties.

There are parts of Deputy Blowick's statement with which I am in complete agreement. One part of his statement was in connection with the lower paid civil servants. I am all for justice with regard to that section of the civil servants. I have very little sympathy for the higher paid officials. I have taken this attitude before outside this House in a local authority. I have tried on several occasions to impress on the county manager and others the need for increasing the salaries of the lower paid employees.

The extraordinary thing about this motion is that the higher and lower civil servants are all lumped together and if we decide to object to the increase for the higher civil servants we automatically rule out the increase to those in the lower categories.

Deputy Kyne stated here that if a dispute is brought before the Labour Court and the Labour Court makes a recommendation that a certain increase in wages be given, if the employers are not agreeable to give that increase, the worker can avail of the strike weapon in order to obtain his rights. The Civil Service have no rights to strike action and, consequently, their claim should at all times receive very thorough, very careful and sympathetic examination from whatever Government is in power seeing that there is no alternative method by which the service can press their claim.

I do not propose to take refuge behind any technical rules of this House with regard to voting but I do suggest that the Civil Service will not gain very much if the Government is beaten on this issue to-day. We have had the opinions of the various members of the inter-Party Government here. First of all, we had Deputy McGilligan on behalf of Fine Gael who stated that he would make it a matter of principle before he would take part in any other Governmentthat the Civil Service award would be implemented in full and that the back pay would be given. I understood him to say that here yesterday. On the other hand, Deputy Blowick, who has a substantial Party in this House and can influence decisions with regard to the formation of a Government in no uncertain manner, stated here to-day that he is against giving this back pay to the Civil Service. In other words, the Clann na Talmhan Party is against giving increases to the Civil Service. That is a point of view and it was made clearly and in a straightforward manner by the Leader of the Party.

How are the members of the inter-Party group to reconcile their differences of opinion so that the Civil Service will have a clear indication as to where they stand in case of an election within the next month? I want to have that clear as an Independent. I am not affected as a civil servant but I would like the civil servants to know where they stand. If we have within the ranks of the Opposition at the moment anything but agreement on the propects of an increase in civil servants' salaries, how can anybody in this House decide what the future holds for them?

I am interested in what may be a legal aspect. A prominent member of the Opposition stated last night that he would not take part in any other Government unless this back pay, as it has been described, were given to the civil servants. Supposing the Government fell on this issue—there is none of us so innocent as to think that if they fell they would not go to the country; I believe they would—and the Opposition got back into power, the particular individual who made that statement last night would be faced with the position that he has given a promise which would mean that the lower civil servants would get approximately £10 to £12 back pay to November and that the higher civil servants would be entitled to approximately £25 to £30 back pay. I wonder how the electorate will accept that, if it is put before them in an election campaign: "If you return such-and-such a Deputy as Minister he will giveyou £30 back pay; you will get a present of £30 if such-and-such a Party are returned to office"? That is a form of political bribe. I would like that matter to be examined. If bribes are offered to the electorate, if they are offered a £30 bribe to give a vote to a certain individual or a certain Party, the Party concerned are in a very serious position. I have always understood that, according to electoral law, bribes are prohibited and that the candidate or Party that would be guilty of seeking votes by bribes would lose the deposit and could not be returned to the House. It sounded very much to me last night as though this was a form of bribe being offered to the civil servants: put us back and you will get £25 to £30.

Mr. Norton

You have not forgotten the dance-hall proprietors, Deputy?

Mr. McQuillan

I am not worrying about dance-hall proprietors. I am talking about the people going before the electorate. If there is a general election, that is an important point to remember. In case any Deputy on the Opposition or the Government side may think I am afraid of a general election I can tell him that I am not. But, if I have to face a general election, I want to do so on something that will be of the utmost importance to all sections of the community, whether they be farmers, labourers or civil servants. Let there be a fundamental issue where employment and work will be concerned.

It is an extraordinary thing that, with all the talk about back pay for civil servants, there has not been one word about an increase in the allowance for the unemployed, and their numbers are not decreasing. A lot of people in this House are living in cuckoo-land at the moment, trying to make political capital out of certain difficulties of sections of the community. If the Opposition are serious about pinning this Government to an issue, why do they not pin them on a fundamental issue such as unemployment and emigration? Then we will have something clear to go before the people, something on which we canask them whether they are for this type of policy or for that type of policy. The issues are not clear at all to the people if they are asked at the present time to decide whether or not civil servants should get back pay to November. That is something in which the people down the country, believe it or not, have very little interest.

