Would the Minister explain the philosophy behind Section 2?
Local Authorities (Cost of Living) (Amendment) Bill, 1945—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
That does not arise. The meaning is clear.
Surely the Minister is prepared to explain to the House his reasons for stopping short at the point at which he proposes to stop in this section? The cost of living now stands at 295 and the Minister proposes that it shall be considered to stop at 210, from the point of view of local authorities' employees who are entitled to a bonus. When the Minister introduced the Estimate that dealt with the Civil Service last year, he was challenged on the general grounds on which he was standing then. The Minister has had time to think over it since and now, when he comes to deal with the employees of local authorities, I suggest the House is entitled to ask for a review of the reasons that make him halt at 110, when the actual increase in the cost of living has been 195.
I do not know really whether this does arise on the section or not. This is a one-clause Bill and the House yesterday debated the principle of the Bill, which is contained in Section 2. I should have thought that no further explanation was necessary, unless it is to be given on the assumption that the House is going to stultify itself and reverse the decision it took yesterday. The position is quite clear. As the House is aware, the standstill principle was applied to members of the Civil Service and to certain officers of local authorities earlier than it was applied generally to wage earners and employees. For that reason, it has now been decided to permit those officers to advance to the point which their salaries would have reached if, instead of applying the standstill principle to them in July, 1940, its application had been deferred until the first Emergency Powers Order was made. That is all that is contained in the Bill and that is the philosophy behind it—to treat all alike.
The Minister, I think, is taking advantage of the willingness of Deputies to assist him in getting his business through the House. Normally, the Second Reading of this Bill having been taken yesterday, the Committee Stage would not be taken until next week, and persons, whether members of the House or otherwise, interested in the details of the measure, would have a week in which to consider the Bill and to propose amendments. The principle adopted yesterday when the Second Reading was passed was nothing more than that the employees of local authorities, whose payments were based upon the basic salary and bonus, were entitled to an increase. What we are considering to-day is the extent to which that increase should go and, if the House did not succumb so quickly to the Minister's entreaty to allow the Committee Stage to be taken to-day, we would be in the position of discussing an amendment to make the increase 50 or even 75, so as to bring it up to 195.
When the Minister takes into consideration the types of people who have been working at so many different classes of public work under local authorities, whether they are agricultural instructresses, agricultural instructors, horticultural instructors; officials dealing with housing or any other aspect of the relief schemes that have been so increased during the emergency, and when he considers the services rendered by these people, I am sure he will agree they are entitled to some reasonable explanation of why they are being offered this particular figure.
It was pointed out to the Minister, when he was dealing with the Civil Service, that in the case of a person whose income was £300 a year, made up of a basic salary of £200 with £120 bonus, that person was suffering a loss of £89 under present circumstances. The point that I think requires some sympathetic discussion now is whether the figure of 25 should not be increased to meet, at any rate, half the difference in the cost of living that exists between the 185, on which the payment is at present, and the 295 representing the actual cost of living. If the persons concerned were given an opportunity to show, on the nature and they increased extent of the work they are doing, the difficulties they are meeting arising out of transport and other difficulties, due largely to the emergency, and again, the difficulties they experience in maintaining their families with the increased cost of living, a very strong case could be made for increasing the 25 substantially.
With regard to the employees of local authorities, a strong case could be made for ante-dating the application of this measure to the 1st January, 1944, instead of 1st January, 1945. The Minister has admitted a mistake was made when the stablising process was applied to civil servants' salaries and the salaries of officers of local authorities a year before it was applied to anybody else. When the Minister is reduced to admitting a mistake of that kind, he can easily find out how much it saved to the State. He told us the increase given under the last emergency bonus proposals to the Civil Service would cost £500,000 a year. I do not know whether the Minister saved £500,000 or more in stabilising the wages of employees of local authorities and civil servants a year before anybody else. Whether he saved that amount or more, at any rate there was a substantial saving, and it was at the expense of the people for whom he is now attempting to do something small. As regards the disabilities they have suffered for so many years arising out of the mistake the Minister says was made, he is afforded an opportunity of rectifying the position in this Bill. If the House did not facilitate the Minister in the way in which it has done, we would on another occasion be dealing with an amendment to make 1st January, 1945, in this section, read 1st January, 1944.
I do not want to prolong this debate unduly. I think there is no person more grateful for any consideration that the House extends than I am, when I am charged with the conduct of measures here. But I must say I am surprised at the suggestion that I am being facilitated by the House in any way in connection with this Bill. I might have been facilitated, and it might have been to the advantage of, those who will benefit under the Bill if I had got all the stages of the measure yesterday and were able to take it in the Seanad to-day, in which case the Bill might become law within a week. But, in view of the fact that when I requested it, that facility was refused me, I am taking the Committee Stage to-day. In view of the remarks of the Deputy, it may well be we shall have to postpone the remaining stages until after this week. I do not think the Deputy's criticism is well founded. The only people who are being prejudiced by the action of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in refusing to give me the Committee and the remaining stages of the Bill are those who will benefit under it.
