The decision on amendment 57 will govern amendment 58.
Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill, 1933—Report (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 57: —
In page 7, in paragraph (a) of Part III of the Schedule, to delete the words "is less than £175" and substitute the words "is over £400" and to delete from and including the figures and words "200 but not less than £175.—5¼" to and including the words and figures "is £450 or more...8. —(Deputy Norton.)
We can discuss both?
Yes, both together.
Speaking here on last Friday night on this amendment, I endeavoured to convince—I do not know with what measure of success — the Minister for Finance, that in the case of the teachers the Minister's own reputation is involved in this cut. I said then, and lest it has escaped the Minister's attention, I might repeat it in perhaps more tabloid form, that the Minister, while in Opposition, displayed a virility and progressiveness of view that has not marked his advent to the Front Bench. When the teachers' organisation entered into negotiations with the last Government and accepted a certain kind of bargain, a bargain which, in my opinion, was better than the bargain contained in this section, because it made provision for the settlement of the pensions question, which is left completely untouched in this Bill, the present Minister for Finance, with all the freedom and licence of an individual Deputy, denounced that settlement, lock, stock and barrel. With that eloquence which I have felt bound to comment upon on other amendments in this House, and with that facility of pen which distinguishes his literary contributions to the Press, the Minister, if one might say so, almost wrote himself away, advising the teachers not to take this ruinous settlement. The Minister's eloquence on that matter, both in the spoken and the written word, was no less eminent and no less worthy of admiration than many of the eloquent speeches which he delivered on the first series of amendments to this Bill, which resulted in its taking a few days to get the Bill through the House. The Minister, at all events, is committed in this matter. I think he admitted on an earlier amendment that he did write these letters to the Press. I invited him to extend that pastime of his of reading letters from files by reading the very interesting letters which he then wrote to the Press in support of the opposition of certain teachers to the cut. The Minister has not yet seen fit to adopt that experiment. I suggest to the Minister that he might bring the letters in and read them.
What about the Deputy, if he has them?
The Minister could import much more fervour and soul into his letters than I could, and I must let him be the reader of his own letters. He is so fond of reading others, he ought to have the chance of reading some of his own. At all events, the Minister then denounced the settlement. I think, in many respects, the Minister was right in his denunciation of the settlement. The Minister was too far-seeing and progressive-minded a man to believe that there was a solution of any difficulty by way of slashing salaries, and then rightly denounced the cuts. On an earlier amendment the Minister said that at a certain stage he gave up writing to the Press. I reminded him, however, that when he stopped, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce took up the running. The Minister for Industry and Commerce made a speech at Cahir, I think it was, and announced that there was no need whatever in the financial situation existing in the country to cut the salaries of teachers. Lest apparently that speech of his did not attract sufficient public attention, he went, I think, to East Cork constituency and there delivered a long homily against the teachers' executive and against the secretary of the teachers' organisation in particular, not so much, I imagine, because he happened to be the secretary of the teachers' organisation, but because he happened to be the Leader of the Labour Party.
We might now take stock of where the present Minister for Industry and Commerce and where the present Minister for Finance stand. The Minister for Finance, who wrote all these letters to the Press denouncing the settlement, now comes along and is the very instrument for inflicting a worse cut than he then denounced. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who denounced the secretary of the teachers' organisation, and then Leader of the Labour Party, finds himself compelled, under the Whip of the Party and the orders of the Executive Council, to go into the Division Lobby in favour of the cuts which he then said, if accepted, represented a worse betrayal of the teachers than had ever been placed on record. Now I think the Minister for Finance ought to get back to where he stood originally in connection with this matter. There is no reason whatever, on economic or financial grounds, for cutting the salaries of the teachers. Their advent to the teaching profession is only accomplished after a long period of training, and after a good deal of money has been expended on their education. Their early service in the profession is marked by very low scales of salaries, so low that one could scarcely justify them as being salaries which would keep the teachers in the barest of physical comfort. If they do reach a higher scale ultimately, it is only after long years of service, after years of patient endeavour, and after they have satisfied the Department of Education annually that their proficiency is not merely static, but improving rapidly. If they fail to satisfy the test imposed annually by the Department, their position is not such a one as even the Minister for Finance might envy. I suggest to the Minister that there is no case whatever for cutting the salaries of the teachers. They are men and women who, in the first instance, receive a very sound education for which they have to pay in a substantial measure in time, patience and money. The scale of salaries at present accorded to them is not an extravagant one, and no remedy for any existing financial difficulty is to be found along the line of cutting the salaries of national teachers.
