Now I subscribe to that, and I ask the Dáil to subscribe to that wholeheartedly. I think it is a very good definition of the term "economy" that we should extract the utmost value from every public and private expenditure. My amendment seeks to put into this warning the proviso "That while approving of that decision, the Dáil cannot agree to methods of retrenchment which would be detrimental to education, or which would cause suffering to the aged poor." I submit that any attempt at retrenchment on the lines indicated by the Minister in regard to education and in regard to old age pensions would not be economy, but would be added waste —additional waste to the waste in administration, of which mention had been made. The Dáil listened to the statement of the Minister for Finance with a good deal of interest. With respect to some parts of it, as far as some Deputies of the Dáil are concerned, they listened to it with great astonishment and surprise. The majority of the Dáil no doubt were well aware of what was coming. But those Deputies who are dependent for particulars of policy from the Government upon statements of policy which are made to this assembly, which ought to be the first to hear them, were, I think, taken with surprise by some of the statements made by the Minister. I was personally inclined to whisper "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread," but I know the Minister is not a fool, and I had to think of some other explanation of the extraordinary announcement made in the manner in which it was made. I rather suggested to myself that there was some Iago tempting him to take advantage of his newness to the office, tempting him to do harm to the State under the plea of financial policy and the plea of national economy. The Minister has got a reputation, I think well deserved, of being intellectually honest, of being very candid, even if I may say so, without disrespect, brutally candid, in his statements to the Dáil. Again, without disrespect, I would suggest that his statement was not candid, not wholly candid, as I will try to show, but brutal in respect to his reference, both to the teachers and to the old age pensioners. The suggestion of the Minister regarding old age pensioners, which I will deal with first, took the Dáil by surprise. The arguments that were adduced in favour of his proposal rather show me that he had not the time or had not taken the trouble to examine his case with that intellectual honesty which I credit him with, or he would not have stated the case in the manner he did. He told us that when this pension was first introduced in 1908 the rate in the most usual case was 5/-. It was not intended at any time that the pension should provide the recipient with an independent and complete means of livelihood. I do not know whether he intended to infer that 10/- a week was a sufficient sum to provide the recipient with an independent and complete means of livelihood. That is the inference which nine out of ten people would take from the statement. He pointed out that the 10/- was fixed when the cost of living had risen to 120 per cent., and it was now 80 per cent. Therefore, as he suggested a reduction was valid and justifiable. That proposition is not valid and is not justified. And if he had examined the case, as normally he would have done, he would not have made that statement. The 10/- rate was adopted when the cost of living had risen to 120 per cent. above pre-war. It remained at 10/- when the cost of living figure was 176 per cent. above pre-war. I quote that from the Minister's statement. If the cost of living figures are to be the index which is to denote the rate for old age pensions, then there ought to have been a rise considerably above the 10/- when the big figure was arrived at. But that is not so. The Minister will not admit that there is something due to the old age pensioners in consequence of the failure to add to the rate of pension when the cost of living rose above 120 per cent. I want the Dáil to realise that 5/-, which is the basic figure for the majority of pensions was fixed not in 1914 but in 1908. It remained at 5/- up to a time considerably after the war began, and considerably after prices began to rise.
Prices rose nine points between 1908 and 1914, and if the Minister wants to argue for his shilling per week reduction on a basis of cost-of-living prices, and he examines the position honestly and candidly, he will see that on that basis there is nothing due to be deducted. All these prices, according to the figures quoted by him, as compared with 1908, will show an advance from 100 to 195. Now if he likes to take one-fortieth of a £ off the 10/-, and justifies it on the basis of the decline in the cost of living, these figures will entitle him to do that, but that is all they will entitle him to do. I submit if there is going to be any argument for a reduction of 1/- per week from old age pensions on the basis of the decline in prices you must take the prices at the time the pensions were fixed, and compare all these prices with present prices. But I want to ask the Dáil to believe and recognise this consideration that this index figure referred to is a figure based upon family expenditure. Everyone who knows anything about children knows that the family will consume a very much larger proportion of those articles which have not risen as greatly as other articles which are consumed by old age pensioners. The old age pensioner does not eat so much bread as the youngster —the growing boy or girl—and in the family expenditure there are three or four children taken into account in arriving at this index figure. So that you are trying to mulct the old age pensioner on a basis of declining prices when you take into account these things which are not normally consumed by men and women over 70 years of age. The largest proportion expended is on tea, sugar, and tobacco, all of which are taxed to a very much greater extent than the normal commodities consumed by the average family, and the Old Age Pensioners by virtue of their consumption of these taxable articles have paid back very much of the increase through the extraordinary increase in taxation upon these articles, such as I have named. So that on the basis of these figures you have no case to put before the Old Age Pensioners of the country in favour of a reduction in the amount of the pensions. Now the Minister relies to a greater extent perhaps upon another argument. He speaks of the resources of the country not affording those pensions at the present rate, and he quotes the cost to the Revenue of pensions in the Free State as compared with the cost of pensions in Scotland. He shows to-day that the cost of pensions in the Free State amounts to 13.2 per cent. of the Revenue, while in Scotland it is only 2 per cent. of the Revenue. I suppose that fact was known to the members of the Dáil and to the Ministry before they sought to be severed from the British Financial System. We have all a right to assume they took that into account because if they failed to take that into account they are asking the Old Age Pensioners to bear the burden of their failure. Are you asking them to be responsible, and to bear a loss consequent upon the history of the last 100 years. Because Ireland has an extraordinary and abnormal number of men and women over 70 years of age, we are being asked to make these people responsible and to bear that burden. I say that is not worthy of the Dáil, if the Dáil agrees to that proposition. We had our eyes open when we were seeking to be served from the British Government system, and we know this was one of the charges that would be imposed upon the country.
