Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1948

Vol. 113 No. 12

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 74—Civil Service Remuneration.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £500,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1949, for increases in remuneration of civil servants.

The increase in Civil Service pay for which provision in regard to the financial year is being made in this Estimate, resulted in the first place from the increase of 11/- a week for men and a pro rata increase for women awarded by the Labour Court in respect of employees in various undertakings early this year. The Labour Court award was based on an agreement which was previously negotiated between employers and workers. The Government's first approach to the problem of applying the Labour Court's award to the Civil Service was to limit the concession to civil servants whose pay amounted to £350 or less. When that decision was taken, I entered into negotiations with the Civil Service Association. We found considerable difficulty in reaching an agreement that was acceptable to all parties concerned and the negotiations became very prolonged indeed. The result was that I found myself coming nearer to the pivotal date, namely the 1st November. That date had been fixed by my predecessor as being the date upon which a general revision of Civil Service salaries would be entered upon. That arrangement had been made when the pay consolidation agreement was concluded in 1946.

As the conditions laid down in that agreement for an upward revision showed every likelihood of being fulfilled, I decided that the wisest course was to try to merge in any settlement which could be arrived at under that head, the weekly increases that had already been accorded on the Labour Court pattern. The settlement ultimately made effected this merger. I think some publicity has been given to it. Under its terms, whole time civil servants whose pay does not exceed £350 a year—subject to certain adjustments at marginal points— receive as from the 29th May, 1948, increases at the rate of 11/- per week for married men and single men on rates of pay not differentiated on the basis of marriage and 5/6d. a week for other single men, women and juveniles. Part-time civil servants receive pro rata increases.

As from 1st November these increases will operate as minima for the Civil Service as a whole, the £350 ceiling disappearing, but every civil servant to whom it is more favourable will receive instead an increase calculated on a 20 points increase on the cost-of-living figure on which the consolidation agreement was based. In addition, I have decided to reduce by one third the "super cut", which under the bonus system, and with slight modification under the consolidation agreement, has hitherto applied to remuneration related to a basic of £500 a year. As the Estimate shows the cost of these concessions in the present financial year is expected to be £500,000. In a full year it will be in the neighbourhood of £700,000.

The new agreement will run for two years from the 1st November and will be subject to re-examination at the end of that time or at any time during the two-year period if the cost of living rises to or above 330 or falls to or below 250. I have, however, made it clear to the staff that any re-examination must be governed by these overriding considerations, viz., the economic conditions existing at the time of the re-examination, the then Exchequer position and the trend of remuneration outside the Civil Service in so far as that trend is affected by the cost of living.

I am acutely conscious that this heavy addition to the cost of the Civil Service requires strong justification. In the main, that justification is to be found in the undertaking given in the consolidation agreement that the terms of that agreement would be revised if at the end of two years the cost-of-living index number—the old series number—was as high as 300.

The Labour Court award was another important factor. The additions granted on these grounds, but especially the consideration of the cost-of-living index number, led to the decision to reduce the "super cut", because under the consolidation agreement, under the bonus system, an increase in the cost-of-living number to which salaries are related worsens the relative position of the grades to which the super cut applies and the grant of minimum increases has the same effect.

Perhaps at this stage I should give some explanation of the effects of the "super cut". Under the bonus system there was a gradual scaling down of the percentage of compensation given for increases in the cost of living. On these reductions there was superimposed on salaries above £500 a year this "cut" rising from 10 per cent. between £500 and £700 basic to 55 per cent. at £1,500 basic.

As a result of these drastic operations the percentage of bonus to basic pay immediately before the consolidation agreement ranged from 110 per cent. on the lowest salaries to 19 per cent. on the highest, thus causing a degree of "compression" of rates of pay which seriously reduced the incentives to ambition and effort in the Civil Service. My predecessor, recognising this ill-effect, made provision in the consolidation agreement for a minimum increase of 25 per cent. on total remuneration as obtaining in 1939, and indicated in doing so, that he was giving an earnest of his view that it would not be in the public interest to allow the salary compression to proceed further. The reduction in the "super-cut" now introduced will, in my opinion, remove any remaining reasonable ground for dissatisfaction on the part of the higher officers and provide the stimulus to zeal and energy which is so necessary in a large organisation like the Civil Service.

