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.