Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 16 Mar 1934

Vol. 51 No. 8

Local Services (Temporary Economies) (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 13:—

Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) This Act shall only apply to such local authorities as shall determine to adopt same in the manner in this section hereinafter provided.

(2) Within one month after the passing of this Act the Chief Executive Officer of every local authority shall summon a meeting of the members of the local authority of which not less than seven days' notice shall be given in the manner in which notices of meetings of the local authority are usually given, at which meeting the local authority shall decide by a majority of the members present at such meeting whether the Act shall be adopted or not. In the case of an equality of votes the Act shall be deemed not to have been adopted.

(3) A certificate in writing of the Chief Executive Officer of the local authority countersigned by the Chairman of the meeting shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption of the Act.

(4) The decision as to whether the Act shall be adopted or not shall be a reserved function of the Council of the County Boroughs of Dublin and Cork and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. (Deputy McGilligan.)

Professor O'Sullivan

In the course of the discussion we have listened to, the Minister implied that he had replied to the arguments advanced in connection with this amendment. Deputies will remember that he had not opened his mouth on the matter, that he refused the opportunity given him and that he professed to be quite satisfied with what Deputy Corry had said. He had himself not taken any part in the discussion. After arguments are brought up and new points raised, time and again, the Minister should treat the House with more respect than he is doing. I am glad that Deputy Corry has come in because if he had not I was going to move the adjournment of the debate. That is, apparently, the recognised method by which this Bill is to be forced through. What the amendment proposes to do is to ensure that local government is local government and that, unless a strong case is shown why it should be interfered with, it should not be interfered with.

Whatever case the Minister may have to put up for the other amendments, he should, at least, recognise that principle—that liberty should be allowed to the local authorities unless he can put up a case against that course. I do not say that, if a case can be put up against the way in which that liberty is used by the local authorities, the Minister has not his duties and powers. He has. But he has put up no case why this particular liberty should be taken away from the local authorities. Is he serious in his contention that the local authorities want not merely permission but compulsion in this matter? I understand that a case of that kind has been put up. Is it seriously meant? On another occasion, the Minister was responsible for a strange statement in connection with vocational officers. He has refused to give us any information. Perhaps Deputy Corry will give us information as to the local authorities that are crying out for this measure which, if I use a phrase of the Minister for Education, is in the nature of an imposed settlement. Do the local authorities want this imposed upon them? If there is a case to be made for these economies, surely the position to be taken up by the opposite Party should be that which they consistently adopted when in opposition —that the local authorities should get a free hand. Why are they not getting that free hand now? Is there any case why they should not get it? If there is, surely the people in the best position to judge whether or not that case is sound are the people in touch with local conditions. If the local representatives do not believe that there is a case for "cuts," how is the Minister in a position to determine that question better than they? Are we, as I said last night, after the various displays we have had here for the last couple of weeks and which have taken place here generally, to assume that political considerations never affect the position here? It is quite instructive to see the attitude taken up on these matters by men like Deputy Corry, who have had experience of local authorities. I do not see his stable companion, Deputy Briscoe, here, but we have the Minister also present. I thought that they were out to trust the local authorities. Now, apparently these bodies are corrupt of the corrupt. They cannot be trusted to look after the welfare of the people. That was the contention put forward last evening.

That was the gist of Deputy Corry's speech—that because somebody was a second cousin of somebody else his salary could not be cut. I understand that one of the few local authorities which put up a half-hearted demand for this Bill is a body which wanted to bring down a salary below a figure which the Minister thought it should not go. With that exception, I think that the local authorities protested against this Bill. Is that proof of their eagerness for the Bill, eagerness which the tender-hearted Minister cannot resist? Does the Minister accept the description which Deputy Corry gave of Dublin Corporation last night? He said he was quite satisfied with the case put up by Deputy Corry. A list was read out by Deputy McGilligan and that list was headed by Dublin Corporation. We must assume, therefore, that the Minister holds the views put forward by Deputy Corry in that connection. If the local authorities think that, in the conditions that obtain, this "cut" should be imposed, why is liberty taken from them? Why is the Minister not satisfied to allow them to impose the "cut?" Surely, the Minister does not think, after what we have heard this morning, that this saving of £35,000 is anything but the merest sop, so far as economy is concerned.

The local authorities, of course, see the condition much clearer than the Minister. They know perfectly well that this is all pretence and the poorest of pretence. The local authorities know it is absurd to say that a sum of £1,000, or something like that, could possibly lessen the discontent with the present Administration, which is spending money in the wildest possible way, and in such a manner that the wealth of the country is being frittered away, wasted away, burned away by the whole policy of the Government. Like everybody else, the Minister must know that this Bill has no real sincerity behind it. There is no question that this twopenny halfpenny Bill cannot effect economies in this country. There are different conditions prevailing in different counties, even so far as the same type of work is concerned. In some counties men doing the same kind of work are not well paid as compared with men doing similar work in other counties. That is a consideration that the local authorities themselves should be allowed to take into account. I see that Deputy Corry has withdrawn from his place in the House and, I think, in the circumstances, we should adjourn for a moment as there is no quorum.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy is like the babbling brook.

General Mulcahy

If there is a quorum I have a few remarks to make.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Attention having been drawn to the fact that there is no quorum, I have to take notice of it.

House counted and a quorum being found present:

General Mulcahy

I would press the adoption of this amendment upon the Minister. I would ask him if he would be good enough to refer to the position of the Dublin Corporation in this matter. If the Minister refuses to accept this amendment he denies to a body like the Dublin Corporation dealing with the area of Greater Dublin and with the machinery for administration established under that Act, the right to say whether a certain small amount of economies shall or shall not be made in the payment of the higher officials on their staffs. I think while the same could be said with regard to the Minister's action in reference to the County Councils of Dublin and Cork, he should at least specially address himself to his attitude towards the Dublin Corporation in this matter. The Government Party have expressed their attitude with regard to local government pretty generally since they came into office. Whatever attitude Deputy T. Kelly may take in relation to this Bill I submit to him that it cuts across the declarations the Government Party have made on a higher plane with regard to improvements in local administration. When the Fianna Fáil Party were prepared to take over control of the Dublin Corporation last year, and did not make the arrangements that Deputy T. Kelly thought were necessary for the operation, they expressed fairly clearly, through their Party organ on the 23rd June, what their attitude was to local administration. They said:

"We would have each local government almost supreme in its area, the central government being the supervising, rather than the interfering, body. The more power the locality is given the better for the country as a whole in our belief."

That was their philosophy on the policy of local government in the middle paragraph of the leading article of the Presidential Press on the date I mentioned. I would ask the Vice-President to do something to help us to secure what was proposed to be done in the general policy outlined there, if he rejects this amendment. The same article told us an enormous amount could be done by the local councils to end this economic war. Is the position and the whole philosophy outlined there now that local government is to be scrapped for the purpose of winning the economic war, or what relation has the £35,000 to the position of the country at present?

What exactly is the relationship between these changes and the complete turning down of the ministerial policy with regard to local government? The ministerial press told us, in the same article, that certain local bodies inspired not by economic necessity but by sheer obstructionism, decided to endeavour to lighten the burden on the ratepayers when making up their estimates for last year, and the ministerial pronouncement on matters of that kind was that "local bodies of that kind are a danger." Do we understand that the Dublin Corporation is a danger because Deputy Kelly's scheme did not work on general lines, or is this subject of economies being dealt with completely upon its merits? If the matter is being dealt with completely on its merits, then I think it is an astounding thing that the attitude should be taken up that a body like the Dublin Corporation are not the people to determine for themselves whether the Bill is going to be applied to certain members of their staff. As to reducing expenditure, I suppose the amount involved in the case of the Dublin Corporation would be less than £10,000, if it would be anything near it. As to the position generally throughout the country, the fact has been pointed out that the whole policy—to which the Ministerial Party are anxious from time to time to harp back—of the old Sinn Féin movement was for the standardisation of local services. The Minister knows very well that particularly in the lower-paid ranks, which are perhaps not affected by this measure, very little standardisation has been possible; that in the higher ranks only a certain amount of standardisation has been made possible as occasional vacancies arise; that there has been ministerial interference with salaries in the past, outside of new entrants into the service, and even then there has been discussion between the Ministry and the local authority on the merits of the position and the qualifications required for it.

This is a measure that is being forced on local authorities without their being able to say whether they will have it or not. It is dealing in a haphazard way with a large number of local bodies, and with, under any one particular body, a large number of positions that had been filled in the past and the emoluments attached to which have very often been looked at from a purely personal point of view. The Minister's attitude has an element of great injustice in it. The possibility of that injustice could, I submit, be reduced very much by leaving the local authorities to decide whether this Act should be applied to them or not. Except very sound reasons are found by the Minister—there are, in fact, no reasons apparent at all at the moment why those bodies should not be given an opportunity of deciding for themselves on looking at the situation as it is in their own areas—I submit that the Minister is not in a position to decide on the merits of the case.