Although I have been compelled by circumstances and especially by the commitments accepted at the time of the consolidation agreement and the rise in the cost of living since 1946, to grant these big increases in Civil Service pay, I cannot profess to feel at all happy about the effects that they and the increases given in private employment and in the public utility services must have on the national economy. There is a certain element of danger in them. It is quite certain that, unless they are followed by corresponding increases in output—and I am afraid there is so far no indication of this—they will be a serious reinforcement of the inflationary agencies which are at work and that by raising costs of production they will lessen our already very limited ability to meet competition in the home and export markets.

These things have been said over and over again, and they have been confirmed by experience, but unfortunately they do not seem to be grasped by various sections of the public. Yet it is an elementary truth that increases in money income without corresponding increases in output can in the long run bring no advantage to anybody and must on the contrary, if not checked in time, bring disaster to the entire community. We are taking a risk but in doing so we believe that the incentives that would be provided in the way of increased pay ought to lead to increased production. I am able to say, however, that the present Estimate will not necessitate any increase in taxation in the current year. We have already raised a series of Post Office charges which will give us an additional £200,000 and the release of sugar for jam making should provide a sum of £150,000. In addition, we may rely on savings being effected in various Departments sufficient to bring the total up to the £500,000 required.

The increases provided for in the Estimate raise Civil Service pay generally to levels which, in my view, can be fairly described as very generous having regard to the general economic position of the country. In many grades they are substantially higher than the pay of corresponding grades in Northern Ireland and even higher than that of similar grades in the British Civil Service. In fairness to our people, we must now call a halt to the upward movement. For my part, I trust that this will be the last occasion on which I shall have to present a Bill of this kind to Dáil Eireann or to agree to any general increases in Civil Service pay which are not fully compensated by a reduction otherwise in the cost of administering the public services.

I have thought it desirable to make provision for the increases in this single Estimate, but each Department will be responsible for the detailed accounting for whatever money it gets out of the Vote in the same manner as if it were money from its own Vote or Votes.

Mr. Aiken

I have a couple of questions to ask and perhaps the Minister would reply to them and make the matter clear. It is the first time that we have heard of any reduction in the "super cut" and I would like if the Minister could give a few samples of how this is going to operate. Could he give the House any idea as to what increases on the present salary it means in the case of a Civil Servant with a basic of £1,000. What immediate increase does it mean and also what increase will it mean for the civil servant with a basic of £1,500?

Mr. McGilligan

The two points— £1,000 and £1,500?

Mr. Aiken

If that does not suit the Minister could he give us a figure somewhere around that?

Mr. McGilligan

The super cut on a salary of not less than £1,000 but less than £1,100 was 30 per cent. I am reducing that by one-third. Therefore, it will hereafter be a cut of 20 per cent. On the £1,500 the super cut, that is the bonus, was reduced by 55 per cent. I am taking off one-third of that. The bonus on the £1,500 salary will be reduced by 36? per cent.

Mr. Aiken

What increase in money does that mean.

Mr. McGilligan

Reducing by onethird—that is to 20 per cent—on a calculation I have made out it would be about £100 in each case.

Mr. Aiken

£100 in the case of £1,000 and £100 in the case of £1,500 basis.

Mr. McGilligan

Roughly that.

Mr. Aiken

The £1,000 salary is now about £1,500 and the £1,500 would be about £2,200. At the moment that would bring the latter up to £2,300.

Mr. McGilligan

I think that is about right.

Mr. Aiken

I have been trying to discover the motives underlying the introduction of this particular Supplementary Estimate from the public announcements of the negotiations between the Minister for Finance and the civil servants. As the Minister pointed out, around November, 1946, an agreement was entered into with the civil servants which consolidated their salaries on the basis of 270, which called for a revision in November, 1948 if, at that time, the figure stood at 300, and which called for a revision before November, 1948, if the cost of living rose to 310. From the various Government statements made, as far as I can make out, the Government claims that the cost of living has fallen since they took office. When the cost of living tended to rise above the revision point in November, 1947, the then Government introduced a Supplementary Budget for the purpose of subsidising various items in the cost of living in order to bring the figure down below the revision point. When we left office in February the cost of living then stood below the revision point.

Mr. McGilligan

Not if your phrase about the 310 is correct. I think that is wrong.

Mr. Aiken

As far as I remember the additional subsidies brought it down to below 310 to about 307.

Mr. McGilligan

It has not stood at 307 since May, 1947.

Mr. Aiken

Upon my soul, that is very remarkable in view of the answer the Minister gave to a question put by Deputy McGrath the other day. Deputy McGrath asked about the reduction made in the pension of an ex-postman and called the attention of the Minister to a circular that was sent out which informed the ex-postman that his pension was being cut because the cost of living was down to 205 on the 1st July. That question is at column 1161, volume 113, of the 9th December last.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the date referred to there?