Apart from all that, I think it is a serious thing for any Government which goes to the trouble of setting up an arbitration board, if a recommendation is made to them to pay a certain amount, that unless exceptional circumstances arise the recommendation should be honoured. I personally cannot see any great or grave reason why the Government could not honour the recommendation and give the award back to November. I should like to add my voice to the group that have already spoken asking, even at this late stage, that the Government should reconsider the decision and pay this back money. I do not, however, propose to vote against the motion for the reason that I have little confidence that the civil servants will get any better treatment at the hands of any other group.

It has been clearly pointed out to-day in the speech of Deputy Blowick that he and his Party have given serious consideration to this matter and that they believe that no increases should be given to civil servants at the present time and that he and his Party are totally opposed to giving the back money to the civil servants. That means that the unfortunate group who are seeking the back pay do not know where they stand now, because there is no united Opposition there to which they can turn and plead their case. I believe that, in the circumstances, it would be much wiser to press on the Government the desirability of accepting the award as suggested rather than putting this matter to a vote of the House and leaving the general public more mixed up than they are at the moment.

Mr. Cafferky

I wish to be associated with Deputy Blowick in the remarks he made with regard to this motion. We can claim that we have created astir inasmuch as we have made clear our view in regard to this matter. Coming from a rural constituency, I can say that the phrase "Civil Service" is given a completely different interpretation in the rural districts from what is given to it here. Very few people down the country appreciate or understand that a postman comes under that description or an ordinary soldier in the Army or a policeman.

Mr. MacEntee

A policeman or a soldier does not.

Mr. Cafferky

Deputy Corish and others may raise a question as to whether these men should be considered and how far their meagre allowance goes to meet the present cost of living. We have always sponsored in this House the claims and the rights of the rural postman who has to push his bicycle through country villages and boreens and who is earning his living hard. The policeman also is performing an important duty and the ordinary rank and file in the Army are discharging their duties. Our objection is to the "brass-hats," whether in the Army or the police force or the Post Office or any other Department of State because, when an award is made on a percentage basis, while the ordinary rank and file get only a few miserable shillings weekly of an increase others will draw up to £100 a year as a result of that award. Our objection is to that. It is for that reason that we could not in justice agree with the motion and that we are going to oppose it.

I listened carefully to Deputy Kyne making a very able contribution as a Labour representative and to Fine Gael speakers making their able contributions. But, as ordinary men, which I assume they are, I wonder why they cannot draw a distinction and make a case which would be more proper to the circumstances. The Minister and the Government should know that there is a hue and cry against increased expenditure; that there is a feeling abroad that people in certain positions are not entitled to any further increase. If you refer them tothe increased cost of living, they will tell you very quickly that the salaries which these officials enjoy are in excess of what they are entitled to and that that excess is quite sufficient to meet the increased cost of living for the past two years. There is a lot of sense in that.

A lot of people employed by the State have salaries which are beyond what the community can afford to pay. If the community could afford it, I would not begrudge £50,000 to any man, but we must cut our cloth according to measure and take into consideration the many thousands of people in this country who are ekeing out a bare existence on small economic holdings somewhere in Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, Kerry, Clare or elsewhere. When I, as a rural Deputy, take into consideration how hard it is for these people to exist, I could not justify supporting a motion which would mean increases for men who are living in comfortable circumstances. That is my objection to the whole thing.

Deputy McQuillan speaks about the differences that exist between Clann na Talmhan on the one hand and Fine Gael and Labour on the other hand. If Deputy McQuillan looks through the records of the House over the past ten or 11 years, since I had the honour of being a representative here, he will appreciate that although these three Parties have their differences in regard to policy, they were able to put aside certain differences and form a good Government for three years from 1948 to 1951; and Deputy McQuillan himself helped the formation of that Government. Notwithstanding the views I am expressing this evening and notwithstanding the difference between my views and those which will perhaps be expressed by Deputy Dillon or Deputy General MacEoin or any other Deputy on the Labour or Fine Gael Benches, I have no doubt if we had an election to-morrow morning, the Opposition, if they got the opportunity, would be able to form a Government and prepare a programme on which they could work. That is not beyond the wit of man nor is it beyond the wit of the main Opposition Parties here.

Mr. Cogan

How would you reducethe Civil Service and increase it at the same time?

Mr. Cafferky

I can assure Deputy Cogan that we will not seek his assistance in solving that problem.

Mr. MacEntee

Will you be here to seek it?

