Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 25 Jul 1933

Vol. 17 No. 8

Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill, 1933—Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:

Section 7, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be made from the salary of any person in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann—

(a) who was appointed with a special agreement as to the amount of his remuneration and who satisfies the Minister that, for the purpose of accepting such appointment, he gave up any profession or occupation from which he derived an income not less than the remuneration which he agreed to accept in respect of such appointment;

(b) who was appointed subsequent to the 6th December, 1922, with a special agreement as to his remuneration and who for the purpose of accepting such appointment gave up an appointment in the service of any other country.

I dealt with this amendment at some length on the Committee Stage and I do not think there is much to be gained by my repeating what I stated then, except to say very briefly—the principle is similar to that in other amendments which deal with slightly different matters, in the names of other Senators—that I am endeavouring to establish that where there has been a bona fide contract, whether strictly in writing or verbally, that contract shall be kept. I feel very strongly that the State should not, by legislation, place itself in a position in regard to its employees in which an ordinary employer could not, or would not, place himself in the ordinary course of business. If an employer has a written contract with an employee he could not, without special legislation, break that contract. If he has only a verbal agreement he could quite probably break that contract, but that is not in keeping with the standard that most of us try to observe. It is generally recognised that such agreements, if admitted, would not be broken. I believe there are only seven or eight people affected by this amendment. The object of my amendment is to place the State in the position in which, if the Minister is satisfied there has been a contract, it will not be broken. I can understand that the Minister is in a certain amount of difficulty with regard to some of the amendments. He indicated very clearly on the Committee Stage that he had a considerable amount of sympathy with this amendment, but that he felt some difficulty in dealing with it himself. I am suggesting to the House that the Second Chamber would not be worth its salt if it did not send down an amendment of this kind to the other House and give the other House an opportunity of righting a matter of this kind. We are not asking the Minister to do anything more than he did on the Committee Stage when he admitted that he had a certain amount of sympathy with the amendments and that there was a problem to be solved. If the matter were considered by the other House, I have great confidence that they would agree with this amendment. I do not know the names of all those affected. I am merely interested in the principle which, I think, is exceedingly important.

In the case of the private employer, which has been quoted by Senator Douglas, the Senator says that that employer, if he made a contract, would carry it out and would not break it under any circumstances. Would he carry out that contract if he were insolvent? Supposing that particular employer had not sufficient money to pay the particular individual with whom he had made the contract, would that individual get his money? Here is a case where there is not sufficient money to pay our employees. I consider that unless this Bill is passed the Minister, unless he introduces fresh taxation, will be insolvent in respect of these payments. He will not have sufficient revenue to meet this expenditure.

Does the Senator ask the Minister to rely on the insolvency of the Free State in order to get out of his contract with seven persons?

I do not care whether it is seven or 27.

When the Senator brings forward an argument that the Free State is in such a condition that it cannot keep its bargain with these seven persons, or whatever the number may be——

It might be 100.

If it were a question of an ordinary employer, an ordinary individual in business, he would have to go through the Bankruptcy Court before he could get out of payment of that amount. Does the Senator suggest that the Free State is going through the Bankruptcy Court?

I do not.

It is very near it.

We are now to decide in regard to these perfectly honest claims that the Free State is to get out of these claims by pleading a state of insolvency, that the State has not sufficient money to pay them. I thought that under the actual state of affairs that the Senator wants to put forward——

That is the state of affairs that was responsible for this Bill being brought forward, and there should be no distinction between particular individuals.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator can only make one speech on Report Stage.

Whether the individual has rights or no rights, it is an extraordinary doctrine because nobody will ever afterwards have any faith in a signed agreement if he knows that the State will destroy that contract the moment it finds itself hard up for money. There is another amendment in my name in connection with the same doctrine later on. I hope the Minister is not going to rely on the argument that the Free State is insolvent to defeat this amendment. Whether the claims are just or unjust, I believe that we are not going to be influenced by any ideas that the State is solvent or insolvent and that if we do not get this money we cannot pay our way.

How can the Minister state that the State is insolvent if he is prepared to pay £1,500,000, £1,000,000 of which is not due, and to give £100,000 to a Party enterprise?

When this amendment was discussed on the Committee Stage, the Minister expressed himself in sympathy with it and he did not plead the insolvency imagined by Senator Wilson. There can be really very little money in it, but apart from the amount of money involved there is a question of contract, and if there is a contract we should keep it. Governments can be shockingly cruel at times, but they should not try to get away with the idea that they are not actually dishonest because they have powers of legislation behind them and because they can determine a contract by legislation without consulting the other party to it. That in itself is not a justification. I do sincerely hope that if there are people of the type mentioned in the amendment, we shall, for the sake of the good name of the country, keep our contract with them. The Minister may be able to say that there are no people of that type, but if he is not sure regarding the facts, he will have time between now and the time this matter comes before the other House, to see what are the facts of the position. If he does find that there are people such as those mentioned in the amendment, I am sure he will recommend its acceptance to the other House.