Mr. O'Kelly

To quote a word used by Deputy O'Sullivan this morning, I think the Deputy has a great deal of brass in his face to get up here——

Professor O'Sullivan

Unfortunately I did not use the expression in reference to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I agree with the Minister that I should have used it, but I did not do so.

A Deputy

You have time enough yet.

Professor O'Sullivan

I have plenty of time.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am sorry that I placed that——

Professor O'Sullivan

That honour?

Mr. O'Kelly

——that honour on the broad shoulders of Deputy O'Sullivan instead of on the more slender ones of his redoubtable colleague. Deputy Mulcahy has a good deal of brass in his face to get up here as a champion of freedom for local authorities, in view of his own record in dealing with local authorities, particularly the one he specified—the Dublin Corporation. If one goes back on his ministerial past, and considers the measure of freedom which he gave to that local authority, and to many other local authorities during his time, the amount of brass required for his present attitude will be appreciated.

During the time of that Government I think Deputy Mulcahy must have deprived local authorities of more power than anything we could suggest under this Bill would do to all the local authorities put together. He deprived the Dublin Corporation of its existence as a Corporation, and in that way he told the country what he thought of local authorities, what amount of power they should have, and what trust he placed in them. He has respect for the local authorities only when he is sure of a majority on them with his point of view. His respect for local authorities is like that of Deputy O'Sullivan, who also championed the local authorities this morning. I cannot quote his words, but I am sure he valiantly defended, as he always did, the case of his ministerial colleagues, when their Government was in office, in justifying the suppression of the local authorities. He thought it was a magnificent thing for the welfare of the country. Of course, having changed places, he now thinks it convenient to champion and become a gallant and valiant leader of the movement for full and unfettered freedom for local authorities. It is enough to make the gods laugh that those gentlemen should champion the local authorities.

General Mulcahy

I notice the Minister is challenging the brass in our make-up rather than the intelligence in our argument.

Mr. O'Kelly

I need not challenge that. There is nothing to challenge.

Professor O'Sullivan

And the Gods once more laugh.

Mr. O'Kelly

With regard to the amendment, I maintain, as I said when speaking to other amendments here, that there is a widespread demand all over the country for economies in local administration. On one occasion here I challenged different Deputies who sat on the benches on the opposite side— they are not here now—that they made speeches in their areas demanding that there should be reductions in salaries; they did not deny it. Deputy Mulcahy spoke of standardisation. What we propose under this Bill is standardisation.

Professor O'Sullivan

Of salaries or of cuts?

Mr. O'Kelly

Standardisation of cuts. It is standardisation. Exactly what Deputy Mulcahy wanted we are giving him under this Bill. We are treating everybody alike. We are treating them alike in so far as the amount to be taken off their salaries is concerned. I know that that will not satisfy the local authorities. I know that, from correspondence which has reached me, and from my readings in the Press of the views expressed by individuals in local authorities. There are people, unquestionably, where there is a political majority which sees eye to eye with Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy O'Sullivan and the others, who are not treating the matter on its merits, but from a purely political point of view. This measure is proposed by the present Government; therefore, it is a good thing to oppose it; it is a good thing to obstruct it; it is a good thing to make difficulties for the Government. That is what is being done. This matter of economies is proposed here, and it is demanded in the country by responsible people, some of whom I know Deputy O'Sullivan has great respect for. Some members of the Hierarchy have mentioned it in their Pastorals—members opposite will not deny that they speak with authority in the country—and have demanded that the salaried people in the country should, in those times when money is not as flush as it used to be, bear a cut. Deputy Dillon need not remind his colleague; I am sure he is aware of the argument that will be used in reply. Well, I am stating a fact. Responsible men, whom I take it know the country as well as Deputy O'Sullivan or Deputy Mulcahy or Deputy Dillon, have demanded, or rather advised, that salaried people in the country should bear a share of the economies rendered necessary in Ireland, as well as in other countries the world over, by the very heavy fall which has taken place in agricultural prices, sometimes gradually but with greater severity in the last five or six years.

I like to see local authorities free to deal with their local problems. That has been my viewpoint for a long time and it is still my viewpoint—that they are well fitted to deal with the problems in their own areas. I do maintain, however, that there has been a demand for economies and it is strange, coming from the gentleman opposite, that in respect of any economy, some say that it is not big enough and sneer at and deride the amount of the economy. Any one of the county councils would be very happy indeed to make an economy of £1,000, but I am afraid that, if left entirely to themselves, some of them, at any rate, might be unjust. That has happened before and I am afraid it would happen again to some officials.

The Minister has always had the power, and I should like to see him always having that power, to step in and prevent injustice of that kind in case the majority on a council might be led astray and do an injustice to a good servant. I think, therefore, that it is best that the economy proposed in this Bill should be imposed by Act of Parliament. I think that the local authorities—all of them, without exception, and even those who have, as I know some of them have, passed resolutions against this Economies Bill, for, I believe, political reasons— will be happy to see this Bill passed and the amount involved saved to the country and to local authorities in the present circumstances.

Mr. Minch

The Vice-President, when he gets up in this House, has always such a polite and charming smile that he reminds one of the managing director of a huge industrial concern announcing a bonus to his shareholders. One almost feels that it is a pleasure to receive an ordinance making it definite that a cut will have to be carried out by local authorities, whether they like it or not. One almost feels that it is a pleasure to have to do that. There is too much of the Dublin Corporation in this House altogether. One would think that the Dublin Corporation was the beginning and end of the whole administration of local government in the Irish Free State. What about the unfortunate county councils? The one reason why I am anxious that the Minister should consider this amendment is to safeguard the liberty of councils. First of all, the Minister says that there are county councils who, having a majority supporting the Opposition, for purely political purposes, refuse to do justice to the ratepayers. He implied that, and so far as I can see, that is the one argument for not holding local elections. If so, I hope that will not be forgotten by the Minister——

Mr. O'Kelly

I will bear it in mind.

Mr. Minch

——for the simple reason that once the local elections are carried out, they will be fought and won on political lines and this whole business of local administration will be administered on a political basis. On his own statement, politics are not satisfactory so far as fair administration in regard to salaries is concerned.

Mr. Smith

Where would you get non-politicians as candidates?

Mr. Minch

This amendment, I think, is only fair to county councils. We have the unpleasant duty of imposing this cut, whether the officials like it or not, while we have no authority whatever to make any appointments. Every single vacancy that arises in county council administration has to go up to the Minister for Local Government ultimately for sanction. It has to go to the Appointments Commission and we have no authority and no power whatever to make an appointment, but we are now to have the unpleasant power and unpleasant authority of reducing the salaries of efficient officials. Surely, if we have no power to appoint them we, at least, ought not to be compelled to carry out the unpleasant task of reducing their salaries? There is far more in this than I have the ability to put before the House. In post-war county councils, particularly in the last ten years, the work has enormously increased. It is becoming highly specialised and the vast majority of those of us who attend county councils have not got the time to go fully into the long agendas or the numerous side issues and administrative corners that have to be delved into and that have to be delved into with thoroughness, if local matters are to be administered properly.

We are completely and entirely in the hands of our officials, our surveyors, etc.; and I have come to the conclusion that county council administration is completely top heavy. For that reason, the whole work of administration is in the hands of officials whom we can guide only up to a certain point as a matter of policy. The officials, therefore, work very hard; they work for a long day and the whole year round. In their hands are thousands and thousands of pounds, and an official could cost the ratepayers a considerably bigger sum than any saving that can be brought about, by inefficiency, loss of interest, or dissatisfaction with his remuneration. I do not know whether, in this case, the reduction is at all a saving. That, of course, is really outside the amendment. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment purely on the ground of giving our county councils at least the liberty of being able to pay those who, we think, are efficient, and not to impose upon us an ordinance compelling us to cut their salaries whether we like it or not.

Mr. Corry

It is rather amusing to hear Deputy Mulcahy when he gets up here to talk about local government. If he had the advantage of Deputy Dillon of having no past, he might come out of it all right. That is the advantage which the United Ireland Party have at present. Whenever there is anything to be said on one side, we have one of them who was a neutral or an enemy from 1916 to 1921 getting up and speaking, and whenever there is anything to be said on the other side, there is always one of the old regiment ready. Let us examine Deputy Mulcahy's argument. He denies the right of local authorities to cut, and he told us, later on, how he used to consult the local bodies.