In a small country like this it may be pleaded that education costs a considerable sum of money. It does, but I should like to see education in this country costing even more. The philosophy we ought to adopt is that this country is too poor to economise in the matter of education. The main relief that the Minister would receive according to his own calculation would be £280,000 under this Bill. That is not a serious problem in a Budget of approximately £34,000,000. The Minister could get the money in other ways, and in more ways than one, without imposing these cuts on public servants. He imposes these cuts not with any degree of legitimate or moral right, but because the victims of them are most convenient to the marauding hand of the Minister and his Department. That is no sound or logical reason for cutting their salaries though this may be a convenient excuse. But it is no reason or justification for cutting their salaries. So far the Minister has not accepted a single amendment to this Bill. Having regard to the letters that he wrote to the Press and having regard to the wise advice he there tendered to the teachers of Ireland, I suggest to the Minister that this is an occasion and these are amendments that ought to recall to his mind some of his progressive days when he was sitting on the opposite benches.
In speaking to amendment 58, my own amendment and that of Deputy Lynch, which will be governed by this amendment 57, I should like to support Deputy Norton's appeal to the Minister to accept, at least, one of those two amendments. I do not want to refer to the general principle already decided, that the salaries of the national teachers must be cut. These two amendments deal with a specific type. Part III of the Schedule sets out the rate of the cut per annum on salaries less than £175, at 5 per cent. My appeal to the Minister in this case would be on these lines. The scale is based on the principle that those who get a higher salary should be cut more. I need not remind the Minister that that is very unfair to persons who, as a result of their ability and satisfactory work, have gone up in the scale. They have done so because of their number of years' service. No efficiency will give a teacher any of those higher salaries unless he has a number of years' service to his credit. The increased cuts come entirely upon those teachers who are married and have families to support, and who really spend a good deal more on general taxation and on local taxation than those on the lower scales. The amendment I propose is that the reduction of the salaries of the teachers in national schools should be 5 per cent. of the annual salaries provided always there is to be no reduction from any salary of less than £230 per annum, that is that no salary of less than £4 per week would be reduced. I need not refer again to the letters the Minister wrote to the Press, or to the President's speech at Rathmines, as to the undesirability and non-necessity of cutting salaries lower than £300 per annum. In my amendment I have gone below that figure, and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment reducing the cut to 5 per cent. on all salaries and providing that there should be no cut on salaries less than £4 per week.
I should like to refer to one matter on which the Minister spoke one evening on the Second Reading debate. I said that this matter should be faced upon a much bigger basis than that of so many hundreds of pounds or thousands of pounds. It should be based first of all upon the necessity of having a higher teaching service. I entirely agree that the question of education is one of those things on which parsimony should not be practised. I also think that the amount that will be involved by reason of the amendment I proposed would be small. I am sure the Minister will not allow the rather impassioned feeling to which he gave expression on the last occasion to govern his decision upon this, and that he will realise, whatever can be said about the necessity or non-necessity of the cuts, that this amendment is a reasonable one and one which I think many people in this House and in the country would be very glad to see accepted.
I rise to put one question and to make one point. The question arises out of Deputy Norton's remarks a few moments ago. He said the Minister for Finance could easily have raised this money by some more satisfactory method. The question I want to put, is whether by that he means the money should be raised by increased taxation or is it some alternative form of economy he has in his mind? The point I want to make is a very simple one. I quite agree with Deputies Norton and O'Sullivan that few matters can be more important to a nation's well-being than education. But I part from them when they deduce from that that more money should be spent on education. It is an absolute fallacy to suppose that you can test a country's educational system by its cost. I venture to say it will be found that in some countries in Europe where education is much more satisfactory its cost is lower. The same principle holds good in regard to individuals. A man's education may be very expensive and yet very inefficient and very little use to him.