I should like to make the suggestion to the Minister, that when he is floating a loan as I understand he will shortly, he will not quote Senator Wilson's remarks in his prospectus.

This is a matter on which I should like to have the expressed opinion of the Seanad to guide me. I did indicate on the Committee Stage—one feels these things without even being able to give a rational explanation for them—that I felt that there was some justice in the amendment but I have not been able to see how I am going to meet the case of a person who has a specific agreement in writing or a person who has an equally specific agreement which is purely verbal. This is a matter in which I think the Seanad could quite properly make an amendment or a recommendation to the Dáil. It does not touch the principle of the Bill and if the Seanad decide to pass the amendment I shall give it sympathetic consideration between now and the time for reporting it again to the Dáil. I should like the Seanad to express its opinion in regard to the amendment and if the feeling of the Seanad is that it should be accepted, without binding myself that the Dáil will accept the amendment, I think I can say that I shall certainly go as far as I can to meet the view expressed by the Seanad in regard to it.

Question put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

New section. Before Section 9, and in Part II, to insert a new section as follows:—

9.—Nothing in this Act shall take away, prejudice or in any way affect any right of any transferred officer, as defined by the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929 (No. 36 of 1929), under Article 78 of the Constitution or under the said Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929, or any powers or jurisdiction conferred by the said Act upon the Civil Service (Compensation) Board established in accordance with the said Act.

On the Committee Stage I stated my reasons for moving this amendment. I think that the transferred officers are entitled to all the consideration we can give them for the reasons I stated on the last day. We had to create a Civil Service, but these men could have retired under Article X of the Treaty and if they had done so, we would have had to pay them a pension and also to pay the salaries of those who would take their place. We had to train a Civil Service and as the Minister knows when he came into office he had a very efficient Civil Service. These men are entitled to special consideration and I think that the Minister should accept the amendment.

I have given this matter a great deal of consideration with a view to seeing whether it was necessary to do anything further to provide further safeguards for the transferred officers. I am advised that it is not necessary and that, from the point of view of the drafting of the Bill, it is undesirable. Accordingly, I have not been able, as I had hoped, to put down an amendment which would meet the situation which Senator Duggan has in mind but which I am advised does not exist, that is to say, that there is nothing in the Bill which in any way interferes with the existing rights of the transferred officers. Accordingly, I would ask the Seanad not to send this amendment to the other House.

Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 3:—

Section 9. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of this section, this section shall not apply to any person who holds an office to which he was appointed for a limited number of years and whose office is not pensionable.

I propose to debate this amendment not on the basis set out by Senator Wilson, but on the basis that we are able to pay our bills as we go along. This amendment also deals with the contract type of case. This amendment in Senator Brown's and my name and amendment No. 4 in the name of Senator Dowdall, are practically identical. The only difference is that in the latter the words "or whose tenure of office is from year to year" are inserted. I think, with the Cathaoirleach's leave, we might debate both amendments together.

Cathaoirleach

Senator Dowdall is unable to be here.

I had a letter from him and I believe he is unable to be here. I believe, however, that Senator Douglas intends to speak on his amendment. The number of persons affected by this amendment is not very large, but they are important people and they are people with whom the late Government, or statutory bodies who held office under them, made contracts for a specific number of years at certain salaries. If these arrangements had been made by anybody except the Oireachtas, the law would hold that whoever signed them on behalf of the employer must stand by them. We know, of course, that the Oireachtas has power to alter the law but, as Senator O'Farrell says, that power ought to be exercised with judgment and care to ensure that we do no wrong or that we do nothing which ordinary individual citizens could not and should not do. Because of these powers, the Oireachtas should not make legal the doing of things which, in the mind of the ordinary individual, is not honourable or right. The people affected by this amendment are important people and one or two of them—I have not much knowledge of the cases—are foreign citizens who came over here for a certain specific purpose to serve the needs of the Free State. These arrangements were made with them and they have been working here under contract for a certain number of years. They have no pensionable rights and are not in our Civil Service. Our civil servants have pensionable rights and their rights are not being interfered with under this Bill. These individuals, however, who have no pensionable rights made a bargain to come over here and to give their services to the State and they are now going to be reduced because their employers, the Irish Free State, are, as Senator Wilson says, becoming hard up. I do not think that that is fair or right.

