asked the Minister for Finance if it is intended to introduce legislation which will ensure that persons employed in the Civil Service enjoy the same political rights as other citizens; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

This matter has been the subject of claims under the conciliation and arbitration scheme for the Civil Service. These claims have been presented and replied to at the General Council and the Department Council for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Further consideration is being given to them at the request of the Staff Sides of the Councils.

Could the Minister indicate when it is proposed that some agreement will be reached and why these people are not given the same rights?

The same rights as?

The rest of us.

I do not think Deputy Fox would advocate that if he thought about it.

Why not?

Would Deputy FitzGerald?

Except in the case of a number of people in the higher grades of the Civil Service who are concerned with policy. We are talking about the great bulk of the 15,000 who are deprived of their rights.

Are we to take it that it is not advocated by Fine Gael that the same rights should be employed by civil servants in this matter as in all others, as is suggested here? There is a difference.

That is not what I asked. I asked the Minister to state why he would deny these people their rights.

The Deputy asked if it is intended to introduce legislation which will ensure that persons employed in the Civil Service enjoy the same political rights as other citizens. We have just extracted from Deputy FitzGerald the admission that that is not what he or, presumably, his party, would seek.

All of them should have some of the rights they are deprived of, and the great majority should have all of the rights they are deprived of.

I have explained that this is a matter for conciliation and arbitration. It came before the Conciliation Council. The case was presented and replied to. As a result of that, at the request of the staff side further consideration is being given to the claim that was made.

When may we expect to have the results of that consideration?

I would not like to put a date on it.

Would the Minister not agree that this important political matter should not be decided solely by the process of conciliation and arbitration but that it should be discussed in this House before a decision is taken? There might be diverging views on the matter. Will the Minister make an opportunity available for such a debate?

It is a matter for conciliation and arbitration under the scheme and, unless we were to alter the scheme, I could not comply with Deputy FitzGerald's request.

Surely at some stage the Minister has to say "yes" or "no". He is responsible in this House for saying "yes" or "no". Could we not debate whether he should say "yes" or "no" in a matter of political importance?

The House will get every opportunity it requires to do so when the matter has been finally disposed of.

After the Minister has decided in his usual arrogant manner.

It is my responsibility, as Minister, to make decisions.

After consultation.

Not after consultation.

Yes. That is what Parliament is for.

Would the Deputy seriously suggest that every ministerial decision should first be submitted to the House?

Not every decision.

Would he grow up?

The Minister should try not to treat the House with contempt.

The function of this House in these matters——

Is to be a rubber stamp.

——is to discuss them and express its views.

After the damage is done.

Fianna Fáil want this House to be a talking shop and nothing more.

If Deputy Bruton and Deputy FitzGerald want to be in a position to make these decision let them win an election.

We will.

(Cavan): Give us an election.

When we do we will not adopt the Minister's arrogant attitude.

I should love to be able to test Deputy FitzGerald, but we will not get the opportunity unfortunately.

With the Minister at the helm we quickly will.