I desire to call the attention of Deputies to the fact that in the Book of Estimates for the coming year now being distributed, the figures set down for the salaries of the President, Ministers and others are those fixed by law—not the sums hitherto provided and taken by the President, Ministers, the Ceann Comhairle, the Attorney-General and others since the present Government came into office. This does not mean that the Ministers and others affected will, during the period of office still to expire, accept the statutory scales. They will accept the same net sums as heretofore. A general election, however, is due to take place during the coming financial year, and I am convinced that it is in the public interest that before the election, and before the new Constitution is put into operation, the question of the position and remuneration of the whole-time public representatives should be fully examined. At some stage, therefore, when the new Constitution is under discussion, I shall propose the setting up of an independent commission to inquire into the matter of the remuneration of Ministers and other such officers as will function under the new Constitution. The Dáil will then, on receipt of the report, be asked to take a decision on the matter.
Committee on Finance. - Remuneration of Ministers—Statement by President.
I take it that it is open to us to make a brief statement in reply to that?
The procedure is that the President or a Minister is entitled to make a statement, but a discussion must not be developed in relation to anything contained in the statement.
I freely confess I am to be guided by you, Sir, because I do not know what the correct procedure is. It may, however, be of advantage to make a short statement from the Opposition Benches in order that there may arise nowhere any misapprehension as to our attitude in regard to the course the President proposes to pursue. I understand that the proposal is to bring Ministerial remuneration more into line with what is reasonable. I know an attempt might be made to make political capital out of that. In our judgment the remuneration of the President's Ministers and his predecessors bore no relation to the services they rendered, and I should like to say that we will cordially approve the inquiry into a more satisfactory basis of remuneration for Ministers serving this State in the future, whether that takes the form of an immediate increase in their present salaries or of a different salary, with some pension system which will make provision for those who spent the best years of their lives in the service of the State, and were then obliged to earn their living as best they could after the State no longer required their services.
The President made a statement to-day in relation to the Coal-Cattle Pact. He was perfectly explicit in regard to its major provisions. He also said it was intended to make some minor alterations in the rates of duty payable on cattle. It would be of immense public importance if the President would amplify that now, for this reason. Suppose there is any proposal to alter the scales of duty on the different ages of cattle, it might be possible for a man to make a corner in beasts of an age which were going to benefit under any new adjustment. At present a beast with four teeth pays one rate of duty; a beast with two permanent teeth pays another rate of duty, and the beast without any permanent teeth pays a third rate of duty. This operates under existing circumstances unduly to depress the price of the beast with four permanent teeth. If there was any proposal to have a flat level of duty for the three classes it would be immensely advantageous to a man to go out and buy the beast with four permanent teeth at its present depressed price, as the value would appreciate considerably if there was a flat rate. It is therefore not desirable that the matter should be made the subject of speculation between now and a date after to-night, because there might arise to-morrow morning a highly undesirable type of speculation either in rural markets or on the farms, the more outlying farms of people who would be left without any guidance as to what sort of adjustment the two Governments had in mind. I think the President will understand how desirable it is that information of that kind should be forthcoming.
Might I inquire from the President whether the inquiry which he has in mind in connection with the remuneration of Ministers is to be limited purely to the question of remuneration or whether it is possible to extend the scope of the inquiry so as to include other matters? For instance, the question, possibly, of a retiring allowance for Ministers who have served the State for a long period. Is it possible to have that matter included within the scope of the projected inquiry? I raise that matter for this reason. This State has been well served by the people who have been called to its service in the capacity of Ministers. Many of them have served the State for a substantial period, the first set for ten years. I do not think I am breaking any confidence when I say that many of these people are poor by reason of the fact that they served the State during that period. Some of them, after serving the State for a long period, found it was not easy to adjust themselves to private and commercial life. Some who have served the State in the capacity of Ministers, possibly suffered substantial losses by reason of the fact that they were called to the service of the State in 1922.
A similar position might arise under this Ministry. Ministers may be required to serve for a period of ten or perhaps 15 years, and at the end of that period, having neglected their private and their professional work, they will be then, if they cease to be members of the Executive Council, required to adjust themselves to private and commercial conditions. Again, I fear that in that case those who have served the State will suffer losses somewhat comparable to those suffered by Ministers who served from 1922 to 1932. I think there will be general agreement by all Parties in the House that some provision should be made for Ministers in that connection, and the cost of doing it would be negligible so far as the community is concerned. On the other hand, a provision of that kind will remove instances of genuine hardship, and I think the whole community would gladly pay whatever sum might be involved in order to treat fairly those who, according to their lights, irrespective of the Party of which they were members, served the community to the best of their ability. I suggest to the President that in this matter he ought not to be conservative. I feel that there will be a general measure of agreement amongst all Parties to treat fairly those who served the State faithfully.
It is understood that there can be no discussion or no development of the discussion on the statement of the President now or that of the Minister of Agriculture on the matters raised.
I submit that it would be well for the President to know the feeling of all Parties in the House with regard to this.
I have allowed Deputies to make a statement, but I want it to be clear that the discussion cannot develop. I have said that no discussion can take place on the statement of the President or the Minister for Agriculture.
The matter of the Coal-Cattle Pact as mentioned by Deputy Dillon, is very important at the present moment. The President definitely stated that adjustments had been made, and I think the House and the country ought to know what the adjustments are with regard to the cattle. At the present time there is a tariff of from £4 downwards on certain cattle. We want to know what adjustments have been made in regard to the cattle.
In that regard, personally I do not know the details of the adjustment and I shall, therefore, ask the Minister for Agriculture to give the House any information that he has on that matter, so that perhaps I will be excused from dealing with it. With regard to the question raised by Deputy Norton, I may say that I have had all these considerations in mind. When putting the Estimates on the statutory scale in the book of Estimates, I thought it was advisable to draw attention to this particular matter at this particular time. I think it is the right and proper time to do it. I have not, however, thought out the details of the terms of reference to be given to the commission, but I think they ought to be sufficiently wide so that they will take into consideration the points mentioned by Deputy Norton.
These details only concern quotas. The tariffs are not changed so far as bacon, pigs and cattle are concerned. I had the figures here as I thought a question would be raised but, unfortunately, I sent them back to the Department. Roughly, speaking from memory, we exported about 500,000 stores in the last year; 126,000 fat cattle, I think, and between 14,000 and 15,000 dry cows and bulls. That was more than the quota allowed last year in the case of stores—considerably more. This year we will have the right, as it were, to export the same number of stores as we exported last year, slightly more fats and slightly more dry cows and bulls, provided the other arrangements work out as they worked out last year with regard to coal, which I think may be taken for granted. We have a 5 per cent. increase in the quota for bacon. These are the only changes in quotas. There is no change in the tariffs, except the one mentioned, and that is on horses.
Is it intended to have the three rates of tariff on cattle?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, they remain as they are.
On the four-tooth, the two-tooth and the no-tooth beast?
Dr. Ryan
Yes, they remain exactly as they are.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.55 p.m. until Wednesday, 3rd March, at 3 p.m.