Deputy MacDermot told us that the value of education cannot be measured by cost. I think there is something in what he says. At the same time I think that Deputy MacDermot must admit that the initial salaries of teachers, under present conditions, are very low. In fact when you consider the expense and the sacrifices that young people have to make before they become qualified as teachers, you find they sometimes spend as much as seven years before they can get a salary which would be hardly sufficient for a handy man in a village. While I agree that the efficiency of education cannot be measured by the cost, still, the inference can be drawn that the initial salaries of teachers are admittedly very low for such a profession. Teaching is a profession, and if you bring down the salaries any lower than what they are you will be degrading the profession unfairly. I think there is one thing in this country that we would all like to have, and that is, that our teachers at all events should be men that would be looked up to in the community where they teach; that they should share the respect of the children whom they teach and of the parents of those children. How can you attract to the profession a desirable class of men if you are going to degrade their salary below the low point at which it already stands? On that account, sir, I support the amendment which has been introduced by Deputy Norton. In doing so, I want to emphasise that I protest against taking anything off the initial salaries of the teachers, as it is going to degrade the profession and in the future you will not, on account of this degradation of the salary, bring to the profession the class of men which we would desire to bring to it. That is my protest against the degradation of the profession as represented by this attempt to cut their salaries.
I desire to support this amendment and express the hope that this attempt to minimise the hardships of the Bill on the lower grade of teachers will meet with more success than previous attempts have met with. I am anxious to hear how the Minister proposes to justify the cutting of the salary of a man who earns £175 a year. A man or woman goes into the teaching profession after spending three or four years in a preparatory college and a couple of years in a training college. The Minister must be aware of the fact that a good many of the young teachers come out of the training college with the certain knowledge that over some years they have to face the prospect of paying back to a bank, to kind neighbours, or somebody else, a substantial part of the expenses that were demanded for the cost of their training. They must, in a good many cases, endeavour at least to help their parents to repay the money that had to be raised—£30 or £40 a year in some instances—for the cost of their maintenance and education in a training college. The Minister must know, or the Minister for Education will tell him, that in a number of cases the brainy children of very poor people go into a training college and are allowed to enter into an agreement to repay the cost of their training when they afterwards obtain a position as teacher. Members of all sides of this House are aware that it is an everyday occurrence that concessions have to be obtained for boys and girls in that way. I should like to mention that the Department of Education has been very fair in dealing with cases of that kind. I cannot see how the Minister can justify imposing a cut on any teacher in the position of earning £3 10s. 0d. a week and faced with the responsibility of paying back over some years a substantial sum either to the Department of Education, to a bank, or private individuals for the cost of his training.
It is no harm to mention again what was referred to earlier in the course of this debate, that the teachers are called on to bear the largest share of the economies that are to be effected under this Bill. One finds it hard to see how the Minister, in view of his declaration, in view of the declaration of his colleagues, in view of the public statements that were made in the course of the election, is prepared to justify putting the bulk of the loan on the backs of the teachers. I would suggest that if the Minister insists on economies as far as the teachers are concerned he ought to have no hesitation in accepting amendments that will reduce the hardships on the lower paid teachers. While the two amendments which are under discussion go some distance to meeting that position in accepting amendments that have adopted, earlier in the course of this debate, a fairer attitude in dealing with this whole matter. Even now there is an opportunity for dealing out bare justice to the lower paid teachers. The Minister might atone for some of his misdeeds in the course of the earlier discussion on this Bill by, even at the eleventh hour, making some gesture of sympathy to teachers who will find a cut imposed on a salary of £3 10s. 0d. per week. I certainly hope that the Minister will accede to that demand, which I feel must be as strong in the ranks of his own Party as on any side of this House, if it could be made vocal. If he is not prepared to do that, I hope that he will justify his action, because it will be very interesting to listen to the Minister attempting to justify cuts of this kind in view of all that has been said previously from that side of the House on this whole subject.