Mr. Cafferky

My whole purpose in standing up here is not to go into this matter deeply but to make it clear what our attitude is. I see the point of view of the Labour Deputies and I appreciate the difficulties of Deputies from cities like Cork and Dublin in relation to a motion of this kind, but it would be well that they would recognise this fact. Although our Party has, time and again, been labelled as being conservative and sectional, having one outlook and one interest, that is not so. My outlook is neither sectional nor conservative. I am prepared to consider the whole community of workers and the paying capacity of the community. I am prepared to mete justice out to them. It is because I think this motion on the Order Paper, for which the approval of this House is sought, is not going to do that, that I oppose it. I am opposing it not for the reasons expressed by some of the Deputies on this side of the House, but for the reasons expressed by the Leader of our Party, Deputy Blowick.

General MacEoin

I would like to appeal to the Government at this late stage to honour the bond that was entered into and to accept the award. The fact that an arbitration board was set up means goodwill on both sides to secure a reasonable decision upon a dispute. For a long time nearly every person in this House has advocated arbitration to settle disputes upon all types of matters. We will even go further and say that in the international field arbitration could settle some of the outstanding problems that are disturbing the world to-day.

When a Government agrees to the appointment of an arbitrator and the establishment of an arbitration board, as this commission was, it does, on its face, make people believe that the decision of the arbitrator would beaccepted. The Government were satisfied with the arbitrator. I want to stress the point that the State servants in this case are not only the people working in Government offices, but the Army, the Civic Guards, teachers, postmen, and so on, and this matter affects every single one of them.

The Government apparently in opposing any increase did not make the case that there was no increase in the cost of living or that the civil servants were not entitled to that increase. The only case they made was that owing to the financial stringency that then existed, the Government could not pay. The chief officer of the Department of Finance gave evidence that the finances of the State were at a low ebb, that revenue was not coming in or coming up to expectations. There was no case that they were not entitled to it; the case that was made was that the Government could not see their way to meet it. They made the case that they could not meet it in the year. You could understand that although I for one do not accept it because, as was very fully and properly pointed out by Deputy McGilligan, the former Minister for Finance, there were ample funds, and there are ample funds, available to meet this award from November. There is the carry-over of £2,800,000, from which the Government proposes to take £400,00—correctly, I say—for the purchase of warlike stores.

Mr. MacEntee

Not warlike stores, defensive equipment. We are not making war on anybody.

Mr. O'Higgins

Except on the people of Ireland.

General MacEoin

For a very long time the technical term used in the Department of Defence in connection with the purchase of equipment was "warlike stores"——

Mr. MacEntee

That was a misnomer.

General MacEoin

——and it is just as good a phrase as any because when you buy a rifle it is not to stir your tea with it. When the Minister makes an interjection like that it shows how flippant he is towards any suggestions made. I am trying tohelp everybody in this particular matter. I suggest that the Minister and the Government would have nothing to be ashamed of in reversing the decision taken and giving effect to the award. There is nothing wrong with the Government changing its mind as a result of argument. If argument is no use then we have failed as a deliberative assembly and it means that there is no point in arguing, because no matter what you say, if the Government have made up their minds nothing will change it.

Take the purchase of the Constellations that was proposed. There was £600,000 taken up out of the reserve that was left, and the Tánaiste said deliberately that it would not cost the taxpayer one penny because the money was there to buy these Constellations. Similarly to honour this arbitration award does not cost the taxpayer one penny to-day because out of this carry-over they could pay the £900,000 involved, if it is that much, and still have over £500,000 in reserve. The former Minister for Finance last night was quite positive that had we remained in office that would be the amount of the carry-over we would have, a sum of £500,000, and that that is enough.

I want to stress that I think the Government is not doing a good day's work when they dishonour and reject the arbitrator's award. They set up this arbitration and it was reasonable to believe when the arbitrator had come to a decision, the Government would give effect to it and that that would be the headline which the Government would set, not only to employers and to employees but to other countries—that where matters in dispute are referred to arbitration, the arbitrator's decision would be honoured and taken as final.

In the old Sinn Féin days one of the fundamental principles of Sinn Féin policy was that all disputes should be settled by arbitration. That principle has been given effect to, so far as the Civil Service is concerned, by setting up an arbitration board and to a certain extent also in the case of the Labour Court, only that in that caseit is not full arbitration but it is the nearest thing to it. When the arbitrator makes his report—and nobody can say that in this case he was favourable to one side more than to the other because it was a reasonable award—I cannot see why the Government would not accept it. I would appeal to them even at this late stage to reverse their decision and to give effect to it. By doing so they will show courage in handling the problem and in coming to the conclusion that, whatever the difficulties were that made them decide prior to this that they would not honour it, having heard the arguments for and against the award they would now decide to honour their bond. In that way they will be setting a good headline and will create a feeling of confidence that any system of arbitration set up in future will give the result that everybody expects from arbitration.