I have never heard, nor read, of any Ministerial statement, or of any statement by any member of the Dáil, which told the people they were going to cut Old Age Pensions as soon as they got control of the finances of the country. The Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Agriculture and members of the Dáil in all parts have emphasised the position of agriculture, and the position of the small farmers and we know that there is a very large proportion of these in receipt of Old Age Pensions, that is, that there is a very large class of small farmers in receipt of these pensions.
In the main, I believe they are entitled to have pensions. I believe, having done their work for the State as they have done, they are entitled to be considered in their old age, but I think I have heard it said in this House, as I have heard it said elsewhere, that agriculture in Ireland has been notoriously a sweated industry, sweated by the community and, I put it to the farmers' representatives here, this is one way of paying back some of the debt due by the community to the small farming community. I do not think we should agree for a minute to make old men and women the first portion of the community to be called upon to bear the charges which we now think the State cannot afford.
The cut in the teachers' salaries, and the proposed additional cut in their salaries is, I submit, distinctly and inevitably a means of hurting the educational system in this country, which we had hoped, and indeed felt confident, was going to be immensely improved under the new condition of affairs. I say we hoped it was going to be immensely improved under the new condition of affairs, and, perhaps, members of the Ministry interested will recognise the value of a full page advertisement, which appeared in the newspapers on August the 20th, addressed to the people of Ireland and signed Liam T. MacCosgair. August the 20th is not very long since, and the memories of Deputies can easily go back so far as that date. The programme of the Government party, signed by the President of the Executive Council, contained this clause:—"Education has long cried out for reconstruction, and we seized the earliest opportunity of making the first and most urgent reform. We have changed this whole character and outlook by placing the National language and all that concerns the Nation's life in their rightful place, and the next generation will enjoy the fruits of our policy in a citizenry reared in the atmosphere of love and respect of their Motherland, her language, her history, her tradition, her lore. But the reform of public education cannot rest here. It must be truly modern and progressive, and made a real and a living thing by close relation to the life and the social, agricultural, and industrial conditions and life of the country. It must have no artificial barrier of class or grade, and it must attract to its service teachers enabled to be efficient and enthusiastic by adequate remuneration. The record of what we have already done shows that we have set our course in the direction of National efficiency and progress in education, and we will introduce early legislation to give effect to a well-considered scheme."
Now, I ask Deputies on the other side of the House is there a single one of them who, three months ago, believed that that proposition was going to be followed by an immediate cut of 10 per cent. in teachers' salaries, with the prospect of an indefinite cut to follow.
I challenge any member of the Dáil to say that he told his constituents there was going to be a cut in teachers' salaries. That proposition, which appeared in the programme of the Government Party, signed by the President of the Executive Council, suggested that you were going to enlist the enthusiastic support of the teachers; that you were going to give them adequate remuneration, and that you were going to utilise their enthusiastic support in building up "a citizenry reared in the atmosphere of love and respect of their Motherland, her language, her history, her tradition, and her lore." The Minister for Education, having subscribed to that proposition, consents to this action of the Minister for Finance in cutting the teachers' salaries, and destroying their enthusiasm, in making them discontented and quite unfit to do the work which was in that programme set out by the President of the Executive Council.