Mr. Aiken

It refers to the 1st July. I saw the circular myself. Deputy McGrath showed it to me. The circular stated that the pension was being reduced because the cost of living had fallen and was stated to be 210 up to the 1st July, and 205 thereafter. The pension was cut by 23/- because the postman had been overpayed and that overpayment was being taken off him at the rate of 11/8d. per month. What leg is the Government standing on in regard to this? The circular shows that the cost of living fell below the revision point and was not up to the revision point prior to the 1st November. What it is at this date is a mystery to me.

Mr. McGilligan

What are you talking about? Are you talking about the bonus figure or the cost of living figure? They are different.

Mr. Aiken

The cost of living figure.

Mr. McGilligan

The last one I have is mid-August when the figure stood at 311. That is the cost of living index figure. That is not the bonus figure.

Mr. Aiken

It is the 311 figure I want. That does not tally with this circular which states that the cost of living was 205. Neither does it tally with what the Minister for External Affairs said on the 27th November—that the Coalition Government had held down the cost of living. Nor does it tally with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach said at Creeslough as reported in the Press on the 29th November last. He spoke about the difficulties the Government had in wrestling with the cost of living and claimed that they had been successful. He said, despite all the difficulties they had, "the reduction in the cost of living was an achievement."

The cost of living has either gone up or it has gone down since the Coalition Government took office. If it did not go above the figure at which it then stood no commitment rested upon the Government to revise upwards Civil Service salaries or to review them before the 1st November of this year. If the cost of living was 311 on the 1st November, in the agreement of 1946 there was a clause which stipulated that the cost of living should then be reviewed. If the cost of living was not up to the revision point indicated in November, 1946, I would like to know from the Minister why it was that in September, 1948, he took steps to revise it upwards retrospectively to the 28th May. On the 28th May, according to a communication which the Secretary of Finance issued to the Civil Service Alliance and published in the June number of the "Civil Servant",

"the Government authorised the grant to whole-time members of departmental grades in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, whose total remuneration does not exceed £350 a year, of increases in pay amounting to 11/- per week for men and 5/6d. for women and juveniles."

The statement went on to say:—

"The increases are temporary and non-pensionable and were granted in anticipation of the review of remuneration which, under the consolidation agreement, was due to take place two years after 1st November, 1946."

It is clear from that that this decision was taken in anticipation of the cost of living reaching the review point. This decision was taken on Friday, 28th May, 1948, after the Minister had solemnly declared here in the Dáil in his Budget statement:—

"The substantial wage and salary increases already secured by all classes of workers, with such further advantages as shorter hours, paid holidays, children's allowances and other increases in social services have gone as far as is possible in present circumstances to meet the claims of social justice."

What were the exceptional circumstances which, within a week or two of that pronouncement by the Minister, first of all led the Government to give an increase to the departmental grades of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs? What were the considerations that led them some weeks later to apply the increases given to the departmental grades in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to other grades in the Civil Service? There is some light thrown on the workings behind the scenes by a statement which was issued by the Civil Service Alliance and published in the papers of the 1st June. That statement says:—

"Eighteen months ago the Civil Service voted on a scheme of consolidation which was negotiated between Mr. F. Aiken, Minister for Finance, and representatives of the C. S. Alliance, the P. O. Workers' Union and the higher civil servants. Of these three bodies the Alliance is the largest and most representative, and was partly, if not mainly, instrumental in having the General Secretary of the P.O. Workers' union, Mr. Norton, received in the Department of Finance.

For many years previously, Mr. Norton had tried vainly to gain access, but had been refused, as he was not a serving civil servant.

When the inter-Party Government was formed each of the above C.S. groups applied to have the 1946 scale ratified, as provided in the agreement. The representatives of the P.O. Workers' Union were received by the present Minister for Finance separately, although the Alliance protested against this on the grounds that it invalidated the 1946 joint agreement, and also because it lent itself to the interpretation that the Minister for Finance was being unduly influenced by the political pressure which the P.O. Workers' Union was able to exert.

When the Alliance was subsequently received, the Minister for Finance stated that it was ‘through inadvertence' he had met the P.O. Workers' Union representatives separately, and despite this the C.S. claim would be considered as a whole. He also stated that he would endeavour to remedy the unfortunate position which had been brought about by his action in receiving the union separately.