I do not wish to go into the failure of some cases of arbitration in the past under Government auspices. It is a significant fact that where land was acquired under Emergency Powers Orders and a dispute arose as to the compensation to be paid, when an arbitrator decided the price, that was final and binding on all sides. That being the case why should that principle not be allowed to continue to operate?

I want to say in conclusion that this Parliament in open forum can never be guilty of bribery, when members of it declare in public that if in the future they have responsibility they are prepared to take certain steps on the faith of a public declaration of policy which has been well accepted over the years. This Government came into office on a 17-point programme. The fact is that not only did they not honour them but that they ran away from some of them. Be all that as it may, I still appeal to the Government to reconsider the matter and to honour this award which affects many lowly-paid civil servants, the Army—I am specially interested in it from that point of view—and the Guards. I am also interested in it from their point of view. I believe the honouring of this award from November will give us a satisfied Civil Service, a satisfied Army, a satisfied police force and a satisfied body ofteachers. Is it not worth it? The money involved is of no account compared with the security of having a satisfied, energetic and able Civil Service, Army and police force doing the nation's work as we want them to do it.

Mr. MacEntee

Forcible feeding is, I gather, an unpleasant experience and I think it cannot be commended on humanitarian grounds. It seems to me that we should ask you, Sir, to convey to the Leader of the Clann na Talmhan Party our sincere sympathy for the maltreatment which he appears to have received at the hands of his colleagues. The reason I make the suggestion is that Deputy Blowick's statement in the House to-day in regard to this motion was in direct contradiction to the statement which he made here in this House so recently as the 7th May last, in regard to this question of the arbitration award. To-day Deputy Blowick told us that he was going to vote against the motion which the Government has put on the Order Paper on the grounds that he thought that nothing whatever should be paid to the Civil Service in present circumstances. That was not what Deputy Blowick said on the 7th May. I propose to quote from Volume 138, column 1394, in which the Deputy is reported as having stated in relation to this matter:—

"With regard to the Government's announcement of its intention to do something about the Civil Service award, my opinion is that the Government have done serious damage to the morale of the whole Civil Service by their action in this matter."

Then he went on, as reported later in the same column, to say:—

"The Civil Service claimed they had a grievance and the Government claimed they had not and the case went to the arbitration board, before which both sides fought their case through their representatives. Evidently the final award was not in keeping with the Government's wishes and the next thing the Government do is to say: ‘It does notmatter two hoots what the award is— to the devil with it. When it was not in our favour we are going to disregard it.'"

He went on later, as reported in column 1395, to remark:—

"They were left so long in the balance that a great number of them feel that they have been badly cheated and meanly treated by the Government."

Now, Sir, Deputy Blowick's quarrel with the Government is that it is not cheating the Civil Service sufficiently badly and not treating them sufficiently meanly. For that reason, the Deputy and his Party propose to vote against the motion. There is one thing at any rate that would appear in the light of these circumstances: even if the division on this motion should be followed by a general election, we shall not have a Coalition Government to succeed us because Deputy McGilligan, speaking on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, and Deputy Norton, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, pledged the honour of themselves and their Party, whatever that honour may be worth and whatever Deputy Blowick may do, that they would not help to constitute any Government which would merely give effect to this award but would not go further and make payment of the award operative as from the 1st November last. On the other hand, I understand from Deputy Blowick that he will not enter into any Government that does propose to give effect to the award. As I say, the country is now in the happy situation that the people can face the next general election with a certain amount of equanimity knowing there will not be a Coalition Government to oust a responsible Government from these benches and knowing that henceforth there will not be the same sort of collective irresponsibility in Government that characterised the administration of the Coalition.

Mr. Donnellan

That is what you wish.