I will give you some example of how the Deputy used to consult them. In the kind of mess Deputy Mulcahy left after him in the local government administration of this country I will give this instance of what happened in Cork County. We had one official there who had £300 a year and he found himself one morning enjoying a salary of £1,850. He was a small clerk of a board of assistance. After some time when we got into it we demanded a sworn inquiry into the salary in that case. That sworn inquiry was held. The Local Government Board inspector fixed that man's salary at £700 a year. The Minister as he was then, Deputy Mulcahy, consulted one individual, another official of his, the £1,000 a year city manager of Cork who was appointed by Deputy Mulcahy as the Corporation of Cork. He consulted the city manager but he did not consult the nine representatives of the county council who were members of the board of assistance. After that consultation he increased that man's salary by £250 a year. He gave him £250 a year more that his own inspector said he should get. The ratepayers were not consulted nor were the representatives of the ratepayers consulted. We had to lump it and find the money. That was what Deputy Mulcahy did. Another instance of the mess he left was shown in the case of another gentleman, an official who agreed voluntarily to a cut of £1,340 in his salary.

Mr. Everett

He must have won the sweep.

Mr. Corry

He did not. He won Deputy Mulcahy's sweep. That is the way he acted and that is the kind of thing that was done all over the country wherever there was not an efficient county council to deal with the matter. What was happening? What proposals were being brought in? I remember in the Cork County Council we had a gentleman who a few weeks ago refused to vote against any cut. I saw that member coming in with the proposal for a cut in the salary of everybody with the exception of the county surveyor, the county secretary and the law adviser, the three highest paid officials. That was the proposal brought in by the master-mind in Cork, the present vice-chairman of the Cork County Council, to cut everybody except the three men who had salaries varying from £800 to £1,700 or £2,000 a year. That is the kind of thing that was going on. The Deputy has now stated that he would not stand for cuts. I will give another instance of what happened. Some time ago there was a proposal to cut salaries in the Cork County Council and the county surveyor was cut 22½ per cent. One man who is now against these cuts went down to Cork and voted for it, voted for a cut of 22½ per cent. Now he comes up here and votes against any cut. I ask is it fair that the county surveyor should be cut 22½ per cent. and the rest allowed to go free? That is the position at the moment in Cork County.

It is a fact that the local Big Noise of the United Ireland Party organisation had not at the time sent out his decrees as to what the local bodies are to do. He slept it out that morning; he did not come to the county council in time; that cut was carried out by the council before his arrival in the room. When he got there he ordered them how to vote in future cuts. That was the position. The first cut that I moved was carried by a majority of 11. That was a cut of 22½ per cent. in the county surveyor's salary. Immediately after that was carried the United Ireland Party official came into the room and ordered the county councillors how they were to vote. The result was that the rest of the cuts were thrown out by the machined majority. That is what has been happening. Then we have an innocent child like Deputy McGilligan getting up here and proposing to look at this as a joke.

As a matter of fact, when the union amalgamation scheme was brought in salaries jumped right to such an extent that no man living could have expected. We had the case where the secretary of the county council was in receipt of a salary of £2,897 or almost £3,000, while the President of the State has only £1,700. That is rather a joke. It is time that there was some levelling done. The ratepayers' representatives in this country for the past ten years never had a voice in the fixing of any salary whatsoever. I remember when we proposed the smallest cut that could be proposed by a local body we had Deputy Mulcahy coming in with an iron hand and telling us "we do not think that the salary proposed is commensurate with the office." That is the kind of joke we had; then we have Deputy Mulcahy getting up to-day like an innocent man and voting against these cuts.

Mr. O'Neill

I did not intend to interfere very much in this, but I want to say that though Deputy Corry may not realise it, he has certainly made some very cogent remarks in favour of this amendment because he has shown very clearly and decisively that there is more enthusiasm for economy amongst the local bodies than in the Department, and this amendment only proposes to refer this back to the local body or council. Deputy Corry has given us some wonderful examples as to where this local enthusiasm for economy has been blasted by what he calls the iron hand from above. We propose by this amendment to give to Deputy Corry and the county councils the right of putting this Bill into effect. I do not see how Deputy Corry can have any reason whatsoever for voting against this amendment, because it gives him power and it gives the local bodies power to do what he says they want to do.

Mr. Corry

On a point of explanation, I already pointed out to Deputy O'Neill, who was present, what happened when the cut was proposed. The first proposal for a cut of 22½ per cent. in the county surveyor's salary was carried——

An Ceann Comhairle

A restatement of the Deputy's case is not an explanation.

Mr. Corry

No, but I fear Deputy O'Neill may have been asleep when I was stating the case.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is not responsible for that.

Professor O'Sullivan

This amendment has done one thing. It has stimulated the Minister to a little life. He has really spoken, and spoken before Deputy Corry intervened, but he put forward no case against accepting the amendment. I gather from the speech that the rejection of this amendment is the responsibility of the Hierarchy. Really that is absurd; even the two Deputies behind the Minister would know that.

Mr. O'Kelly

It was introduced long before that.

Deputy Briscoe made a remark.

Professor O'Sullivan

I did not catch Deputy Briscoe's reference to the Hierarchy.

Mr. Briscoe

I made no reference at all to the Hierarchy. What I asked was would the Deputy deal with the amendment.

Professor O'Sullivan

I am dealing with the argument. The Deputy was not there. His understudy, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health was. This is the argument. I wish the Government would pay a little more attention to the words of the Hierarchy. I wish the President would not take up the line he took up some time ago of teaching the Hierarchy what the position was so far as Communism was concerned. I am glad, however, to see this belated reference so far as that is concerned.

Mr. Briscoe

It is easy to please the Deputy.

Professor O'Sullivan

I knew there was no sincerity behind it. Any county council, according to the Minister, would be happy to make this economy. Why not let them? Why impose it? Take the other portion of the Minister's argument. Responsible people are demanding this. Elected local authorities are not responsible. If the ratepayers are demanding it why not give the opportunity to the local authorities to answer to the ratepayers? Supposing there is a demand among the ratepayers for this particular cut, let the representative quality of the local authorities be tested by allowing them liberty here. Let the Government not obstruct local elections so as to let the ratepayers, who ought to be disgusted if their wishes are not carried out, deal with that particular matter. It is quite obvious that neither on the one hand will the Minister give liberty to the local authorities, nor on the other hand will he give any liberty to the ratepayers or the local electors to deal with the local authorities if they are dissatisfied with them. He has pushed the local elections as far back as possible. Here he has an opportunity of testing the good faith and the representative capacity of these people. He will not take advantage of that opportunity either through the medium of this amendment or by allowing local elections.

Deputy Corry referred to people who pretended to be in favour of the cut in salaries. This is a method of testing them. Now they can get out of it by saying: "This was imposed upon us; we cannot help it." I observe on the benches opposite that the pupil is instructing the master through the intermediary. Now here is an excellent opportunity of calling the bluff of the people that Deputy Corry and others have referred to. There is a reference to standardisation in the Minister's speech. It was not to standardisation of salaries. That was one of the points made, that one of the things a local authority might be anxious to take into account was the salaries they paid for the work done in reference to a particular council. Standardisation of cuts is all that we have got.

I think the most extraordinary of all the arguments brought forward by the Minister, and one which convinces me that it was only at the last moment he was spurred into speaking on this Bill, was that if this amendment is accepted it will allow discrimination against individuals under a council; injustice might be done to individuals. I wonder where the Minister got that particular argument. It is quite obvious it was only this morning he made up his mind to speak on the amendment, and it is also obvious he has not read it. The local body either accepts the Act or it does not. If it accepts the Act, then the Act applies and the cut applies to the individuals the same as if the Bill were not amended. There could be no discrimination against individuals. If it does not accept the Act there can be no discrimination against individuals. Therefore the principal reason urged against the amendment by the Minister falls. That convinces me that he has not given the amendment the slightest consideration.

Reference was made by the Minister to interference with county councils. Am I to understand that all county councils are to function under the Minister? Leaving that aside, what the Minister has not done is this: He has not justified or made a pretence of justifying his interference with the liberty of local authorities. He has power, very considerable power, to interfere with the local authorities; but if local government is to be local government and not central government, he ought to have put forward a case for exercising that authority. I pointed out that the Minister is perfectly justified in using his authority if he has a good case, but he must put forward a good case, and he has not done so here. In this and other instances the Government adopt the policy that they have the power and, therefore, they will use it. But there is no justification given.

In connection with this amendment the Minister did not even pretend to put forward a case, and it is quite obvious that he has not read the amendment. He has not justified in the slightest the interference with the liberty of the authorities. What have we had? Attacks on the uprightness of the authorities. If one-tenth of what Deputy Corry suggests is true, obviously the remedy is the abolition of local government; but the Minister is not proposing to do that.

Mr. Corry

Abolish the Department.