As to the point made by the Deputy that if it had not been for the fact that I am taking the Committee Stage to-day they might have put down an amendment providing for the payment of a bonus calculated with reference to a higher figure, that will be news to the ratepayers with whose interests the Party opposite and some of the other Parties in this House profess to be concerned. The Deputy told us a concession given to the Civil Service in this connection has meant an appreciable burden on the State. This Bill will mean, I suppose, some increase in the burden on the ratepayers, but it is only putting certain officers of local authorities in the same position as officers paid upon the same basis in the Civil Service. We do not propose to go further. The Deputy's suggestion to go further would substantially increase the burden on the ratepayers. I understood, and I have gathered it from the speeches of Deputies opposite, that they think the local authorities and the ratepayers are already carrying a heavier burden than they can bear.
And we know why.
To get back to the proposal to put down an amendment, I should like to point out that some proportion, at any rate, of the salaries of officers who would be covered by this Bill will be borne by the State— quite a large number—and I doubt whether, in these circumstances, it is within the competency of the Opposition or any private Deputy to put down an amendment.
Is the Chair prepared to rule on that?
The Chair would have to see the amendment.
I am not asking the Chair to rule on it. I am merely dealing with the argument that if this Bill were not being taken to-day, some person might be able to put down an amendment. The Deputy knows as well as I do, that it is doubtful whether an amendment of that sort would be in order, but he is just playing to the gallery. He feels he will get a certain measure of support from the general body of officers and servants of the local authorities. He can talk about putting down an amendment, knowing very well that the amendment may not be accepted. On the other hand, if I were to bring in a Bill in the comprehensive terms suggested by the Deputy, I would probably be told that I was putting an undue burden on the ratepayers. I think we ought to get rid of that nonsense.
It is hard to think, when one listens to the Minister speaking on matters affecting the welfare of State officials and their families, that this is an institution that the Irish nation for many generations fought very hard and made very big sacrifices to set up in order that they might have a deliberative Assembly here that would discuss matters and, arising out of their discussions, shape their decisions and enshrine them in legislation. The Minister is asked to say why, having admitted that he wronged a particular class of public officials, he does not make a certain amount of restitution for that wrong when dealing with this measure, and to explain with some kind of reasoning why, when the cost of living has risen by 195 points, he proposes to compensate officials to the extent of only 110. If this Assembly is what we are led to believe it is intended to be, we ought not to have to listen to either suggestion or innuendo by the Minister but to a certain amount of facts and figures and a certain amount of reasoning.
The Minister threatens me with the ratepayers. The ratepayers want to do their duty and want to do their work properly, and while the additional couple of million pounds which the policy of the Minister and his followers put on their backs may create a burden for them, it does not affect their consciences or their realisation that they owe a duty to the officials who do public work, nor does it affect the readiness and the desire of the people who may be ratepayers to see that when men and women devote themselves to carrying on public work they are adequately recompensed and put in a position in which they can not only look after the health, education and welfare of themselves and their families, but can do their work cheerfully and with free minds, unafraid of finding want in their homes when they go there after discharging their public duties. The Minister takes up the attitude that he wants this Bill, but tells us that we have no power to interfere with it. I do not want to go into that now, but the Minister would be discussing an amendment to increase the figure of 25 and to change the year from 1945 to 1944 if we were not responding to the Government's appeal to let the business go through.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I should like to ask whether the position with regard to officials generally and the cost of living is being reviewed at present, so that when we face the Budgetary discussions and the general consideration of the financial situation at the beginning of the Budgetary year, this matter will be reopened for discussion in a way which will enable the public mind to be fully informed and to be satisfied that as much as possible is being done to deal adequately with the difficulties under which public officials labour because of the very big rise in the cost of living.
The position of the whole mass of the people as affected by the present high cost of living is continuously under review by the Government, but it is certainly not the practice of the Government to give special consideration to any section of the population, except the very poor. Normally, I suppose, at this time of the year, when we are trying to determine what our expenditure in the future is to be, the position of the poor and those people dependent upon public assistance of one kind or another does come under review, but I certainly think it would be unfair if I were to allow the House to harbour the delusion that the Government feel bound to give special consideration to any particular class of the population, and particularly those who, whatever else may be their circumstances, happen to be in very secure positions.
The poor and the strong.
Question put and agreed to.