Mr. MacEntee

It has been suggested we are not treating the public servants sufficiently generously. Inthat regard we have to bear in mind what it will cost the taxpayer to give effect to the proposed motion. Let me emphasise again that if it were not for the desire of the Government to concede in the fullest measure possible consistent with its responsibilities to the taxpayer the demand of the public servants to have their position in relation to the cost of living adjusted we should be able in this year to reduce the price of beer by one penny per pint, the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes by one penny and to take 6d. in the £ off income-tax. That is what giving effect to the Government's proposal in this instance means. Apparently that is not sufficient for the members of the Fine Gael Party, whether they represent a rural or an urban constituency, or for the members of the Labour Party, whether they represent certain Civil Service unions or whether they represent remote rural constituencies in, say, County Cork, because they want us to go further and, on top of this £2,400,000, they want us to give an additional £1,000,000 to the public servants. That is what they want us to do and they have gone so far in regard to this matter as to say in effect that nothing else in this country counts except the general satisfaction of the personnel of the public services.

In most independent States, in those communities where men wish to live as free men and to preserve the rights and liberties they have inherited or secured for themselves, the question of national defence is in the very forefront of public concern. It is the first thing to which nations which are worthy of the freedom they enjoy are prepared to devote the public resources. What have we heard in the course of this debate? We have heard the ex-Taoiseach, a gentleman who perhaps aspires to be once again head of a Government in this country, claim here that before there should be any question of buying a single gun, a single piece of defensive equipment or a single warlike store for the defence of this country the demands of the Civil Service should be met. I suggest that that raises a very big issue, as I havesaid. When one hears a statement like that coming from the Leader of the Opposition, a former Taoiseach, an aspiring head—not a prospective head —of another Government, one might well be filled with alarm as to the future of this country. One can now understand why it was that in the year 1949, in the very year when they were firing off salvos of guns down in the Customs House and purporting to declare this Republic a republic for the second time, they only spent £64,000 on the wherewithal to defend this Republic they were so loudly proclaiming; and that procedure was repeated in the year 1950. Now, it is not much of a republic that is only worth £64,000 a year, but that was the sort of attitude, that was the frame of mind and that was the spirit in which our predecessors approached their responsibilities in regard to national defence and that is the spirit apparently which animates them still in regard to national defence. Deputy MacEoin made the gibe: did I think rifles were bought to stir tea?

General MacEoin

What is the answer?

Mr. MacEntee

All I can say in answer to that gibe is that, when we took over, the rifles he left behind him were not fit to do anything else than stir tea. We have had to make good to the extent to which it was possible with our resources mortgaged up to the hilt by all the commitments the inter-Party Government left behind them the shortages in defensive equipment. We have tried to make good the deficiencies we found in our national defence. We have not been able to overtake the arrears.

General MacEoin

Are you referring to Springfield rifles?

Mr. MacBride

That is why your Government bought a racehorse, Tulyar.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy MacBride is being shown up.

Mr. MacBride

The Minister is showing himself up.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy MacBride isbeing shown up as a member of the Coalition Government which had no regard for the fundamental interests of the people as a whole.

Mr. MacBride

Do you agree we should not pay the Army?

Mr. Norton

On a point of order. Is the Minister speaking or is Barnum speaking? This is a theatrical show.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a remark that should not be made in Parliament.

Mr. MacEntee

I was saying that we have been trying since to make good the deficiencies we found in our national defence.

Mr. MacBride

By buying a racehorse.

Mr. MacEntee

It may be that out of our resources we cannot do everything that a great and powerful nation might to do in order to defend itself but, at least, as men who fought for freedom and as men who wish to see their children free, we can do our utmost and we are prepared to do the utmost this country can afford to that end. We will place the interests of the common people before that of the public service personnel of this country.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Give them work.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy McGilligan, speaking last night, said that he was going to speak on behalf of the 63,000 State personnel. I do not for a moment suggest that the interest of those who serve the State loyally and well should not receive fair consideration and just consideration at the hands of the Government. When we took office in 1932 we were faced with a very difficult choice. I think we made a wise choice. We took the men who served under our predecessors and gave them the same liberty and fair dealing as we would have wished our predecessors had given to us and to those who supported us when we were in opposition. They may have supportedour opponents, but that did not make any difference to us; whether for or against us, they were all one. We have defended them from the criticisms of our own friends, from the misrepresentations that were directed against them. We have always endeavoured to be fair to the public servants.

In addition, however, to these 63,000 public servants for whom Deputy McGilligan spoke, there are at least 2,750,000 other people living in this country and it is with them, I suggest, that Dáil Éireann is primarily concerned. It is with due regard to the just claims of the public servants, on the one hand, to be dealt with fairly by the State and, on the other hand, to the ability and the readiness of the taxpayers to meet the burden of the public services that we have got to try to do justice as between the two sections.