In dealing with these two amendments that are before us our attitude is, I think, very well known. We first of all tried to secure that the Bill would not get a Second Reading, but the House unfortunately agreed to the principle of the Bill. Then, so far as the particular profession which we are now discussing is concerned, we tried—and I think the Labour Party were in agreement with us—to get the exclusion of this particular class altogether. This is only the third best method we are now discussing. Reference has been made to the speeches and the promises of not merely the Fianna Fáil Party and the head of that Party but of the Minister himself and some of his colleagues. I am not going into the promises themselves, but if you consider the £280,000 that is being economised by this Bill, and if you consider the £170,000 that is being economised so far as this particular class is concerned, the bulk in the one case of the £280,000 and in the other case of the £170,000 is drawn from people with salaries under £400 a year. Far the greater portion of it is drawn from them. It is, therefore, in direct violation of the line that was taken up by the Minister. Speaking of the conduct of the teachers in this particular matter, he accused them of playing politics. In reality they only believed in the sincerity of the Minister and his colleagues. If that was playing politics I suggest that it was very poor politics. The success of the Minister's eloquence may have astonished them. The virility of that brain is shown to a very large extent in speeches and letter-writing. No justification has been put forward for any of these cuts. None of them has been defended except the Guards' cut. No attempt has been made to justify any of those cuts on their merits. The suggestion was made that salary is no guarantee of good service in education. That is perfectly true. It is not a guarantee of good service in any sphere of life, but it is quite obvious that by cutting of salaries you may take a very good step to see that you get bad service. That is the difficulty. I quite realise that voluntary service is very often the best, but it cannot be argued from that that payment should be abolished altogether for work done. The serious matter is that for the paltry sum involved in this whole Bill and in this particular Schedule to which the amendments are moved—and it is manifestly only for 12 months, remember—a great deal of damage is being done to the working of the State machine and to the scholastic work throughout the country. The fact that it is temporary only makes it worse. That is no justification for it, because in that case you are creating a disturbance with practically nothing to show for it. In reality, of course, I fear that this is only temporary in the sense that, unless the Government is pressed by opposition against it throughout the country, it is only the beginning of further cuts. In that particular respect, I fear, the Bill is temporary.
I should like to remind the Deputy that the House has agreed to the principle of deductions in all the cases of the amendments before us. The question before the House is the amount of that deduction and not the principle of the Bill.
I should like to know whether it is in order for a Deputy to remain standing while the Ceann Comhairle is speaking.
It was purely an oversight.
I am sure the Deputy intended no discourtesy; it was an oversight.
The Deputy has often tried to teach manners in this House.
I never did. The Ceann Comhairle knows that it was purely unintentional on my part. Whatever error was on my side was mental and not physical. Of the two amendments, much can be said for either of them; and if either of them is carried I am quite satisfied. The bigger deduction, and, therefore, the wiping away of the bigger damage, is possibly done by the amendment in Deputy Norton's name; but there is this to be said in favour of the amendment in the names of Deputies Lynch and O'Sullivan, and that is that it refuses to penalise the men who have the heavier responsibility. I am not saying that Deputy Norton's amendment does that. It does not, and that is the reason why his amendment should be voted for by those who are opposed to the extent of this particular cut; but the other amendment tries to give relief to the men with the higher responsibilities and especially with the better qualifications, who have reached the supernormal scale owing to their higher qualifications for teaching. Again and again, there have been debates in this House in which the question was asked by Deputies who are now on the Government side: Are we getting value? And the plea was put forward that for the good teacher no salary could be too high, roughly speaking. The good teacher in the scales of salary is specially singled out and he is being particularly hit by this particular cut. It is to meet cases like his—the man who, owing to his high efficiency, reaches the supernormal scale and who, owing to his age, has heavy responsibilities—that amendment 58, in the names of Deputies Lynch and O'Sullivan, has been moved; namely, that these are the people, if we are to pay any attention to the arguments put forward, who ought to be specially cared for. Yet, we have the instance here, that the highly efficient teachers especially, the men who have shown by long years of service that they belong to that particular category and who have reached a highly efficient standard for a number of years, are the people specially singled out by a Government who, when they were in Opposition, professed to be anxious to get the most highly efficient people.
Another reason why I think these amendments should be supported is this: I have already referred to the fact that this particular cut imposed by the Government is independent of any attempt to deal with the pension fund. So far as the people whom Deputy Norton tries to exempt are concerned, unless the pension fund is dealt with, they are paying into a fund out of which they will get no benefit whatsoever. There is that to be said in favour of the amendments in the names of Deputy Norton and the other Deputies that in reality, so far as the bulk of the young teachers is concerned, for them the pension fund is bankrupt and they are getting no benefit out of it. Their salary, therefore, is not £170. Their initial salary in reality is, roughly speaking, about £147 a year for the fully trained teacher because the 4/- he pays, owing to the refusal of the Government to couple a settlement of the pension fund with the cuts, makes an additional contribution from young teachers. That is another reason why these amendments should be supported.