Now, Deputy O'Connell has already touched upon the financial proposal, and I have no doubt other Deputies will have more to say on that. I am not going to enlarge upon the actual financial facts, or the justification, or non-justification, of any action which the Minister has outlined, but I say that the evil genius who first prompted the Minister to take this action seems to have shown an utter disregard of the Government's policy as stated on frequent occasions in regard to the relations between the servants of the State, employees in industry, and their governors or their employers. A very respected Deputy who was elected to the Dáil, but unfortunately who does not appear here to enable us to add to our admiration of him—Deputy Alfred O'Rahilly—used these words when speaking to the Teachers' Congress at Easter time:—"Just as after the French Revolution the pseudo-democratic educators sought to abolish all corporate life and combination, so, in a small way, after our little revolution, there is a distinct tendency to abolish all Councils and Boards and consultative bodies in Education, Agricultural and other Departments. One of the first fruits of liberty is apparently to be Ministerial bureaucracy." Perhaps he might have added Treasury autocracy. I think I can see signs of assent from certain Ministers to the suggestion of Treasury autocracy.
Some little time ago there was raised in the Dáil the question of the action of Treasury officials in ordering that wages should be reduced in certain Departments, without notice and without consideration, cutting them below the ruling rates in the district, and thereby over-riding all questions of fair wages clauses or the usual conditions of employment. Here, again, we find at work the same influence, presumably, which says that the Education Minister may whistle; the salaries of teachers must be cut on the first of November, and no questions asked. There is a clause in our Constitution which deals with Vocational Councils, and I think the Minister for Finance has indicated a certain assent to that general idea. This method of simply decreeing that certain public servants shall have their salaries reduced on a certain date, without consultation with anybody, is very far removed, indeed, from the idea of Vocational Councils—is very far removed, indeed, from modern practice in regard to employment, whether in State offices or in private offices. But mind, it is only these two indefensible elements that are being attacked, notwithstanding all the Minister vaguely hinted at about retrenchments in other Departments. He did not say in any single case there were going to be reductions. There was a statement that there had been reductions in respect to the Army, but there had not been any reduction in the rates of Army pay to existing soldiers. The only reductions are in new attestations. The Minister for Defence was not told by the Minister for Finance that, on and after a certain date, every soldier would have to be cut 10 per cent. in his pay. He dare not. The Minister for Home Affairs, through one of his Departments has given assurances that there will be no reduction in the pay of the Civic Guard without consultation. But they can strike back, and I suppose that is the reason. The Old Age Pensioners have no redress. The teachers can only refuse to teach the children. What does the Treasury care about that? The late Minister for Education in England very recently said "The Treasury notoriously know nothing about education, except that it costs money." That, apparently, is the position of the Ministry of Finance in the new Saorstát. I submit that it is bad politics; it is bad economy; it is waste of political knowledge, to attempt to introduce new scales of pay in this autocratic manner without notice, without consultation, without intimation to the Dáil even, that such reductions were going to take place, apart from any question about violation of agreements. I leave that for discussion in another manner. Even assuming there was perfect justification, apart from agreements altogether, the method of doing this thing is a bad one, impolitic, and ought not to be sanctioned by the Dáil.
The Minister said that the Old Age Pensioners may attribute a high degree of responsibility for this reduction in the amount of tea or tobacco or sugar they would have been able to enjoy, to those who have wasted and impoverished the country during the past two years. It is very easy to blame everything upon the events of the last two years. It is very easy to say that the Irregulars and the Irregular campaign were responsible, but I think that is another exhibition of lack of candour, at least a failure to examine with that honesty which I say is his general characteristic, this proposition. The proposition to reduce Old Age Pensions and to reduce teachers' salaries, is to meet normal—or, as Deputy Figgis calls it—recurrent expenditure. It is not touching the abnormal cost of the Army. It is not touching compensation, and while the Minister may retort that the ability to pay has been reduced, I am going to ask Ministers if there is in existence, and if they will produce to the Dáil, any financial estimates which were before them when they were discussing the Treaty in London? You had the cost of administration before you. We have the estimates based upon the expenditure of the past few years, and know what the cost of the administration of this country is, and has been. We had no right—any of us—to anticipate that there was going to be any big reduction in the national charges for quite a long time.