I submit that the motion and the decision which the Government has taken in regard to this matter is one which is fair and just in all the circumstances. We have said that until our economic condition improves, until there has been an increase in production which will enable the State to carry a heavier burden, the limit of taxation has been reached. We have accepted that but within that overriding figure we are prepared to do justice, as I said, to the servants of the State but we are not prepared, as I said last night, to borrow and we are not prepared, in the present circumstances, to increase the rates of taxation in order to provide any more.

General MacEoin

Carry over. You have neither to borrow nor to tax.

Mr. MacEntee

I think that from many points of view, particularly from the point of view of the public servants, a very unfortunate and misguided line has been taken by the main Opposition Parties in this House, by the Fine Gael Party and by the Labour Party because they have endeavoured to maintain the thesis that the interest of the public servants in the State must be paramount. They have, therefore, tried to create a cleavage between the servants of the State on the one handand the people on the other. They have tried to create a conflict of interest between the State servants on the one hand and the people on the other, the people who have to pay and who are taxed in order to pay the public servants.

A great deal has been said about the increase in the cost of living. I think that, when that point was raised by Deputy Norton, he ought to have remembered that if heavy taxation had to be imposed in the Budget for 1952, at least £2,500,000 or £3,000,000 of that taxation was necessitated by the fact that the findings of the 1951 arbitration had been given full effect to and that, therefore, if there had been an increase in the cost of living arising either out of the additional taxation which has been imposed or by the economies which were forced on the Government these were in some measure consequent upon the fact that the remuneration of the Civil Service and those who were remunerated out of Government funds had been increased.

There is at least this difference between the public servants and the ordinary employees. The ordinary employee does not live on taxation but the public servant does. He lives on the casses and taxes which are levied on the producing elements in the community in order to maintain the public services. Therefore, a very clear line can be drawn between the public servant and the ordinary private individual and taxpayer. When discussing these matters, in justice to the ordinary individual who is taxed in order to find the salaries of the public servants we must not overlook that fact. We cannot have it both ways—the sort of vicious circle that Deputy Norton wants us to follow—increase taxation in order to pay increased remuneration to public servants and therefore, public servants could come along and put in a further demand.

Mr. Hickey

Do they not pay their share of taxation?

Mr. MacEntee

They also get more than their share—I am sorry, that is not right.

Mr. Norton

That is like the rest of your exaggerations.

Mr. MacEntee

If they pay their share in taxation remember that the bread which they send out on the waters in the shape of taxation comes back to them tenfold.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

If that is not a distinction I do not know what is.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no other person in the community who is in that privileged position. I am not aspersing the civil servants. That is a circumstance of their employment over which they have no control but it is a circumstance that we, representing the taxpayers of this country in this House, cannot overlook. That is what we are here for. We are not here, as Deputy McGilligan boasted, to represent 63,000 public servants. Deputy McGilligan has not 63,000 public servants in the constituency which he represents in Dublin—not by any means. Nor has Deputy Hickey, Deputy Corish nor Deputy Kyne. Not at all. They have there the rank and file of the workers, the employers and the people who are trying to make a living in this country and carrying the whole burden of the State personnel. The primary responsibility of Dáil Éireann is not to this section or that section of the people who are remunerated out of the Exchequer but to the taxpayers who have to contribute, whether they like it or not to maintain this structure.

I heard Deputy Costello boast that he had defeated a previous Government on a motion in May, 1938, in relation to arbitration for the Civil Service, but he did not tell us what happened subsequently. He did not tell us that, when that matter was referred to the people in the subsequent general election, the people very decisively voted against the policy which Deputy Costello and the Fine Gael Party set before them in that regard and that both Fine Gael and the Labour Party came back with very sadly reduced ranks as a result of that appeal to the people. Let us be very careful, because, mind you, whatDeputy Cogan said is well worth remembering.

Mr. Norton

He said you were a senile delinquent a few years ago.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Norton should cease interrupting.

Mr. MacEntee

I am now rejuvenated.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

I suppose Deputy Cogan is responsible for that.

Mr. MacEntee

I am trying to remind Deputies of their responsibility to the electorate. Deputy Cogan said that in certain parts of the country and amongst certain elements in the community there is very grave doubt as to whether the Government was justified in giving effect to the arbitration award, even to the extent to which it has proposed to do so. That element of unrest and uneasiness was echoed in this House by the speech which the Leader of the Clann na Talmhan Party made and also the speech in which, having endured forcible feeding at the hands of the colleagues of his own Party, he was compelled to eat and swallow his utterances on the debate on the general resolution for which he was responsible on the 7th May.