As I say, I am not going into the general responsibility of the Government for the opposition that the teachers, especially, have shown to these particular cuts. The Government are responsible for it. They have an opportunity, at least so far as mere form goes, of meeting the case that they themselves made, namely, that the lower scaled or lower salaried people should not be cut. They have an opportunity here of meeting that particular case if they accept either of the amendments before the House, and I suggest that the House, in so far as it can, ought to insist that the Government accepts either of these amendments.
You, sir, have just suggested that the only matter before the House at the moment is the amount of the cut which should be put into operation. Needless to remind you, sir, members of the House, who have taken any interest in the measure now under discussion, cannot ignore the very important fact that the Minister, without any legal authority, has already put certain cuts into operation. The Minister, in defending his action—that unprecedented action of putting cuts on the salaries of certain public servants into operation without any legal authority —contended that the Second Reading majority in favour of this Bill gave him the necessary authority to do so.
May I rise to correct a misrepresentation which I have already denied? If the Deputy will be good enough to repeat my statement on that occasion he will find that I did not use the words on which he bases his allegation that I suggested that the Second Reading majority gave me authority.
I think, sir, that I am correct in saying that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Education used that argument on behalf of the Ministry in this House.
Deputy Davin said that I used the argument.
I should be surprised if the Minister for Finance would repudiate any argument used by his colleagues.
The Deputy purported to quote what the Minister himself had said on a certain occasion. If the Deputy is quoting, he should quote correctly.
If the Attorney-General were here I am perfectly certain he would deny it also.
I did not pretend to quote what the Minister for Finance is alleged to have said, but I think that if the Minister for Finance will read the speeches made in defence of this "Cuts" Bill, and which were made in his absence by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Education, he will find that I am not misrepresenting the attitude of the Ministry on this matter.
The Deputy opened his speech by stating that this is not a Second Stage debate and that discussion should be confined to the amendment before the House. So far, the Deputy has been making a Second Reading speech. The House has decided on the principle of deductions from salaries and the question is to what extent can that decision be modified to meet Deputies' wishes in accordance with the amendment before the House.
I quite realise the House has decided on the principle of the Bill, but I think it is not unfair of me to remind you and the House that these cuts are in operation without any legal authority.
I have definitely ruled that the question of authority for these deductions is out of order at this stage.
I bow to your ruling. This Party has consistently contended that it is bad national economy to cut the salaries of public servants below what is known as the living-wage level. In that we were in agreement with President de Valera who, in his famous and historic Rathmines Town Hall speech, said he did not propose, if returned to office at the General Election, to cut the salaries of public servants where they ranged between £300 and £400 per annum. He said that those in receipt of salaries between £300 and £400 were receiving nothing excessive. At the same time as the President was making that speech in Rathmines, the Minister for Finance was speaking somewhere else in the country, telling the electors that if Fianna Fáil were returned they would save at least £2,000,000 on the Estimates. In my own constituency he held a meeting under the chairmanship of a member of the I.N.T.O. and he promised the teachers that if he were returned their salaries would not be cut. Does he deny that?
I do not want to waste the time of the House or to irritate the Minister. Apparently these things do irritate the Minister. One source of irritation is to repeat verbatim the statement made by the President in Rathmines Town Hall. Deputies of all Parties have good reason to know the valuable support that Fianna Fáil received from the teachers during the General Election, particularly as a result of the speeches delivered by their leaders in 1932 and 1933. I have heard Fianna Fáil Deputies suggesting recently that nobody in the country has any sympathy with the teachers; that the Government has the general backing of the country in reducing teachers' salaries. In making a statement of that kind Government Deputies are, I say, appealing to the mentality of the down and out.
I heard the Minister for Finance speaking here five times in succession on one amendment, contending all the time that these cuts are but temporary, while at the same time he was using language which, to anyone who studies it carefully, indicates clearly that he is arguing in favour of permanent cuts. I believe it is quite true to state that when this Labour Party held the balance of power it was the intention of the Minister for Finance to put similar cuts into operation. They would be in operation to-day were it not that the Minister knew he would not get the support of the seven Labour Deputies. The Minister might have been straightforward in the early part of the present year when he issued his manifesto to the electors and told the teachers their salaries would not be cut. Fianna Fáil asked for a clear majority and they got a clear majority and the teachers who supported them are now going to be compensated for their efforts by having their salaries cut.
