Vol. 27 No. 4
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £2,193 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Saotharlainne Stáit.
That a sum not exceeding £2,193 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the State Laboratory.
In connection with this Vote I would like to draw the Minister's attention to what I consider the totally inadequate rates of pay for chemists employed by the Government in the State Laboratory. I wish to refer particularly to the position of those described in the Estimate as junior chemists, both established and temporary. I understand that the qualifications for each of these posts is that of an honours B.Sc. degree with a couple of years' practical experience. I know that in actual fact the majority of these junior chemists have secured an M.Sc. degree, and that in addition they have carried out certain post-graduate research work. On referring to the Estimate we see that the salaries of junior unestablished chemists range from £180 to £220. These are exclusive salaries and carry no bonus. These, to my mind, are very inadequate salaries for men with an M.Sc. degree or an honours B.Sc. degree, for men who have spent three or four years in a university and whose education and training have entailed considerable expense. I consider this state of affairs most inequitable. There are hundreds of tradesmen and men in clerical positions in the City of Dublin who have far higher salaries.
In the case of those unestablished men, it appears from information that I have obtained that there is no possibility of their being established, and that they must be content to remain as temporary officials with no prospect of promotion in the service, no prospect of security of tenure, and no prospect of obtaining any pension rights. When we come to the position of established chemists, we find that it is not very much better. From information obtained, I understand that three junior chemists were recently established after four and a half years' service in that Department, and that they are now in receipt of a salary of £130, together with bonus amounting in all to a total salary of £207 per annum. For the first couple of years after being established they will actually be receiving less than they were receiving as temporary officers. The position is that they must go back to the beginning of the scale. Taking the case of an unmarried man, the annual increment is £7 10s., rising to a maximum of £250, plus bonus after 16 years' service. To refer to individual cases, the chemist who deals with all toxicological cases, the man who deals with poison cases, such, for instance, as the Malahide case, who is responsible for important work such as that, only gets a salary of £195 per annum with bonus, amounting in all to about £290 per year. I understand that the man who looks after this work in England is in receipt of a salary of £4,000 per annum. I am not going to suggest that our man who looks after this work should get a salary anything like that, but I do think that the salary he is in receipt of is not at all in accordance with the importance and responsibility of the work that he is doing. Again, the man who acts as referee chemist and deals with all disputed cases of analysis which come in from local bodies and who would naturally be looked upon as being particularly exact and careful in his work, is in receipt of a salary amounting to only a little more than £5 per week.
If we compare the rates of pay in this Department with the rates of pay in other Departments, which from the point of view of size and the nature of the work carried out would be looked upon as being similar, the big difference which exists is very apparent. For instance, take the Estate Duty Office. We have there three assistant principal clerks with salaries ranging from £550 to £700, together with bonus. We have ten examiners with salaries ranging from £250 to £500, plus bonus. We have three assistant examiners with salaries ranging from £90 to £350, plus bonus, and there are three clerical officers with salaries averaging about £200 each, plus bonus. In the Office of Public Works, we find that there are four architects with salaries ranging from £500 to £650, with bonus; nineteen assistant architects with salaries ranging from £150 to £450, with bonus. There are eight assistant architects (temporary) with an inclusive salary of from £7 to £8 per week. There are twelve temporary clerks of works with a salary of from £6 to £6 13s. a week, inclusive. If we refer to these two particular Departments, and to many other Departments throughout the Civil Service, such, say, as the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and the Department of Finance, we can easily see the big difference that exists in the payment of those officers.
In general, I do not think the Minister or any Deputy will deny that the salaries paid to the chemists in this State laboratory are inadequate. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the standard in this case is an honours degree standard, and accordingly those men should rank as junior administrative officers in the Civil Service, but they are only paid on a scale which, I think, is inferior to that of junior executive officers, and in their case I think the educational standard is much lower. I think it only approximates to the leaving certificate of secondary schools, or at least to a pass degree standard. There was an agitation last year, and in earlier years, in the Press and elsewhere, for increased salaries for trained engineers, and I understand as a result of that agitation the position of engineers has been, to a certain extent at least, improved. I am not quite sure, but as far as I can recollect, the salaries of engineers in certain of the Government and public services have been increased as a result of that agitation. The position of chemist in this Department is similar to that of engineers. These men had to spend three or four years in a university, and their training cost in round figures something like £1,000. After that training and expenditure the Government employ these men at what are definitely inadequate salaries. That is certainly not giving much encouragement to young men to enter the universities, and to take up professions such as chemical science and engineering.
The point that struck me was that if these young men had not gone on for these professions if they had entered the Civil Service and became junior executive officers at the age of seventeen or eighteen they would now be in a far better position. For instance, we have the case of a junior chemist who has been established, after four and a half years' service and is now in receipt of the princely salary of £207 per annum, inclusive. He had to spend four years in a university and had to have two years' practical training before he got that post. After roughly ten years' training and service he has reached the salary of £207 per annum, inclusive. If he had entered the service ten years ago as a junior executive officer, unmarried, he would have received £90 as an initial salary, and with ten years' increment he would now have £165 plus bonus, amounting to £270 per annum. I think it is not fair that a man who has spent so many years in his profession, and on whose education his people spent so much money, should not be admitted to the Civil Service on terms equal at least to those of men who entered at eighteen. I suggest these chemists should rank as junior administrative officers, and receive corresponding salaries, and further, that men who are established after a certain number of years in the service should not have to go back to the bottom of the scale, but should receive increments in respect of each year of service. Finally, I think the Minister should be able to fix on an establishment for this Department after several years' experience of the nature and extent of the work.