Mr. Donnellan

Do not be too hard on him. He is not a bishop.

Mr. MacEntee

I could not possibly be too hard on Deputy Blowick. He has a sense of humour I admire. When I came in here and saw him indulging in that back somersault, I also thought he was one of the most agile verbal acrobats I have seen in this House for a long time.

Mr. Donnellan

He is not a bishop. Do not be too hard on him. Give him a chance.

Mr. MacEntee

It is well for us in this House occasionally to remember that there are people outside who are very concerned with the fact that income-tax is 7/6 in the £, that cigarettes are 2/4 per 20 packet, that the price of a pint is what it is and who would like to see it come down, but the 1d. per pint, the 1d. per packet of 20 cigarettes and the 6d. in the £ is what this £2,400,000 represents. Itwould be well for us, while our hearts are overflowing with sympathy for the public servants, to remember the taxpayers' point of view in relation to this matter. It is a point of view which none of us, as the experience of the Fine Gael Party in May, 1938, showed, can afford to overlook.

Deputy McGilligan, when speaking on this, said that a defeat on this motion would be clearly a defeat on a major subject, and that the Government would have to yield place to other people. I do not think that Deputy McGilligan was quite correct. The Government does not necessarily have to yield to other people, but what the Government could do would be to go to the people in regard to this matter.

Mr. Norton

It could not do it quickly enough.

Mr. MacEntee

That might be all very well.

Captain Cowan

I would advise the Minister to go to the country.

Mr. Norton

Now, do what you are told.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. MacEntee

Let us be quite clear, because there is no use in approaching this problem in blinkers. We had better face the facts. I am perfectly certain that on this issue, whatever other issues the Coalition Parties might like to go to the country on, they do not want to go to it on this.

Brendán Mac Fheórais

Tell us about the principle of arbitration.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Corish has asked me to refer to the principle of arbitration. I think that quite the most cogent and perceptive statement that could be made on that matter was made by Deputy Cowan last night when he said that he had grave doubts as to whether the concession of arbitration procedure in the case of the Civil Service was constitutional or not. As a matter of fact, he is not the only one who has doubts on that matter. Our predecessors, even when they were framing the arbitration scheme which they gave later to the Civil Servicebehind the backs of the electorate, had grave doubts, too, and had made it quite clear, in the negotiations with the Civil Service, that the Government could not slough off its responsibility and that Dáil Éireann would have to be the final arbiter, and that, of course, the Government, as bound under the Constitution, would have to take the responsibility of recommending to Dáil Éireann the course which should be taken in regard to any particular arbitration award.

In the present scheme, Article 20 fully safeguards the constitutional position in regard to arbitration. It does not place, and it was never intended to place, the arbitrator in the seat of responsibility which properly belongs to the Government alone. When this matter was examined, at the instance of the Government, in 1932 by a commission, this question of the constitutional position was fully gone into. It was pointed out that the Constitution provided particular safeguards in regard to the expenditure of public money and it stated that:

"It is a widely recognised requirement of sound public finance that the legislature in dealing with matters of public expenditure and taxation should operate under special safeguards designed to ensure a peculiar degree of responsibility in the handling of these fundamental matters."

Then it went on to discuss the implications of arbitration, and it said this:—

"However elaborate might be the evidence submitted to an arbitration tribunal on all important aspects of the issue raised before it, it could not from its experience of casual and limited references gain that comparehensive appreciation of the administrative organisation and its problems which is possible for Ministers, having daily and intimate contact with them, to have."

It continued to say that this:—

"...applies with still greater force to the sphere of fiscal and financial policy with which establishment matters must be correlated but uponwhich it is scarcely conceivable that an arbitration tribunal could venture to hear detailed evidence."

Further on, it said this in relation to the award of the arbitrator:—

"The full ultimate effect from the budgetary point of view of depriving the Executive Council of real discretion in regard to the pay of the Civil Service needs special notice."

I ask Deputies to mark the words "depriving the Government of real discretion in regard to the pay of the Civil Service needs special notice". Is not that what is being pleaded for here, that the Government should be deprived of real discretion in regard to the pay of the Civil Service? What is involved in the motion is this, that the Government is prepared to exercise its discretion and to act according to its constitutional responsibility in this matter. Those who are saying that we are doing something shameful, something dishonourable in amending the arbitration award so as to make it conform to our view of what is in the public interest, are wanting us to throw discretion to the winds and to remove financial control from this House and vest it in an arbitration board which has no constitutional and no statutory functions.