The Treaty was made with certain financial obligations. It was accepted by the Dáil and the country and confirmed in the Constitution. That Treaty contemplated the possibility of even larger expenditure than is contained in the estimate that has been placed before us. We knew that within the bounds of that Treaty every Civil Servant might have resigned and claimed a pension, and that we would be bound to meet those pensions. We knew that within that Treaty—it has been mentioned here this afternoon —we undertook to bear a share of the British National Debt. I suggest that there are very few members of the Dáil, if any, who have examined the proposition but expected that we would have to pay interest charges upon a portion of the British National Debt. In these estimates that are placed before us there is no charge for that share of the National Debt, and we have no right, therefore, to think that, even if the history of the last two years had not been gone through, the annual charges would have been any less. Certainly we had no right to count upon that. We had a right to assume that every item that we were making ourselves possibly liable for, we would have been called upon to pay. I do not believe any member of the Dáil, or any candidate, elected or not elected, ever put to the people that there were going to be cuts in the cost of education and cuts in the charge for Old Age Pensions. Do not let us hide our responsibilities for present and future taxation behind the Irregular movement. We went into this Treaty with our eyes open. We knew it was going to be an expensive matter for a few years. Let us bear it, and not try to cut the humanitarian services and those services for education, which are the best investment that the country's money can be put into.
It seems to me that running through the Minister's statement and through much of the discussion that we are being treated to in the newspapers, such expenditure is being accepted as the same thing as National income. Of course it is not. It might well be that the National income was high and State expenditure low. We ought, if we want to look at this problem seriously and earnestly, distinguish between National monies paid out for education, National monies paid out for these humanitarian social services, such as Old Age Pensions, hospitals, and Poor Law, and the ordinary National expenditure on administration of the army, police, and the like. Supposing the charge for Old Age Pensions was taken off the National Exchequer and thrown upon the rates, the country would still have to bear it. The totality of expenditure would be just as high, and perhaps higher. If the Dáil refused to pay any more money for education, it would not necessarily mean that education was going to be any cheaper, or that the country would have any less money to raise. It would be simply paying through a different channel, but it would have to be paid or the country would go to ruin. It seems to me that the Minister is proceeding in quite a wrong direction. Economy in expenditure by all means, full value for all expenditure, private or public, by all means. But do not take steps which will reduce the value you are getting for the money you are paying. I would say, without any doubt whatever, that to create discontent and unsettlement amongst the teaching profession is going to reduce considerably the value you are getting for the money you are paying. That is not economy, and that is not retrenchment in any true sense. I think, instead of moving towards mere cutting of prices, mere cutting of wages, and mere cutting of salaries, the policy of the Minister should be, rather, to stimulate production and encourage that better return for labour expended. I would be with the Minister heartily if he would say, "We are paying four millions for education. That four millions is being raised out of the taxpayer's pocket. We want to see that a larger proportion of that four million is expended upon articles produced in this country, thereby employing other people through the expenditure of the salary that the State is paying." You will need to raise more money. I have not the slightest hope that the Minister will be able to carry out his policy of reducing taxation. I have not the slightest hope that it will be possible to carry on on the present rate of taxation. You may have to change the incidence of taxation, but you will have to raise the present amount, and perhaps more. I suggest that the true line of policy should be, not to cut on those services and reduce their value, but to look round for other means of raising money to pay for this necessary and useful public service.
The Minister says he cannot consider increased taxation. I hope he will be able to carry on the Government of the country in the manner which was outlined in the programme of the Government Party at the elections, without increased taxation. I believe it is impossible, and I believe, before the winter is through, that he will find a very heavy demand upon the public Exchequer, if he wants to save trouble from the rising numbers of unemployed. In the spring-time we warned the Ministers that the new system of paying Insurance might be all right, provided that employment were to become general before October. The Minister, through the Assistant Minister for Industry and Commerce, told us that the plans outlined in that Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill contemplated and hoped for a general revival of industry before the end of October. That has not taken place. The number of unemployed is increasing, and their ability to sustain themselves while unemployed is steadily decreasing. The prospect is not hopeful for the promise of the Minister that he will carry on without increased taxation. He may find, as he will find, that he will have to put taxes upon imported manufactured goods.
He will have to find revenue by some means and probably he will find it by that means. It would be of some interest to the country and to many anxious employers of labour to know what the Government's policy in that respect is, or if they have any policy yet. Perhaps, before I sit down I may ask the Minister if he would, before the debate closes, enlarge a little more upon his references to expenditure on roads and expenditure on houses. He is not prepared, he says, to involve the State in any additional charge for an expenditure on roads, but he hopes that perhaps there will be a million and a quarter spent during the next eighteen months on improvement and repairs. That one and a quarter millions partly is to come out of motor vehicle duties apparently, plus the special rate which the County Councils are required to pay to the Exchequer under recent legislation. I would like some enlightenment on that because the best figures I can find do not show me any sum beyond £800,000, at the maximum, for that 18 months, and it would be a pity to deceive the country into thinking that there will be an expenditure of one and a half millions on roads.