Professor O'Sullivan

There you are. That is what this amendment tries to do in this small matter, and let us assume, therefore, that we have the support of Deputy Corry. If we have, the whole thing is quite safe. I am sure he will be able to bring pressure to bear on the Minister underneath him. He has done it already, he and people like him, so far as this Bill is concerned. Abolish central control. Do it now so far as this amendment is concerned. You have an opportunity. But of course the Deputies are not convinced of the arguments that they are bringing forward. There is no justification. Not a single line of the Minister's speech or Deputy Corry's speech justifies this proceeding. The Minister's speech was mainly devoted, not to the amendment, but to an attack on the administration of several years ago. Absolutely no argument was advanced against the amendment. The main portion of the Minister's speech was devoted to discussing brass and other kinds of metal, and Deputy Corry practically repeated that.

Question—"That such new section be there inserted"—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 32; Nil, 51.

Tá

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Corish, Richard.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Keating, John.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• Norton, William.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Fattison, James P.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, John.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Bennett and Nally; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.

Question declared lost.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 14a:—

In sub-section (1), line 1, after the word "Act" to insert the words "the word ‘salary' means salary in respect of employment by a local authority and," and in line 2 to delete the words "the word ‘salary' includes," and in line 3, after the word "remuneration," to insert the words "in respect of such employment," and in line 8, to delete the words "attached to an office" and substitute the words "in respect of such employment."

Some doubt was expressed as to whether the definition of "salary" might not include salaries or emoluments other than those received by the individual officer out of his office under the local authority. The amendment is to remove any doubts there were in that way, and to make certain that it is only as far as an individual receives his salary, remuneration or emoluments from a local authority that he is liable to the economies proposed in the Bill.

Professor O'Sullivan

On behalf of Deputy McGilligan I move amendments 15, 16 and 17:—

In sub-section (1), lines 2 and 3, to delete the words "commission, fees or other remuneration."

In sub-section (1), line 3, to delete the words "whether fixed or" and substitute the words "fixed and".

In sub-section (1) to delete lines 4 to 8 inclusive.

On these amendments I think individual types of cases might be discussed. Amendment No. 15 seeks to rule out certain fees that people get from local authorities. Portion of the case for that has already been met by the Minister. However, the other portion of the amendment remains. The intention is to exclude certain fees coming from the local authority. There are a number of officials through the country who get paid by piecework or time work. I take as an instance the case of architects. The Bill, as it stands would, I think, apply to people like architects. I am dealing now with those who give assistance to local authorities and are paid for it. The existing charges have been a long time in existence. I doubt if even the Minister would pretend that they are more than equitable.

On no amendment that we have debated has the Minister—to use a phrase we have heard here—"had sufficient brass" to say that the salaries at present paid are too high. He left it to his royal command behind him to make that charge. I think the existing charges, even in the particular case that I am dealing with, cannot be looked upon as unduly high. They are considerably lower than the charges in England. The person who does the work has to have an office and to employ a number of people. Sometimes up to 50 per cent. of his fee goes in the way of wages to the people he employs, so that if the cut is imposed it will have to be passed on to these people. From previous speeches made by Deputy Corry I imagine that would hurt his heart if it were to occur. The fees paid, I understand, in connection with housing schemes have already been reduced, but in the section as it stands no account is taken of any of these things. The Government, with a desire for mathematical accuracy and neglect of efficiency, simply goes ahead. It is not even clear that if fees were agreed upon between local authorities. and architects after the passing of this Act whether the Act would not apply to such agreement. That is a legal question I do not pretend to answer. Perhaps the Minister could answer it. I suggest to the Minister he might give favourable consideration to these amendments.

Mr. O'Neill

I wish to refer to paragraph (b) of sub-section (1). It refers to "payments (whether separate or included in other remuneration) which are expressly made as an allowance for or towards necessary equipment." A discussion on this would, of course, bring us back again to the case of dispensary medical officers in remote rural districts and of assistant county surveyors. In the case of the dispensary doctors it has always been understood that part of his salary is intended to cover necessary equipment, such as the provision of locomotion, so that it would be a very serious matter for them if this paragraph in the section were made to apply to their salaries. The case of the assistant surveyors is not quite the same. They are not provided with motor cars but they are allowed a mileage charge up to a certain amount. The case for exempting them is very strong.

Mr. O'Kelly

The medical officers are paid an inclusive salary. There is nothing set apart for locomotion. Their salary is an inclusive figure, and therefore they will not run any risk of having a cut under this particular section of the Act. Agreements made by local authorities with people whom they have to call in occasionally, such as consulting engineers, architects, and others of that kind will come under this Bill and will be subject to the cut.

Professor O'Sullivan

Even subsequent agreements?

Mr. O'Kelly

Even subsequent agreements made during the period of operation of this Bill, I take it, will all be subject to the cut. When other people drawing remuneration from local authorities are subject to the cut proposed, I do not see why those occasional officers, consulting engineers or architects or lawyers, should be free from it. I think they should be all treated alike.

Professor O'Sullivan

Do I understand the local authorities will be put to the farce of making an agreement that a certain fee shall be paid to a professional person, architect or any body else, and that that agreement will not mean what it says on the face of it? I understand that is to be the legal position—that a county council, for instance, will agree to pay a certain fee, but that is not the fee to be paid, and that when this Bill is passed they will know perfectly well that that will be the position. That in itself is somewhat farcical. I referred to the case of architects employing other people, and that this is to be passed on to those lowly-paid people employed by the architects. It inevitably will be passed on. The Minister has not dealt with that portion of my argument.

Mr. O'Kelly

We have no control over the architect's employees. Architects may be paying their staffs very well or very badly, but we have no power to interfere. I do not suppose the Deputy will propose that we should interfere in the question of how architects pay their employees. There is no pretence in this Bill that we can interfere with how architects or consulting engineers pay their employees. I do not see why these men, consulting engineers and architects particularly, who in these times are drawing very large fees, should not bear their share.

Professor O'Sullivan

Is the Minister serious in saying that he is not interfering with the salaries paid?

Mr. O'Kelly

I am.

Professor O'Sullivan

The Minister is so serious about such strange things that I shall have to accept it. He imposes a cut on a business, and he assumes that that will have no effect on the employees of the business. Is that the contention of the Minister? If that is the contention of the Minister I am quite sure that he is incapable of yielding to any reason whatever—that he imposes a cut on a business; that he assumes that that will have no effect on the employees; and that that is not interfering with the salaries of these employees. I leave it at that.

Amendments put and negatived.

The following amendment stood on the Order Paper:—

18. In sub-section (2), lines 34-38, to delete all words after the word "made," line 34, to the end of the sub-section, and substitute the words "the salaries of these officers shall be regarded separately for the purpose of calculating the appropriate deduction."—Patrick McGilligan.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 18, 35, 36 and 37 deal with the segregation of persons holding two or more offices. I purpose putting the question, if a division is claimed on amendment No. 18: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." It is obvious from the Bill and the amendment, when read together, that if the words stand the principle of aggregation and of the deduction of the amount appropriate from the aggregate amount as if the aggregate salary were for one office will have been established. Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 are governed by the decision on No. 18.

Professor O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 18. We had similar amendments on the general Economies Bill. Here there is an effort made to see that if a man is doing a certain type of work his salaries should be considered separately and not lumped together for the purposes of the Bill. I should like to know the reaction of the Minister to this particular amendment.

Mr. O'Kelly

There are a number of officials who occupy and draw salaries from two offices. There are cases even where one official is secretary of a board of health and of a county council, and I see no reason why the two salaries should be segregated and that they should be treated as separate. It would not be possible in some cases. In a number of cases, for the purpose of book-keeping, say, a salary from one office is debited against a particular committee and the second salary is debited to another, although they are drawn out of the one fund. The individual in reality looks upon them as the one salary, and it is as the one salary that we propose to make the reduction.

Amendment No. 18 put and negatived.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37 are governed by that decision.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 18a:—

In sub-section (3), lines 41 and 49, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 19a and 20 not moved.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 21:—

At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:

Where a person is in receipt of a salary and by reason of his duties he necessarily expends money in the discharge of his duties on travelling or locomotion expenses, postage, scrivenery or any other purpose and is not repaid same by the local authority or allowed any specific allowance in respect of same, a sum shall for the purposes of this Act be deducted from his salary equal to the estimated amount of the money so expended. In default of agreement between the local authority and the said person the amount to be so deducted shall be determined by the Minister.

I understood the Minister was giving some undertaking with regard to this amendment in connection with a previous section.

Mr. O'Kelly

Not on this amendment.

General Mulcahy

The amendment is intended to provide for the type of person in the employment of local bodies who is paid an inclusive fee, but who has to expend some money in the way of expenses. I submit that it is unfair to have a deduction made on the whole sum, without taking into consideration the amount expended in connection with the work.

Mr. O'Kelly

I wonder if the Deputy could quote one case that comes under the amendment.

General Mulcahy

Does the Minister say that there are not cases of the kind?

Mr. O'Kelly

I doubt if there is a single case. I heard of one years ago, but the man is dead.