When the Minister is replying to these points that I have raised he will probably be sarcastic about appeals for increased salaries coming from this side of the House, but I suggest the increased cost necessitated by giving these officials a salary commensurate with their qualifications and service could easily be met by cutting down the salaries of a few of the excessively-salaried officials who can be found in dozens throughout the Civil Service. I think a sum of between £1,000 and £2,000 would be sufficient, in the beginning at any rate, to give these men something in the nature of adequate salaries, and that could easily be saved by cutting down the salaries of even ten of the excessively-salaried officials to whom I have referred. There is room for considerable reduction in those salaries, but at the same time I think there are other officials in the service, such as those junior chemists who are badly paid and who are deserving of special consideration. There is another point that possibly arises in connection with this Vote, and that is the question of what might be described as national research work. I would like to ask the Minister has he considered the advisability of putting chemists on research work, such as the utilisation of peat resources, the development of our mineral deposits, and in general the study of chemical manufacturing processes which could be economically developed in this country when the Shannon scheme has matured. In connection with the salaries of the junior chemists I ask the Minister to give this matter earnest consideration. It is no frivolous case I am raising. There is really a genuine hardship in this case. I am sure the Minister if he considers the facts would be one of the first to admit that.
I wish to point out that there is nothing anomalous in Fianna Fáil Deputies asking for an increased salary for scientists. It is because of the country's poverty—a strong reason at least for making such a demand is simply because of the country's poverty. The country is so poor that her scientists are more important to her than would be the case in a rich country. Even if there were not the anomalies that exist in comparing the salaries of that Department with the salaries of an ordinary Service Department, there would still be a strong case for asking for special consideration for those employed in the State Laboratory. I know that there is a desire to get through this Vote as quickly as possible; nevertheless I would ask the Minister to say what work is the Laboratory principally engaged in at the moment. We would like to know whether it is a branch of the Customs or Excise, or whether an effort is being made to make it a Department of Scientific Research. In that connection I would like to know whether the Minister has considered the amalgamation of the State Laboratory and the Geological Survey. It seems a bit unnatural that these two Departments- should be separate if the purpose of the State Laboratory is to do research work. We all know that the chief of the State Laboratory is a great authority on peat; that he is one of our greatest assets, and I would like to know whether that great knowledge of his and his enthusiasm with regard to peat is being availed of to any extent. It is his belief—I know it was his belief a few years ago, at all events— that the peat deposits would yet turn out to be a great source of wealth to us. It would be a sorry thing if, in the present condition of the country, when Ministers practically admit that they can see no chance for industry in the country, when they are, at least judging by the recent speeches of the Minister for Finance, simply in despair for something of a big industrial kind to turn up—it would be a very unfortunate thing if there were not some effort made to utilise the peat resources of the country. We would like to have a statement from the Minister on this, as to the real purpose of the Laboratory.
took the Chair.
As the time is short, I would not undertake to start replying at length to all the points raised. I will deal first with Deputy Moore's question. The State Laboratory is nothing in the way of a Department of Scientific Research. As a matter of fact, I do not think that research could very well be done in connection with the State Laboratory. I think research such as the Deputy has in mind should be done either in the University or in some way under the aegis of the Department of Industry and Commerce. Though it has had other work, and will always have other work, the particular work of the State Laboratory is to make the tests that are necessary for Revenue purposes or for purposes in connection with Government contracts, and for the volume of work being done there, being very largely routine, I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to try to make it a Department of Research. I think research ought to be done separately. There is a certain amount of money voted each year for research scholarships. I think it is £720. Perhaps that money could be used differently. Perhaps more money could be used if a scheme were thought of along these lines. I do not think it should be done by the State Laboratory.
With regard to Deputy Kerlin's argument, I do not think we have anything to do with what it costs to qualify a man for one of these positions. There is no reason why we should pay more than the commercial rates for a post like this. We pay what from the human point of view is a living wage. There is no reason why we should pay more than they could get for doing similar work outside. There is only a comparatively small proportion of what one would call high-class work done in the State Laboratory. A great proportion of the work is rather of a routine character. The only thing which we have to do, the only lines on which we can go in connection with this is simply to pay the sort of wages that are being paid outside and the sort of wages that will get us qualified individuals. I believe that the State is not justified in all circumstances in paying the lowest rate at which they can get people. I say that because there is the human element and there are certain rates below which you should not go, rates that the most unskilled get. But when we leave unskilled people out of account, then naturally the proper line to take is to pay the rates that will get us people who are able to do the work.
Might I interrupt the Minister to ask whether the requirements for these positions are that they should have university science qualifications, or does the mere chemical training in chemical work suffice?
I could not tell the Deputy at the moment.
I can inform the Deputy——
Are they men with university training?
I presume university and science qualifications are required, but that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the case. It does not matter to us what money it has cost to give a man certain qualifications. There is no obligation on us to make the taxpayer pay more for that man's services than he would get in an ordinary outside employment.
Why not carry out that policy in the rest of the Government Departments?
We can deal with the other Government Departments separately. We are not dealing with them now. I have stated before that our general policy is to pay the rates of pay that will get us qualified men and retain them.
I understand that there are certain classes of civil servants who get salaries and certain allowances for wife and children as well. Does that apply to the case of persons who are more or less in the professional rank, engineers and others?
The whole matter has not been fully worked out, but it applies to all the main classes of the service; generally it does not apply to salaries above £500 a year. It is rather a recent thing. It is only a couple of years since it was introduced first, and I do not think it has been applied to all the services.
Would the Minister look into that question and see whether there are not some in this Department who should not get these allowances?
The Minister said there was no reason why the State should pay these men more than is ordinarily paid to men who are employed outside. I suggest that the Minister should try to find out definitely what people, having the same class of work in industries and chemical works outside, are getting. Probably he will find that they are getting three times as much.
Why do they stay in the State service so?
In the hope that a better Government will come into power and look after them.