I read the manifestos issued by the President in 1932 and 1933. There is not a word in either of them which would suggest that the salaries of teachers or of public servants would be altered. If the Ministry had that policy in mind at the General Election, they should in all decency have made it clear to the people. I say deliberately that this or no other Government will get the support of the Labour Party in cutting the salaries of public servants below a decent living level. We are told that the policy of this Government is to build up a great home market to replace the export market that has been lost as a result of their own policy. How can you build up a good home market if you cut the salaries of poorly paid servants? Every penny of their salaries would ordinarily be spent in purchasing the necessaries of life and, if those salaries are altered, that will have a definite reaction upon purchasing power.
The Minister was well aware that the return of eleven Centre Party Deputies would mean a certain backing in the matter of cutting the salaries of teachers and other public servants. He knew beforehand that he was going to get the support of Deputy MacDermot and his ten colleagues and then he decided to bring these audacious proposals before the House. But before he even consulted the House on the merits of the measure or the extent to which the cuts should be put into operation, he decided to put them into practice as from the 1st of April.
I have been asked by Deputy Murphy to explain how I am going to justify cutting the salaries of men with less than £175 per annum. There is one justification which may be mentioned for the policy and it is that the teachers themselves, speaking through their organisation in December, 1931, decided by a majority of almost two to one that instead of cutting the man with £175 by five per cent. he should be cut by ten per cent. Deputy Norton was much more honest in his presentation of arguments than Deputy Davin, because Deputy Norton did not withhold from the Dáil the fact that in 1931 an agreement was entered into with our predecessors and accepted by the teachers.
And you condemned them for it.
The Deputy came in by way of repudiation of it.
We will keep on the one point—what is the justification. The justification is this, that in December, 1931, when the position of the Exchequer, the general budgetary position, was better than it is at the present time, and when our predecessors, the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, found it necessary to economise in the public service, the I.N.T.O. met them and, by a majority of almost two to one, decided to accept a cut, not of five per cent. but of ten per cent. I think that is a sufficient justification. If I could not produce any other than that, I think it is sufficient for the inclusion in this Bill of the teachers. Deputy Davin said that this Government or no other Government will get the support of his Party to cut the salaries of teachers. Would Deputy Davin have supported the agreement of December, 1931? Would his Party have accepted that agreement; would his Party, when it was led by the then General Secretary of the I.N.T.O., have supported the Cumann na nGaedheal Government of the day in cutting the teachers' salaries?
Certainly not.
If so, how would the Labour Party then have justified its repudiation of its own Chairman, the man who made the bargain and who by his own act had accepted this bargain?
As an instrument of the Executive of the I.N.T.O.
No, but as an instrument of the teachers who felt that in the circumstances of the time when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in office they should accept a cut of ten per cent., but who now, when they find that a Fianna Fáil Government is in office, refuse to accept a cut of half that amount. Surely there is not reason or logic in the position that Deputy Davin puts forward. The one reason why this Bill was not introduced before this year, the one reason why it was not introduced last year, was that it was impossible for the Government last year, with the other problems that were pressing for our attention, to have prepared a comprehensive plan. We wasted twelve months trying to secure agreement, but we had this Bill in mind. When we came into power in March, 1932, we found such a situation confronting us that we had to impose very heavy taxation, which we would have to increase in the year following. We decided, therefore, if we were not able to make the necessary retrenchments in 1932, that at any rate in 1933 if the Budget would not balance without imposing additional taxation, economies would have to be made in the salaries of public servants, and those economies would have to be shared by every branch of the public service. The general election had nothing to do with the introduction of this Bill. The provisions of this Bill were under consideration in my Department before the election. We went to the country for one thing and for one thing only, and that was for the purpose of fortifying ourselves with a fresh mandate to carry to a conclusion which we believed would be satisfactory to the people the land annuities dispute. There was never in regard to the 1932 or the 1933 General Election a pledge given to the teachers to the effect that they would be excluded from the operations of this Bill.
The President's speech in Rathmines on this Bill was made there in my presence. Deputy Davin, with his usual disregard for facts, said that speech was made when I was down the country. The speech was made by the President at a meeting at which I was present. I was on the platform at that meeting. When the President, in making the statement at the time, referred to public services, it was quite clear from the context of his remarks that the only people he had in mind were the civil servants.
If it is open to me, I want to correct that statement.
With the permission of the Minister.
It was quite clear in his Rathmines speech the President had in mind the civil servants and that speech was not a pledge to the national teachers or to any other body.
Did you give any pledge?
Never any pledge.
Did you give any pledge in your letters?
Are these letters in order now?
The Minister gave a pledge.
I have heard a lot about letters. I did write letters dealing with the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund and I pointed out that the National Teachers Organisation was largely responsible for the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund. It is extraordinary that while these letters have been referred to in the debate they have not been brought into the House and what I did state in them has not been mentioned here.
During this debate to-morrow I will read every one of them for you.
I am quite well aware of the fact that Deputy Norton wishes to waste more time than he has already done.
In reading the Minister's letters!
The matter has been before the House and was very largely repeated, as I have already said on the Committee Stage of the Bill. It has been long enough before the House for the Dáil to have made up its mind with regard to the principle and the principles that are involved. The question comes down to this: we have got to secure the economies which this Bill seeks to secure and if we are going to secure these economies they must be from every section of the public service.
Including the lower paid public servants.
The alternative to this Bill is the imposition of additional taxation. As far as the Schedule is concerned, I have said that the settlement which the teachers accepted from our predecessors by a majority of two to one two years ago was not nearly as satisfactory to the teachers as what they are getting now by this Bill.
In reply to the Minister's allegation that the speech of the President in Rathmines, in 1932, only gave a pledge to the civil servants, I must say this: that on the morning of the election the Irish Press carried a guarantee that the President's speech in Rathmines applied to the teachers as well as to the civil servants.
Deputy Norton referred to the fact that not a single amendment from any side of the House was accepted by the Minister. There was one amendment to be considered, and that was amendment 9b and, while I would not be in order to discuss it now, I hope the Minister will not entertain it, because if he does it will be a public scandal.
I said here on the Second Reading of the Cuts Bill that the teachers objected to two things definitely—to cuts in the first place and, secondly, to the discrimination used against the teachers. When I pointed out that the teachers had to bear 62½ per cent. of the whole of these economies, the Minister in his reply ignored my remarks completely and indulged in a most intemperate tirade against the I.N.T.O., which I represent, and accused the teachers of not teaching the Irish language, not supporting Gaelic pastimes, and in being disloyal subjects of the State, of marching through the streets and——
The Deputy cannot, in considering a Report Stage amendment, make a Second Reading speech. What is before the House now is an amendment purporting to reduce the amount of the proposed deductions from the teachers' salaries.
The Minister made this statement on the Committee Stage of the Bill and there was no chance of replying to it in the circumstances.
There was.
I want to reply to that now and to say that I repudiate these statements of the Minister categorically. The teachers did not refuse to teach the Irish language; they did not refuse to support Gaelic pastimes; they are not disloyal subjects of the State. Some of them marched through the streets. I say now that, if the Minister's attitude to the teachers is indicative of the action of the Executive Council, they will march again through the streets very soon.
The question of a flat rate has been discussed here at some length by the different Deputies. I confess that I am myself converted to the flat rate as far as the teachers are concerned and for this reason: A young teacher earning £160 might get a cut of £11, £12 or £13 this year, but he has a chance next year of recovering that by way of increment; whereas the teacher who is at his maximum if he is getting a cut of £10 or £11, has no chance of recovering it by way of increment. That teacher has his wife and family and other obligations and he has no chance of recovering that cut unless, of course, this cut may be, as the Minister says, only a temporary one which we hope it will be. I must again accuse the Minister of discrimination against the teachers. He has not yet explained how it is that a national teacher in Dublin (North City) enjoying, if I may use the word, a salary of £220 a year, and supporting a wife and three children, is to suffer a cut, of 6½ per cent., while a lady civil servant, living next door, with a higher salary, will not suffer a single penny of a cut. That is a position which occurs and one in which it will be very hard for the teachers to believe that they are being specially favoured in this Bill. I do not believe that. The Minister has put forward a certain argument to show that teachers are specially favoured. I join with other Deputies who have spoken in a last-minute appeal to the Minister to give some concession in this measure to the teachers. I should like him, if he replies again, to make some reference to the Pensions Fund. He referred to it a moment ago and said that the present state of the fund is due to the teachers. That is entirely incorrect. The teachers' side of the fund is perfectly solvent and is in credit. The teachers, under an old arrangement, are responsible for one-quarter of the Pensions Fund. The teachers' quarter is maintained and is perfectly solvent, is in fact over a quarter million in credit.
Discussion of the position of the Teachers' Pension Fund is not in order, either for a Deputy or for the Minister.
