When I moved this amendment yesterday, I did not advocate a reduction of salaries in respect of any persons. It was mentioned by the Taoiseach that if a reduction of salaries were advocated, we could not favour one section as against another. I do hold that a civil servant with a salary of £1,700 a year is sufficiently remunerated for the additional work he may do as director of the central bank. I had something more in mind than the points raised yesterday against the amendment. We should think seriously for a few moments of the mass of our people who have to live on very small incomes. I cannot exclude from my mind the mass of people compelled to exist on amounts on which it seems impossible for anybody to live. We are, evidently, prepared to give a man with £1,500 or £1,700 salary as civil servant another income as director of the central bank while we are, at the same time, refusing to give 2/6 a week extra to road workers, to allow any increase to the mass of men with a wage of £3 a week or to give more than 33/- a week to agricultural workers who also have family responsibilities. When I consider the position of the majority of small farmers, of whose standard of living I have a good idea, I cannot agree that more than £1,500 or £1,700 should be paid to a civil servant who may be called upon to act as director of the central bank. Some of the secretaries of Departments are paid salaries appropriate to their responsibilities. If they be called upon to act as directors of the central bank, I think that that salary should cover all the work they are asked to do.
The Taoiseach and other members of the House should study the condition of the mass of our people. I believe that any man who is worth a decent salary should be paid a decent salary —a salary worthy of his qualifications and merit. But we should remember that a large mass of our people are compelled to exist on as low an income as 30/- a week. We have had decent citizens forced out of industry, condemned to remain in idleness, through no fault of their own, and compelled to feed, clothe and shelter themselves on 10/6 a week. When I advocated recently an increase in the pension payable to widows living in country districts from 6/- per week and to widows living in the city from 7/6 per week, I was told by Ministers that these allowances could not be increased. These were the things I had in mind in putting down this amendment and I do not like anybody to introduce any foreign elements into the argument. Listening to the Taoiseach justifying the giving of these salaries, I asked myself if it was assumed that nobody could give honest or good service in this country unless he was extravagantly paid. Large numbers of our people are compelled to exist on very little and they are honest people, giving good service. I do not look upon a man in receipt of £1,500 or £1,600 for service to the State as badly paid when I have regard to the number of people who are ground down in poverty and privation—the people at the other end of the scale. I am moving this amendment on those grounds and on no other grounds. I think that it is a bad practice to appoint civil servants as directors of companies or as directors of the central bank. But, if they are appointed, let them do the work on their salary of £1,500 or £1,600 without obtaining a second salary. I shall not agree to that while we have, at the other end of the scale, people in a state of poverty and privation.