Professor O'Sullivan

I do not pretend to be quite as au fait in these matters as the Minister or the ex-Minister, but may I ask if doctors do not spend something when travelling?

Mr. O'Kelly

They are dealt with separately, and are given a special allowance on that account.

Professor O'Sullivan

As special reference has been made to doctors, I think £50 was allowed.

Mr. O'Kelly

We do not want to say that it is in connection with travelling.

Professor O'Sullivan

I want to point out that the actual provision in the Bill does not refer to this particular type of expenditure specifically, without giving reasons why £50 is to be taken off doctors' salaries for the purpose of determining the amount upon which the cut shall operate. Here is a specific instance where a reasonable amount should be allowed. Let us take it that the Bill does not actually provide for travelling expenses. This amendment suggests that such expenditure shall be taken into account. If the Minister is acquainted with the expenditure a medical practitioner in the country incurs on local services, he knows perfectly well that £50 does not cover the amount, or anything like it. All this amendment purports to do is that as salaries are being cut, you should take into account an estimate of the amount that has to be expended in carrying out the duties. If, for instance, a man had to spend £100, and if that was a reasonable estimate, the amendment provides how, if there was a dispute, it could be dealt with. I have been assured by doctors that it costs more than that amount to cover locomotion on red ticket cases. Let that be taken into account when fixing the figure upon which the cut should be based. I ask the Minister to give the amendment more consideration in that respect.

Mr. O'Kelly

We have considered and dealt with the position of medical officers. I doubt if the Deputy or any of his colleagues could cite other cases that would come under the amendment.

General Mulcahy

What about rate collectors?

Mr. O'Kelly

They are paid on a certain definite basis, which was agreed upon, and they do not receive any remuneration for locomotion or for scrivenery.

Professor O'Sullivan

Is not that the point here?

General Mulcahy

The position with regard to rate collectors under this Bill is that they will be subjected to the cuts in the cases outlined.

Mr. O'Kelly

Where they come within the minimum.

General Mulcahy

Is it proposed to take no cognisance of the fact that a considerable amount of what is paid to rate collectors is absorbed in travelling? Many rate collectors have to go to fairs or other gatherings to collect the rates, just as doctors have to incur considerable expenditure on their duties. Now these collectors are going to have their remuneration cut on the whole of their income. I suggest that that is not fair. The whole of the income is going to be cut, even though that income is probably reduced very much at present.

Professor O'Sullivan

Has not the Minister made a case for the rate collectors? He has met the doctors. Why discriminate against rate collectors? In the case of doctors there is no definite allowance mentioned for travelling, but the Minister referred to Section 7, which may cover them. I suggest that it does not. The Minister suggested that the section to which he referred dealt with the case of doctors. I do not think it meets the case of doctors, because £50 will hardly cover the expenses they incur in carrying out their duties. I do not think that adequately meets the case. If there is a case to be made for doctors being paid a salary, but not travelling expenses, how does the Minister make a distinction in the case of rate collectors who are not paid travelling expenses, but have to meet them out of the fees they receive, or possibly out of their pockets? Surely, if, as the Minister has confessed, there is a case for an allowance in one case he is bound to make a similar allowance in the other case. In neither case is there any separate payment for these expenses. I do not think the Minister has met the doctors to a sufficient extent. Why not do so in the case of the rate collectors?

Mr. O'Kelly

Surely the Deputy is not putting medical officers and rate collectors on the same footing? Unquestionably, dispensary medical officers have to have a certain means of locomotion because of the nature of their work. That is not altogether necessary in the case of rate collectors, who in very few cases need incur expenditure on locomotion.

General Mulcahy

What?

Mr. O'Kelly

That is so. About 90 per cent. of the rate collectors do not keep motor cars. They do the work on bicycles. If they have motor cars they must be doing well on the rate collection. They are a special class, and they receive special consideration for their work. If they have out of pocket expenses they are reimbursed, so that any expenditure of that kind is not likely to arise.

Professor O'Sullivan

Except that you are going to make a cut.

Mr. O'Kelly

No. The words of the section are: "Payments made by way of allowance for or reimbursement of specific expenses incurred." They are definitely excluded under the Bill. I do not think there is any case for putting rate collectors and doctors on the same footing, particularly as far as locomotion is concerned.

Professor O'Sullivan

May I suggest to the Minister that while he has quoted the section it has nothing to do with the case we are discussing. We are discussing a case where particular payments are not met in the case of rate collectors. The amendment deals only with cases where expense is incurred. I noticed that the Minister got courage as he went along. First of all, he said that the travelling expenses were not necessary, altogether. The implication is that in practice such expenditure was necessary and was incurred. Then the Minister plucked up courage and said that in 90 per cent. of the cases these expenses were not incurred. If they are not incurred the amendment does not apply. The Minister said that these collectors are sufficiently well paid and get a sufficient fee or commission. Whatever it is called that is their remuneration. The whole of that is going to be cut, including the portion that they spend carrying out their duties, in so far as they have to spend it. In that connection they are exactly in the same position as the doctors.

Mr. Dillon

It is a source of amusement to me to hear the Minister advising the rate collectors to bestride their bicycles and get about their business in that way——

Mr. O'Kelly

That is what most of them do.

Mr. Dillon

It is abundantly clear to me that the Minister, who is so distinguished a son of the City of Dublin, is more familiar with the City of Dublin than he is with other parts of Ireland. I should like to see the Minister bestriding a bicycle and covering Glenveigh, the Rosses, or Gweedore, in County Donegal. There is many a perilous ride to be done, too, in Connemara, in Kerry and in other districts where rate collectors have long journeys to make.

Mr. O'Kelly

I have cycled over all that country.

Mr. Dillon

At your leisure. You had not to get to a fair in the morning to collect the rates.

Mr. O'Kelly

Has the Deputy cycled it?

Mr. Dillon

A great deal of it. I know that country painfully well. I have covered every square yard of it. These men have to get to the fairs in the early morning to collect their rates. If they miss one of the ratepayers, it may involve them in an extra journey of seven miles to a remote mountain village to collect that instalment of the rates. The rate collectors have to work very hard. According to the Minister, there are so many appalling conspiracies going on all over the country to prevent rates being collected at all——

Mr. O'Kelly

Not all over the country; in certain areas.

Mr. Dillon

I do not quite know what the Minister was referring to in Dundalk. He spoke in general terms. He was very careful to say that there was no specific reference in that speech. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am saying that his reference was to conspiracies all over the country, and that he made no reference to Waterford.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is nothing in this Bill dealing with conspiracies regarding the payment of rates.

Mr. Dillon

Except in so far as the conspiracies to which the Minister has referred have increased the burden of work on the rate collectors. The Minister says that, in order to contribute to the expense of the economic war, rate collectors should get astride their bicycles. The rate collectors are all to be put on bicycles. That is only to be their share of the general burden. My submission is that the amendment moved by Deputy O'Sullivan makes allowance for that prudent economy, which the Minister recommends. If he can prevail on the rate collectors, owing to their patriotic instincts, to bestride their bicycles and discharge their duties from the saddle, then, this amendment in Deputy O'Sullivan's name will not operate, because it is only where the local authority can prove that the rate collector did spend a certain amount of his remuneration in expense of that character that the amendment will be operative. The amendment is designed to meet the case of a man, no part of whose salary is ear-marked for expenses. It is designed to make it possible for the Minister to segregate a part of that sum and say: "You have to spend this on legitimate expenses and, therefore, the cut will not apply to that part of your salary."

None of the objections raised by the Minister is valid against this amendment. I should say that, if this amendment is accepted, it will stimulate the Minister's own officials in the Department of Local Government to the promotion of economy, because they will be prepared to join with him in the campaign to put the rate collectors on bicycles in order to justify themselves in applying the cut to the entire poundage collected by the rate collectors. I believe, if the Minister examines this amendment again, he will find that it is a constructive contribution to genuine economy.

I suggest to Deputy Corry that he ought to give this amendment his very special consideration. I can imagine the enthusiasm with which he and every other conscientious public representative would insist that the travelling expenses of the servants of local authorities should be reduced in order that the "cut" should operate on the whole remuneration. He might even get a resolution passed at the Cork County Council that all Cork rate collectors must ride bicycles. He might even get a snowball resolution adopted and circulated amongst the county councils calling upon the rate collectors to make their contribution to the President's war, stating that the President was opening the war chest to them and that they might pour their shekels into it by taking to riding bicycles. Does not Deputy Corry think that that would be a very valuable contribution to the prosecution of this economic war of the President? It would be quite as valuable as any contribution the Fianna Fáil Party has made so far. It is the kind of helpful proposal that comes from the opposite benches. I think that the Minister should reconsider his position and accept this amendment. It is reasonable and equitable, and, seeing that he has set his heart upon this, it will be calculated to put every rate collector on a bicycle.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Dillon, who knows nothing about local government and never was a member of a local body, though during the last twelve months or so he has had very close association with rate collectors, knows all about how these collectors travel. Out of 42 rate collectors in County Cork, only two travel in motor cars when collecting rates. One of these had to be "sacked" two years ago because he never collected the rates. He was going too quickly. The other fellow is hanging around yet. It is rather a joke to listen to the statements which have been made when we remember that Deputy Mulcahy fixed the expenses of county councillors, who have to do the work without any cash, at 4d. per mile one way. Now he wants to protect the gentlemen to whom he gave 6d. per mile both ways— the deputy surveyors and the rest. When we hear this sort of thing it is really an inducement to extravagance. The rate collectors of Cork are now to get motor cars and to charge up the expenses in the accounts. They can urge that they had to use so much of their salary on the motor car and that, therefore, a cut should not operate to that extent. To my mind, this amendment is brought in solely for the purposes of obstruction.

General Mulcahy

We are trying to discuss a practical question. Would Deputy Corry tell us what the earnings of the 42 rate collectors in Cork are going to be this year as compared with last year, and what their travelling expenses collecting those rates will be this year as compared with last year?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that the Deputy could be allowed to go into those details.

General Mulcahy

It has been put very definitely to the Minister that a large class of public servants receive payments that cover a very considerable amount of clerical work and travelling. They know in fact that this Bill, which is a temporary Bill for one year, is proposing to cut the payment made to that particular class, and to cut it in a year when their work is particularly difficult, and when their earnings are paid on the same poundage rate on the amount they actually collected last year when their earnings were definitely down.

Amendment put and negatived.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 22:—

At the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—

Where a person is in receipt of a salary and is entitled to relief abatements, exemptions or allowances under the Income Tax Act his salary for the purposes of this Act shall be deemed to be reduced by the amounts of such relief abatement, exemption or allowance for the financial year ending on the fifth day of April, 1934. The production of his Income Tax Assessment shall be conclusive evidence of the amounts of the said relief abatements, exemptions or allowances.

The effect of the amendment is to have a rather light scale, which gives a certain amount of adjustment in the case of married officers of local authorities. In the case where you have married and unmarried officers paid the same amount, the amendment provides that the married man is not be regarded in the same position or to get the same drastic cut as the unmarried man. It provides that some cognisance shall be taken of the fact that the married man is supporting a family and that a special consideration should be given in the case of a married man, as is done in the case of income tax adjustments. This offers a ready way to the Minister to give some kind of relief, in this connection, to married officials.

Mr. O'Kelly

I do not propose to accept the amendment.

General Mulcahy

I would like to hear the Minister put the case as to why this rough and ready cut should take effect indiscriminately upon married and unmarried men. There is no doubt about it that married officials of local bodies, particularly in the higher grades, sending their children to secondary schools, incur very considerable expense for educational purposes alone. I would like to hear the Minister say why no cognisance is to be taken of that in the case of the application of the cuts.

Professor O'Sullivan

Does the Minister really not intend to reply?

Mr. O'Kelly

I have replied already.

Professor O'Sullivan

Yes, in the sense that the Minister has said he does not intend to accept the amendment. He considers that enough. Rome has spoken. Quite enough has been said for us. Yet we hear a lot of talk about the Christian State from the Minister's Leader and from himself. Even the income tax people take account of the married men, and they are supposed to have no bowels of mercy at all. I gather that was the contention very often in days gone by of the Minister himself and his Party. Now when he has a chance of giving some relief, so that if the local authorities want to make this allowance they will have an opportunity of doing it, when he has a chance of giving them the opportunity of doing so without destroying the framework of his Bill, he refuses. It is always recognised that married people have certain obligations and expenses that other people have not. We think that their cases should be taken into account. Here the Minister has an opportunity of doing something, in a small way, that would be of value to many servants in this Christian State. It is not a question of having to refer to a couple of experts; it is a question of leaving the local authorities to decide. But the Minister's sense of logic will not allow him to make this concession. He falls back upon his non-possumus attitude in this debate. I never saw such an attitude. If there was nothing else to show there was no justification for any clause in the Bill the attitude taken up by the Minister on this occasion would show it. I can only see in it a further extension of the attitude he adopted last night. Either he believes there is no case for the Bill and that it is being forced upon him by his colleagues, Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Corry, or else he wants the idea conveyed to the local officials that he is against the Bill. Otherwise there would be no justification for the attitude he is now adopting. He may say he adopted a similar attitude to other amendments, but no similar amendment to this has been moved previously, yet he pursues the same policy here as he did in regard to other amendments.

Mr. Minch

As a last resort we appeal, in this amendment, for consideration for married officials of local authorities. Even the callous Minister for Finance, in introducing his income tax scheme, gave consideration to married people and referred to old Cupid in all sorts of pleasant ways. Business people outside, in every walk of life, give special consideration to married people, who are at far bigger expense in regard to the education of their children, and so on, than single people. This also applies to grants in connection with relief schemes. Married people, with families depending upon them, always come first. It astonishes me that the Vice-President cannot see his way to respond to the overtures made from this side of the House to give consideration to married people such as we are asking for. As Deputy O'Sullivan has suggested ethics almost seem to be collapsing or to be ruthlessly cast aside when benefit is refused to those who play a most Christian part in the Christian State, namely, married people, who have to fight so hard to make ends meet in their daily lives in this country.

General Mulcahy

I would emphasise the fact that the Minister's attitude towards this amendment underlies the hopeless position he finds himself in when he refuses to argue at all upon this Bill. A blunt rigid series of deductions are made and applied to the whole series of local bodies which differ radically in their size and importance, their traditions with regard to salaries generally, and their traditions in regard to particular salaries. Inside any particular local body these cuts are to be applied indiscriminately to different classes of employees. They are to apply to the local authorities in a most indiscriminate way without any regard to the fact whether the people affected are those with large families depending upon them or whether they are single individuals.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 52.

Tá

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Corish, Richard.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• Norton, William.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Fattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Sean.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Bennett and Nally; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.

Question declared lost.

Section 3, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

(1) From every salary which, during the year 1934, is earned by and payable to an officer, the local authority paying such salary shall make such deduction as such authority shall in each individual case think proper, but subject to the restrictions that such deduction shall not be less than the minimum deduction applicable under this Act to the particular salary affected by such deduction and shall not exceed such minimum deduction by any greater amount than shall be sanctioned by the Minister.

(2) The deduction made under this Act from the salary of any person shall, so far as may be practicable, be made rateably from every payment of such salary made in the year 1934 and after the passing of this Act, save that deductions from any salary which would under this section have fallen to be made in the portion of the said year prior to the passing of this Act (if this Act had been in force) shall be made from the next payment or payments (as the case may require) of such salary made after the passing of this Act, but so that not more shall be so deducted from any one such payment than fifty per cent. of such payment.

(3) If any deduction from the salary of an officer be made in the year 1934 and before the passing of this Act which would have been lawful if made after the passing of this Act, such deduction shall be deemed to have been made under this Act and to be and always to have been lawful accordingly.

(4) All sums deducted under this Act from any moneys payable to an officer by way of salary shall be applied to the same purposes as the fund from which such moneys are paid to such officer.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 22a:—

In sub-section (1), line 50, sub-section (2), line 60, and in sub-section (3), page 4, line 6, to delete the word and figures "year 1934" and substitute the words "current local financial year."

This amendment is consequential on No. 12a.

Amendment No. 22a agreed to.

Amendment No. 23 not moved.

Mr. O'Kelly

I move amendment No. 23a:—

In sub-section (1), line 51, after the word "officer" to insert the words "in respect of employment by a local authority."

This is consequential on amendment 14a.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

With regard to amendment 24, this is the first of a series of allied amendments in which three issues are raised, and I wish to draw the attention of Deputies to the numbers of those amendments. The issues are (a) that the deductions shall be only such as are authorised by the Act, and in this connection the amendments are to be read in conjunction with amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40 to 44 (to Section 6), the effect of which would be to leave only one scale of deductions in the Schedules, which Schedules contemplate three scales, (b) whether deductions are to be at the discretion of the local authorities and (c) whether the rates of deduction are to be minimum or maximum deductions. If amendment No. 24 is read in conjunction with the sub-section it will be obvious that a decision on that amendment—"that the words proposed to be deleted stand"—if in the affirmative, will govern amendments Nos. 24 to 29, inclusive, and Nos. 34, 38, 49, 54, 58, 61, 62, 63, 75 and, partly No. 76. Amendment No. 24, therefore, will decide two of the three issues involved, namely, (b) the discretion of the local authorities and (c) the maximum or minimum rates of deduction.

Professor O'Sullivan

Two of the issues to which you have referred will be decided by the decision on this amendment?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. The first issue—that the deductions be only such as are authorised by the Act and so on—should be deferred for decision on amendment No. 39, which is a key amendment governing some 12 amendments.

General Mulcahy

I take it that you are simply now indicating the line you propose taking on the amendments subsequent to amendment No. 24?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

General Mulcahy

And that when they come along points might possibly be raised by any of the movers of these amendments?

An Ceann Comhairle

Points might be raised, but the principle will be governed by amendment No. 24. Some discussion on particular points may be allowed, but no divisions can be claimed.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 24:—

In sub-section (1) to delete all words after the word "deduction", line 52, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "as is by this Act authorised."

The effect of this amendment would be to prevent deductions greater than the minimum deductions indicated in the Schedules, and I move the amendment for the purpose of asking the Minister if he can say now, generally, what his intention is—whether he proposes to encourage, in the first place, or to permit, in the second place, deductions from salaries greater than the deductions that are mentioned in the Schedules. The Minister indicated to the House that he had met the county surveyors and that he had had certain discussions with them. He implied, so far as the House understood him, that the deductions that would be carried out in respect of county surveyors would be the deductions mentioned in the Bill and that these, in effect, would be the maximum deductions made. The Minister takes a definite stand in regard to county surveyors, and does not contemplate permitting greater deductions or sanctioning greater deductions. I should like to ask whether he has met deputations or received representations from any other similar specified classes under the local authorities, and whether, in respect of any of these classes, there ought to be the application of these deductions as maximum deductions.

Mr. Dillon

Before the Minister replies, I should like to raise a point in connection with the principles raised by this amendment. I think I am right in saying that where a county surveyor was in receipt of a salary, the local authorities could not have arbitrarily reduced that salary unless we pass this Bill into law. Am I correct in saying that?

Mr. O'Kelly

Not without sanction.

Mr. Dillon

But on applying to the Minister, they could have reduced the salary, and the Minister could have given validity to that reduction. Am I right in believing that if the Minister and local authorities desired to combine they could reduce a county surveyor's salary from £1,000 a year to £10 a year? What were the limits prescribed?

Mr. O'Kelly

The discretion, first of all, of the local authority, and then, of the Minister.

Mr. Dillon

I want to get this very clear. There was no legal restriction on the power of the Minister to reduce a county surveyor's salary to any sum he chose to approve of after the local authority? If that be so, what is the purpose of this part of this legislation, giving the local authority power to reduce the salary of a county surveyor or any other public servant by a certain percentage, with the approval of the Minister and restricting them from going further than the Minister's approval would allow? If they have all these powers already, what is the purpose of putting this in the Bill at all? I understood that special powers had to be made available to a local authority to make these reductions in the salaries of their servants. If they have those powers already, subject to the Minister's sanction, what is the purpose of renewing them in this Bill? I would like the Minister to clear that up before we proceed to discuss this amendment in full. Would the Minister explain what the reason is for this special legislation?

Dr. Davitt

As the Minister apparently refuses to help the House by answering Deputy Dillon's question, I will pass on to another matter. It was pointed out as regards the salaries of county surveyors that there were local differences and discrepancies between the different counties. The Bill makes provision which gives power to the local authorities to make cuts, but it restricts the local authority from making too small deductions from the salaries of their officials. It says: "You must take so much but you cannot take less." If this discrepancy exists between the different counties as regards the salaries paid to the country surveyors, does not that create a situation in which it is made difficult for the local bodies in adjoining counties to even up things? At any rate, the whole principle of the difference between the maximum and the minimum has been argued on other amendments. As regards the dispensary doctors, for example, that has been pointed out very forcibly, and admitted by the Minister when he makes certain provisions of allowing off £50 by way of expenses to the dispensary doctor for travelling. When that special provision is made for him in respect of travelling expenses it becomes a question of the maximum deduction as against the minimum deduction in that particular instance. When the principle is already admitted by the Minister, would it not be far better to insert the word "maximum" instead of "minimum" in all these amendments? I think this has been already covered in the discussion on amendment No. 24. The question of leaving the deductions to the local authorities has been dealt with already. All the arguments that have been mentioned on other amendments apply equally well in discussing this amendment. I would like to hear the Minister's reply to the question put by Deputy Dillon.

Mr. O'Kelly

In answer to Deputy Mulcahy, I propose to accept the amendment in principle, and I shall bring in an amendment embodying it in the Report Stage. I would like to make the deductions as set out in the Schedule, the deductions or cuts to be made from the salaries of the various sets of officials of local authorities. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Dillon, where the local authority assents, the Minister has power to sanction the cut. That power has been there under the Poor Law Acts and has been used even in recent times. There have been cuts proposed and agreed to by local authorities within the last year or so. Some of these cuts have not been sanctioned by the Minister, but that power does exist in the Minister. If it is exercised it is usually exercised at the instigation of the local authorities.

Mr. Minch

Why does not the Minister sanction these reductions by the local authorities?

Mr. O'Kelly

In the case I have in mind my opinion was that the cuts were too severe and that they were unjustifiable.

Mr. O'Neill

Will the Minister accept the principle of these deductions being the maximum?

Mr. O'Kelly

No.

Mr. O'Neill

All these are to be subject to the discretion of the Minister's sanction, but he does not forego his rights?

Mr. O'Kelly

No.

Professor O'Sullivan

Is the Minister accepting the principle of this amendment in its full implications?

Mr. O'Kelly

Yes.

Professor O'Sullivan

Namely, in the two implications, maximum and minimum and the question of the discretion in the local authority; it will no longer be in the discretion of the local authority to determine what the cut will be?

Mr. O'Kelly

My desire, and I wish to make that clear, is that the cut should be in accordance with the Schedule and that there will not be discretion in the local authority.

Mr. O'Neill

A particular case may arise where it might be desirable to have discretion——

Mr. O'Kelly

Pardon me. I want to make it clear that the cuts should be in accordance with the Schedule. The discretion of the Minister is still retained.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is in the powers he already has.

Mr. O'Kelly

But not under this Bill. These are the cuts set out in the Schedule that are going to govern every section of employees.

Professor O'Sullivan

Therefore, the only powers will be the powers possessed by the local authorities plus the Minister?

Mr. O'Kelly

Yes.

Professor O'Sullivan

There would be no discretion on the part of the local authorities to discriminate between different individuals?

Mr. O'Kelly

That is so.

Professor O'Sullivan

I want to make that clear about the minimum and maximum and the discretionary power.

Mr. O'Kelly

Yes, that is the discretionary power of the Minister.

Professor O'Sullivan

He is accepting the principle of the amendment so far as it affects the power of the local authority?

Mr. O'Kelly

Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment is withdrawn?

Mr. Dillon

Yes, subject to the Minister introducing the principle of the amendment on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We now come to amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 38 and 49. They are not moved?

Professor O'Sullivan

There may be questions raised on these, but no divisions.

Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 not moved.

Amendment No. 30:—

In sub-section (2), line 61, to delete all words after the word "Act" to the end of the sub-section, page 4, line 3.—(Peadar Ua Dubhghaill, Tadhg J. Murphy.)

Professor O'Sullivan

Amendment No. 30 is not on the list of amendments not to be moved.

General Mulcahy

It is possible that a change in the wording from the year 1934 to the current financial year does away with the necessity for bringing in this provision.

Mr. O'Kelly

That covers amendments Nos. 30 and 31.

Professor O'Sullivan

Do I understand the Minister to say that it covers No. 31?

Mr. O'Kelly

Yes: No. 31 also.

Amendment No. 30 not moved.

Professor O'Sullivan

I move amendment No. 31:—

To delete sub-section (3) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:

No deduction from the salary of an officer made in the year 1934 and before the passing of this Act shall be lawful.—(Patrick McGilligan.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

But amendment No. 31 is withdrawn.

Professor O'Sullivan

There is the whole question here of retrospection.

Mr. O'Kelly

There is no intention that it should be retrospective, but there may be some counties or some local authorities that, in view of the fact that this Bill has been so long before the public, may have made provision to cut salaries during the first three months of this year. But this would naturally be credited to the people. The intention is that the cuts should apply to the financial year beginning on the 1st April and that they should not be made retrospective.

Professor O'Sullivan

When does the Minister expect this to become law —on the 1st April?

Mr. O'Kelly

That we cannot tell.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is precisely my position. Supposing it does not become law until June or July, are the cuts then to be made effective for the first quarter of the year?

Mr. O'Kelly

Yes, they will.

Professor O'Sullivan

Once more the Government, without sufficient reason, is introducing the principle of retrospective legislation.

Mr. O'Kelly

That is not proved.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is what the amendment has to prevent. We know the Government are determined to do it, and, therefore, there is the necessity of preventing them by legislation. Ordinary methods will not do. It has been argued again and again in this House that retrospective legislation ought to be avoided wherever possible; every Party has argued it. Sometimes it may be unavoidable, but the readiness of the Government to indulge in it is extraordinary. It is such an objectionable thing in itself that only grave necessity can justify it. It is against the principle of retrospective legislation that we object. If there were a big national issue at stake, a really serious issue, I can understand the adoption of this objectionable principle. But the Government gaily introduces it in paltry matters of this kind without any justification. I wish the Minister would address himself to the principle of retrospective legislation and give solid reasons for it. I have no doubt he will find such reasons as were given for retrospective legislation in the general Economies Act, because the Government indulged in the same practice there. The matter is becoming a habit with them, like all bad practices do, and, therefore, without sufficient grounds they really ought not to make operative a highly objectionable principle of this type.

Dr. Davitt

I would like to point out to the Minister that in case deductions have already been made, say from January onwards, by some local bodies, and this Bill does not become law until July, will there not be an unfair discrimination against certain people? For instance, some local servants may have had their salaries cut from January, largely on account of certain action taken by some local bodies, and they will be made legally retrospective by this Bill, and from July onwards other public servants will be cut. Is there not there an unfair discrimination?

Mr. O'Kelly

It may have happened, I do not know whether it has, that there has been already a cut made in the case of local officials, but the intention is that the cut should operate during the financial year beginning 1st April next. If this Bill passes before the 31st March no question would arise such as Deputy O'Sullivan suggests. What reason has the Deputy to think that it will not pass?

Professor O'Sullivan

None, but it may not.

Mr. O'Kelly

Where is the Deputy's case, then?

Professor O'Sullivan

The Bill may not pass.

Mr. O'Kelly

But it may.

Mr. O'Neill

And probably will.

Professor O'Sullivan

It is very hard to take the Minister seriously.

Mr. Minch

It is a joke.

Professor O'Sullivan

He is really reducing the thing to a farce. There are two possibilities—the Bill may or may not pass before the 31st March. If the Bill passes before the 31st March this amendment does no harm. That is quite clear, even to the Minister. There is the other possibility that it may not become law before 31st March, and then this amendment is necessary and the case put up in favour of the amendment has to be met. There will be retrospective legislation if this Bill is not passed before the 31st March. We are bound to take that possibility into account. I suggest that, considering the date we are at now, the possibility of this passing before 31st March is not particularly rosy. It has to get through several other stages in this House and then through the Seanad. I suggest the possibility of these stages being completed before 31st March is very slight. Even if it were theoretically possible, the other case has to be met, that it may not be passed before 31st March, and, therefore, we have to take account of that. You are shutting your eyes to the obvious.

The Minister has treated this amendment just as seriously as he has treated any other. He has not treated it more seriously than he has treated the whole Bill. Anything more ludicrous than the case he has now put up has not occurred in the whole course of these debates, and that is putting it pretty high. The fact remains that the Bill may not pass until the middle of summer. I do not know what is going to happen to it, but it is certainly very unlikely to pass before the 31st March and receive—I was going to say, Royal assent—the assent of the Governor-General. If and when it is passed it will have retrospective effect, and that principle is objectionable. The Minister ought to put forward some case for the indulgence of this bad principle.

Mr. O'Neill

I think the idea underlying this amendment is that it would be possible for a public official to have his salary cut twice in the one year, and that would be a cruel state of affairs. Suppose this Bill does not become operative for five or six months, and some local authority with a zeal for economy cuts the salaries of their officials during the last 12 months, at the passing of this Act these salaries which were cut would be taken as basic salaries and the officials would suffer a further cut and have a further grievance. I think the Minister ought to accept the principle, at all events, that any cuts made during the preceding 12 months should be taken into consideration.

Mr. Dillon

The reason the amendment is put down is the best of all reasons—that the Ministerial proposal is rotten, bad law. I have pointed out again and again the danger of creating bad precedents, because once created they are trotted out again and again under different forms and different guises. Here is one of the principal objections. Supposing on the 2nd April a local authority cuts the salary of one of their servants illegally. The servant starts a civil suit to recover his salary and gets a verdict from the courts, and this Bill passes into law on 1st June. As far as I can see, the verdict of the courts will be upset by this Bill. I am of opinion that if you want to introduce a retrospective element into legislation, the only proper way to do it is to introduce Indemnity Bills in each specific case, otherwise the citizens of the State are never going to know where they are, because legal rights in the defence of which oceans of money may be spent may be retrospectively swept away by legislation if this principle is admitted.

I will admit this, that the probability of any grave injustice being done under this particular Act is remote. Local authorities know what is in the Minister's mind. The Minister has a pretty wide discretion and can restrain local authorities from doing something at complete variance with his intentions, but the principle is wrong. This is the second Bill that the Fianna Fáil Government has introduced recently incorporating this principle, and the Minister takes it now as such an everyday affair that he does not think it necessary to defend it. There was a time, and it is not very long past, when such a proposal as this would have been laughed out of the House as unthinkable. I am glad to think that there are some democratic assemblies in the world who would reject a proposal of this kind, and I feel bound to say frankly that it is a proposal which smells very much of bureaucracy.

There is an aroma of the Custom House about this proposal. It reminds me very much of a section in another Bill which recently passed this House, which smelt very much of the Department of Justice, under which no appeals will be allowed from the decisions of the Circuit Court. That is the permanent officers' view: "What is all this business about complicating our work in the Law Courts; equity suits, civil suits and the nuisance of going down defending claims in the courts? Is it not much simpler to put a section into the Bill telling these people that they cannot go into the courts?" The whole thing is wrong. You are saying to these men: "Any rights you may have had between the date of the introduction of the Bill and the date of its passing, we are simply going to sweep away, lock, stock and barrel, and anyone who thinks that he may assert his rights between now and the passing of the Bill by going into court and getting a verdict is simply wasting his time, because no matter what the verdict is, no matter what his claim is, we shall wipe it out." That is bad law.

The Department of Justice takes the view that once you have got a verdict in the courts it is waste of time and an unnecessary delay to make provision for appeals from that verdict. If there is to be any appeal let the Minister decide it. Do not be dragging the fusty old High Court Judges into it, and, as for the Supreme Court, in the eyes of the Department it would seem to be a standing joke. Why let anybody get that far? The answer of the average citizen is: "Because good law protects the rights of the citizen against the Executive. Good law interposes the courts between the citizen and the Minister and his attendant bureaucracy. Good law gives the citizen rights against the Minister. Bureaucratic law allows the citizen to approach the Minister with his hat in his hand asking for a favour." As the law stands at present, servants of public authorities have certain rights. They are rights which the courts are prepared to enforce in favour of those servants as against the public authority or against the Minister. The Minister proposes under this Bill retrospectively to wipe out all these rights and fix every one of these men and women with notice that there is no use approaching the courts of law to vindicate their rights, because no matter what the verdict is he will upset it by this Bill. That is bad law and the Minister ought to devise some other means to achieve this purpose rather than doing that. The use of the closure, the guillotine, in this House is to me a very obnoxious procedure, but as compared with the procedure adumbrated in this Bill it is quite harmless. Ultimately the House has some means of defending itself but the citizen has none, and I suggest to the Minister that it would be infinitely preferable to pass a guillotine resolution and strangle discussion in this House rather than strangle the right of citizens to assert their rights in the courts now and hereafter.

Mr. Minch

As I understand from the Minister there are certain officials who have already suffered reductions in their salaries. There will be, when this Bill is passed, some officials who will be three or four months worse off than their colleagues under other public bodies in that respect. Deputy Professor O'Sullivan tried to make it clear, at least to us here on this side of the House, that if this Bill becomes law before 31st of this month, all officials will come under the same heading as far as reductions are concerned, but if it does not go through before the 31st of this month there are certain public bodies who will have it in their power to lower the standard of living of their officials, and some of them have already taken action. There are certain officials, therefore, who will be affected by that decision for a longer period than those officials who would not come under the Bill, if the Bill does not pass before that date. If so, there is no substance in that great cry called equality of sacrifice which has been the slogan in this House for the last year or so. I put it to the Minister that if there is no chance of legislation, by reason of this Bill not going through in a certain time, to ensure equality of sacrifice, that the Minister should see justice done in that case. He has certain powers of discretion and he should use every means in his power to see that justice is equally meted out to all officials.

Professor O'Sullivan

Is the Minister not going to reply?

Mr. O'Kelly

I have done so.

Professor O'Sullivan

Surely the Minister is not serious? He has never been serious on this Bill. I suggest to him another reason why he should not seek this power. It was made clear to me last year when the Government were passing the General Economies Bill, that if they were successful in that, it would necessitate the Bill now before us. The power taken there in connection with local authorities almost brought this Bill on. I move to report progress.

Progress reported, Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 20th March, 1934.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Tuesday, 20th March, 1934, at 3 p.m.