This commission to which I have referred went on to say this:—

"It does not need any elaborate argument to indicate that if the Executive Council were to lose its present discretion for determining the pay of State employees its power to regulate the Budget might almost be rendered a nullity and it would be forced into the untenable position of having to raise taxation to an extent that would be largely outside its own control."

That is now the policy of the Fine Gael Party and of the Labour Party, that the people of this country should be taxed not in accordance with what the Government thinks is reasonable, not in accordance with what the Parliament of the country thinks is reasonable, but in accordance with what an arbitrator, sitting outside thisDáil with none of the responsibilities to the people that we have to carry, thinks reasonable and just. That is why I say that quite the most cogent criticism that we have heard in the course of this debate in regard to this whole issue was that which was made by Deputy Cowan when he doubted as to whether the concession of arbitration was in accordance with the Constitution.

Mr. O'Higgins

Deputy Cowan is the implementer of the award.

Mr. Palmer

He will be a district justice next.

Mr. MacEntee

Let us have——

Mr. O'Higgins

An election.

Mr. MacEntee

You can have an election if you want it. I hope that you are not whistling to keep up your spirits. Deputy McGilligan raised quite a number of other points. I do not propose to go into them except to say this, that there was none of them valid, but he did expose to Dáil Éireann his manner of handling the finances of this country over a number of years. It was the purpose of successive Ministers for Finance to build up what was known as a substantial carry-over—just the same way as a flourishing business likes to have an adequate cash balance always in hands to meet the exigencies of business demands. Sound companies always have a substantial carry-over. It was my desire during the whole period of the economic war and it was the desire of my successors to have a substantial cash balance in hands to meet any unforeseen emergency or contingency and to obviate the need for the Exchequer to borrow money at the beginning of the financial year, during the lean period.

Deputy McGilligan said he had a covetous eye on the cash balances in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners which were not surrendered to the Exchequer at the close of business on the 31st March of each financial year and that he had proposed gradually to whittle them down. That is a very fair indication of the manner inwhich the public finances of this country were managed during the three years of the Coalition. There was not any reserve that we had built up, there was not any reserve that we were holding in hands for an unforeseen contingency that had not been dissipated by the time we resumed office.

Mr. O'Higgins

The reserve was there. It was higher when Deputy McGilligan left office than it was when he took office.

Mr. MacEntee

It was no more and no less. In any event, what sort of contingency was this carry-over held against? The answer is that it was held against precisely the same sort of contingency as that for which we are going to utilise it this year—the contingency that we cannot increase taxation, that we do not want to have any unnecessary borrowing but that there is a vital national service that requires to be financed and the vital national service to which we propose to devote £500,000 of the carry-over is national defence.

I think it would be entirely wrong that we should allow these moneys which are held, as I said, as a reserve against a national emergency to be frittered away and dissipated in defraying expenditure which normally ought to be met out of taxation— current expenditure upon the salaries and remuneration of civil servants and other public officers. No person in this House except, I think, Deputy Kyne and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll has suggested that we should find that additional £1,000,000—that the Opposition is clamouring for—out of taxation. On the contrary, they have all been complaining that taxation is too high. How are we at the same time to be able to increase expenditure and reduce taxation, as Deputy McQuillan and Deputy Dr. ffrench O'Carroll have asked? Everybody knows that you cannot do that. It is entirely dishonest to try and lead the people to believe that, if we were to give effect to what the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party spokesmen are demanding, we could do it in accordance with any sort of sound public finance without increased taxation. You are asking that we should find another £1,000,000out of the taxpayers' pockets for the 63,000 persons for whom, apparently, Deputy McGilligan and the Fine Gael Party now speak. We, on the contrary, are prepared to do justice to the 63,000 people, but we also want to ensure that the interests of the taxpayers will be fully safeguarded. We have taken our stand on the basis that taxation cannot be increased in present circumstances, that we must keepexpenditure down. Because of that, and because we are not going to borrow to meet the cost of the public services unless they are voted capital services. For these reasons, this motion represents the utmost to which the Government is prepared to go and the utmost that the Government in fairness to all sections of the community should be asked to do.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 56.

Tá.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Fanning, John.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Gallagher, Colm.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
• McCann, John.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheldon, William A. W.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Laurence J.

Níl.

• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Thomas N.J.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Carew, John.
• Cawley, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mannion, John.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Finan, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lynch, John (North Kerry).
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• O'Leary, Johnny.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reidy, James.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamon.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Mac Fheórais.

Motion declared carried.