There are then the cases of people appointed by statutory bodies who were empowered to make these arrangements and who made these arrangements. These persons are extremely important and they filled an office in the State which required people of very exceptional qualities, and though you might get some small sum of money out of them by applying the "Cuts" Bill to them, I do not think that the amount of money involved is worth it. I do not think the Free State should soil its reputation for small sums of money such as are here involved. No doubt, the Minister knows all the cases, and I do not think that in respect of the amounts of money involved, the plea could be put forward that they are such as to require any huge alteration in the Bill. I hold that this is a question of honour and of right, and I hold that the State should not do things which the individual could not legally do and should not alter the law to suit its apparent needs in this way. This is a very difficult matter on which to divide the House because I do not think that a question like this ought to be made a Party question at all. We know that if I am supported in my amendment and if the Seanad passes the amendment, the Minister can go to the Dáil and, by calling on his Party, have the amendment reversed. I hate doing that kind of thing and I do not believe that Party voting should enter into this at all. If the Minister would tell us that he would consider the matter and deal with it as he thought fit, I should be prepared to take the Minister's word that he would do the right thing. I am, therefore, very diffident about dividing the House, as I look on this as a point of honour and a point which, I think, the Minister should deal with. I am prepared to trust him, and before I say any more or ask the House for an opinion, I would ask the Minister to let us have his views.

I second the amendment for the purpose of having a discussion and, in this connection, I would suggest to the Minister that Section 9, sub-section (2) does itself make provision for a certain amount of discretion. It reads:

"From all salary which, during the current financial year, is earned by and payable to any member of a body to which this section applies in his capacity as such member, a deduction shall be made of such amount and at such times as the Minister shall, in each case, direct, having regard to the deductions from salaries to be made under Part II of this Act and to the circumstances of the case."

That sub-section gives the Minister power to determine the actual amount of the cut and the time at which the cut may be made and it gives him power to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. He is prepared to go that far and the amendment only suggests that he may go a little further and exempt a person altogether because of the special circumstances of his case. He may, perhaps, be able to say that this sub-section is quite sufficient to enable him to deal with the people referred to in the amendment but I would suggest that he should consider the amendment together with the sub-section I have quoted and see if the Bill, as it stands, is sufficient to deal with the case.

I am glad that Senator Jameson has given me the opportunity of making a statement. My own feeling is that as sub-section (2) stands, in respect of the words which Senator O'Farrell has quoted and taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, I would be able to deal with all the persons who might otherwise fall within the ambit of this section. I do realise very much that where persons are appointed to statutory positions and their remuneration fixed, directly or indirectly, under statute, it is very difficult for me to come in and, as it were, by a side wind, repeal previous legislation. In the case particularly of people who are not nationals of this country but who have been engaged on a purely commercial basis without any advertence as to whether they are Japanese, Chinese or Irish, I feel that I would have to take that as an over-riding circumstance into consideration and to exclude them from any sacrifice under the Bill. That, in general, is the manner in which I propose to interpret that section. The last stage of this Bill was taken in the Dáil in circumstances that gave me no opportunity of adverting to that but I have no hesitation in giving that undertaking to the Seanad now.

Might I ask the Minister if sub-section (2) of Section 9 does not compel him to make a deduction of some amount or another? It is for him to say whether he thinks it does or not.

No. The sub-section sets out:—

".... a deduction shall be made of such amount and at such times as the Minister shall, in each case, direct, having regard to the deductions from salaries to be made under Part II of this Act and to the circumstances of the case."

It seems to me that if the literal interpretation of the section were to be enforced, I might deduct a farthing or a halfpenny, but no significant amount. I think, however, that I have full power.

Would the Minister agree to alter the word "shall" to the word "may"?

If that would meet the point of view of the Seanad, I would be prepared to accept it.

I have just asked Senator Douglas whether he wished to say anything as I put the two amendments together, but he says that as the amendment is not going to be pressed he does not wish to say anything. I think Senator O'Farrell will agree that we had much better leave this to the Minister. I believe that we can leave the honour of the State in the Minister's hands and I do not propose to press the amendment.

I am concerned only with giving the Minister the power which he might think it necessary to use and if we could manage to alter the word "shall" to "may"—it would have to be done with the permission of the House, of course—I would be in favour of it.

If it would meet the point of view of the Seanad, I would be satisfied to have the word "shall" in line 2 deleted, and the word "may" inserted instead, because if deductions shall only be made of such amounts, and at such times as the Minister of Finance shall direct, then, if I do not give any direction, there cannot be any deduction.

I ask the leave of the House to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I now move as a substitute for my last amendment:—

To delete the word "shall" in line 2, and to insert in lieu thereof the word "may."

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Dowdall asked me to move amendment 4 on his behalf. I feel certain that if the Senator were here he would not, in view of the arrangement that has been come to, move his amendment. Therefore, I do not propose to move amendment 4.

Amendment not moved.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn