I would like, sir, to take this last opportunity of asking the different sections in this House to consider this Bill carefully before they fall in with the Government's wishes in this particular matter. We have had opportunities of discussing some of the details of this Bill. Certain main general principles were discussed during the Second Reading. Members of the House have read the speeches of the Ministers. If there is any truth in those speeches that we have heard from the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce about the buoyant state of the finances, about the flourishing state of industry and about the unexampled prosperity of agriculture, if there is even one-tenth of a grain of truth in them—and even that, I admit, would be a large assumption—it is very hard to understand the justification for this particular bill. I do not think it is necessary to go into any quotations from the speeches of the Ministers in this respect. When they are speaking on other aspects of Government policy they are very eloquent and very definite about the exceedingly prosperous state of the country. And yet this is precisely the moment they choose to bring forward not a permanent measure of economies, but a temporary measure of salary cutting for the present year.
It is extremely difficult to reconcile to any extent the optimistic statements of the Ministers when dealing with the general results of their policy with the attitude they are adopting on this particular Bill. There might be two excuses put forward for a Bill of this kind. If it were an effort at real economy, if it were part and parcel— as decidedly it is not—of a general campaign of cutting down taxation, if it were some evidence of their realisation of the economic conditions confronting the country, that at least might be an arguable case which the Government might put forward. The other case which the Government might put forward would be this that they are not getting value for the money—that they are not getting value from the various services that are being interfered with by this particular Economies Bill. That was a question that was once or twice raised by the members of the present Government when on the Opposition Benches as regards particular services. But even the Minister for Finance when he lost his temper, does not now even suggest that justification for cutting the salaries of the teachers for instance. He did not suggest that they are not giving good value. That excuse has not been put forward as a justification for that particular economy as far as that particular service is concerned. If you run through the various items on which the Government expect to save money by this Bill you will find that in none of them, with a doubtful exception of the Guards, has the Government put forward what might be an excuse that they are not getting value. Not one statement of that kind has been put forward by them. They now realise the value of the services they are getting from the various public servants. That I think ought to be patent to everybody in this House. Yet I suggest it is one reason why a measure of this kind might be brought in.
I ask the House now on this very last chance so far as this measure is concerned to reject it as a fraud. It is a fraud I fear in its title and it is a fraud in so far as it pretends to stand over a policy of economy. The Government again and again in dealing with the class in the country that they have hurt and in dealing with the various interests that they have injured and damaged have shown that they are exceedingly callous in the way in which they have set about deceiving the people. The word "temporary" introduced in this Bill is, I suggest, only another instance of Government deception and fraud. If the measure is only a temporary measure, if the Government is sincere in that particular matter, if its sole interest is a question of £ s. d. I ask any person seriously to consider whether it is worth the disturbance occasioned by this measure, that is to say, whether the amount of money expected to be saved by this measure is worth the disturbance created in the public service of this country for one year.
Does anybody believe that the amount of damage done is to any extent compensated for by one year's saving of £250,000, especially when we consider the way in which the Government has dealt with the national resources in various other respects? Then we have here simply a case of downright fraud. Economy is not the purpose of this Bill. Anybody who has listened to the Budget speech of the Minister, and anybody who has listened to the various Ministers in this House, know that economy is not the purpose of this Bill. Anyone who has seen the squandermania policy, to quote a word that was used by supporters of the Government when public expenditure was much less than it is now—anybody who considers these things must be perfectly clear in his mind that economy cannot be the purpose of this particular measure. The pretence at economy is the main purpose of this measure, and the pretence that this is a temporary measure is merely the Government giving way to its usual habit, a habit it cannot get out of—the habit of deceiving the people. To quote an expression that is probably familiar to some supporters of the Government— I saw one of their Fianna Fáil Clubs use the expression—I am not afraid of sabotage on the part of the public services. I quote that expression from a resolution of a Fianna Fail Club—I am not afraid of sabotage on the part of the public services. But even if there was no decided purpose not to give the same service as was given before, the actual discontent existing in the service, at the unfair terms imposed, is bound, taking human nature as it is, to act on the efficiency of the service given to the Government. It is only human nature that it should be so. I ask if that is the case does not every other Deputy feel that if there is slackness of work much more will be lost to the public revenue than will be saved by this fraudulent measure that pretends to introduce economies when the policy of the Government is downright extravagance right through. The Government cannot get away from this policy of extravagance by a "Cuts" Bill of this kind. It is only throwing dust in the eyes of the people, and it can only blind people who wish to have dust thrown in their eyes.
There is this other explanation for the determination with which the Government is pursuing this particular matter, and that is a perverted sense of justice on the part of some members of the Government. It reminds me of a celebrated occasion on which the head of a Government insisted upon certain executions because it would not be fair, he thought, having executed a certain number, if he did not execute the others.