The Minister referred to it and I am replying.
I will allow a brief reference to it.
The brief reference he made was that the teachers were responsible for the present state of the Pensions Fund and I say that is not correct.
That should be sufficient.
The Minister, in reply to a question by Deputy Davin, stated that his justification for cutting salaries from £175 downwards was that the teachers themselves, at a special congress in December, 1931, accepted that cut by a majority, I think he said, of two to one. I suggest that that is not so, or, at least, that it is only part of the truth. I must, I submit, refer to the pensions fund in connection with that statement of his, because there was involved in the agreement then of the teachers to accept that cut the acceptance by the Government of the day of full responsibility for seeing that the pensions fund was made solvent. The two things went together.
I have ruled that the solvency of the pensions fund is out of order on this amendment.
Mr. Lynch
I do not know how I can argue against the Minister's statement, that the teachers themselves at a special congress accepted a cut equal to, or greater than, the cuts outlined in this Bill, unless I point out what was involved in that cut which the teachers accepted.
The Deputy has already pointed out that Government responsibility for the pensions fund was—for his purpose—involved and that should be sufficient without discussing the fund.
Mr. Lynch
The Minister said that the cut then to be enforced was greater than is embodied in the Bill. That again is not so, because the cuts outlined in the Bill vary from 5 to 8½ per cent. Under the proposal in 1931, there was to be a flat rate cut of 6 per cent. The Minister is also taking into consideration the permanent 4 per cent. contribution of the teachers to the pension fund, which will go on now, if these cuts are imposed, just as it has been going on all the time. So that, if it is true to say, as the Minister said, that we proposed a 10 per cent. cut in 1931, then the Minister proposes for some teachers a reduction now of 12½ per cent. It would be just as true to say that.
May I remind the Deputy of the exact phrasing "making a flat reduction of ten per cent. in the pensionable salary"?
Mr. Lynch
Therefore, the Minister is now making, under this Bill, a reduction varying from five per cent. in the case of teachers under £175 per year, to 12 per cent. in the case of teachers who have £450 or more. I do not like to go into comparisons as between the different services, as I do not think that does any good, because the whole principle in the Bill is wrong, but undoubtedly I think Deputy Breathnach is justified in stating that there is unfair discrimination against the teachers. He pointed to one case of a lady civil servant in receipt of £220 per year and of a teacher, a married teacher perhaps, with £220 per year, and of the teacher being cut in his salary while the lady civil servant has not her salary cut at all. The same might be said with regard to the Gárda Síochána. The unmarried Gárda is to have a small reduction made in his pay, amounting I think to 2/- per week, or £5 4s. per annum, whereas a teacher with a salary of £175 would receive a cut of £8 15s. per annum. Then the pay of the married Gárda is not being cut at all. There is no such discrimination with regard to the married teacher. Some Deputies seem to think that all teachers marry lady teachers, or that the lady teachers marry members of the Gárda Síochána. Of course that is not so. There was a time, probably thirty or forty years ago, or perhaps ten or fifteen years ago, when the custom largely prevailed throughout the country that the teacher in the boys' school was the husband of the teacher in the girls' school next door—a forced condition of affairs very often, because of the miserable salaries prevailing at the time, the salary of the male teacher being about £60, and that of the woman teacher being something less. If a discrimination is made in the case of the married Gárda, a discrimination should also be made in the case of the married teacher with a very low salary. It might also be said in relation to the Civil Service. It has been pointed out that teachers have this permanent cut of four per cent. in their salaries for the pensions fund, whereas civil servants, who are not touched by this Bill until they reach a salary of £300, make no contribution towards their pensions fund.
They pay it all.
Mr. Lynch
They make no contribution to the pensions fund, whereas the teacher does. The teacher, in addition to paying his ordinary share of taxation, has to meet portion of the fund from which eventually he will draw his pension.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
As a matter of personal explanation in connection with the statement made by the Minister for Finance I would like to say——
As a matter of personal explanation?
Yes, in connection with the imposition of the cuts. I will not read what the Minister said when he asked me to refer to his statement. If he reads his own statement made on the 31/3/33 and reported in column 1836 of the Official Debates he will find out that what I said was the correct version of his own statement.
I asked the Deputy to quote the words.
I have given the column and the Minister can read the statement himself.
Oh, no.
Debate adjourned until to-morrow.