Despite these facts, a Cabinet decision was conveyed on Saturday through the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to the P.O. Workers' Union notifying them of the grant of 11/- per week to male workers (5/6d. to women and juveniles) as from May 29th, subject to a maximum of £350 per annum. No official intimation has yet been received by the alliance.

At the annual council meeting of the alliance last night, when these facts were made known to the members, great indignation was expressed, firstly, with the highly improper fashion in which the negotiations were conducted; secondly, at the notification of a decision to the P.O. Workers' Union, while leaving the alliance to hear it from the evening papers, and finally, at the setting up of a dangerous precedent by which, apparently, civil servants can expect to have their claims determined by relation to the amount of political pressure which each group can exert.

In conclusion, the council recorded its dismay at the utter inadequacy of the reported award, and in particular at the vicious principle of a salary ceiling which has no outside counterpart."

Mr. Davin

From what is the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Aiken

I am quoting from a statement of the Civil Service Alliance.

Mr. Davin

You are quoting from a newspaper. What is the name of the newspaper?

Mr. Aiken

The Irish Press, the most reliable newspaper of them all. There was no denial, as far as I could see, that political pressure was responsible for the award to the Post Office Workers' Union on the 28th May. Seeing that political pressure, as was alleged, worked in regard to the Post Office Workers' Union it looks as if the civil servants resident in the Minister's constituency thought they would put a little bit of political pressure on, too. The result is this bill for £500,000 this year and for £750,000 next year. The bill for the Civil Service, as the Minister shows in his Supplementary Estimate, stands under the existing provisions at £9,754,000. The revised Estimate for this year is over £10¼ million— £10,254,000.

Next year there will be, according to the Minister, an additional £250,000 on to that because he estimates that the implementation of this award in a full year will cost £750,000. It is necessary, for many reasons, that a Government dealing with the various State employees should act, as far as it is humanly possible, for motives other than surrender to political pressure. We have had the various Ministers during the year claiming that they cannot go on with this, that and the other scheme because of a shortage of money. The fact is that for some time before the coalition came together to form a Government its many components had been slinging promises like snow flakes over every class and section of the community. They promised the ex-teachers an increase in their pensions. They complained very bitterly against the increased award to the teachers and by implication— indeed if I go to the trouble I can get the actual words—they advocated very strongly that the teachers' salaries should be very much increased. They made similar criticism of the awards to Army officers. The Minister for Finance himself thought that when we gave £350,000 additional pay to the Civic Guard it should be three or four times the amount. However, all these sections of the community, not to speak of the farmers and others, were made specific and pretty definite promises of increases.

As far as I can judge the matter the group which had not been promised, as far as we know, and which had no legal entitlement to an increase were the only people who got the increase. Certainly, if the plea is right that the cost of living had fallen or had been even held, as the Minister for External Affairs says, under the agreement of 1946 the review point had not been reached prior to 1st November. On the figures given by the Minister, on 1st November the review point had been reached. It was clearly indicated and set out in the agreement of 1946 that if the cost-of-living figure stood at 300 points or above, a review was called for. The Minister says that on that date it stood at 311. A review, therefore, was called for.

Taking the minimum figures here which the Minister has indicated, ignoring the effect of the 11/- increase for the lower grades, and taking the middle ranges, it appears to me that the figure has been about 7 or 8 per cent. on the bonus. In other words, it can be put in this way. With the increase in the bonus figure, the figure was raised from 270 to 290, or 20 points and the cost-of-living figure on 1st November stood at 11 points above the review point. Therefore, the civil servants in these grades got an upward swing of twice the figure by which the cost of living exceeded 300. It was, as I said, 7 or 8 per cent. on the cost-of-living bonus.

The other section of civil servants, those who regard themselves as having been subject to a super-cut, seem to have got a very much greater increase than the others. A civil servant with a salary of say £2,250 or thereabouts at present has got, according to the Minister's calculations, about £100 a year or £2 a week increase. There may be something in the case of the higher-grade civil servants that, owing to the operation of the cost-of-living bonus over a number of years and, particularly, of the emergency bonus system, their salaries had been unduly compressed in relation to the lower salaried grades.

I discussed the matter at great length with a number of those civil servants and the Government, in a review of their case agreed that, although in the first proposition it was agreed between myself and the civil servants that the higher people would get 19 per cent. increase above 1939, that they would get 25 per cent. as a minimum. This proposal gives a still further exceptional increase to civil servants with a basic of £500 and over, and that basic salary of £500 and over would, of course mean, on present salary scale, I suppose somewhere about £900 and over. Certainly, the £2 a week on these salaries has to be explained in a little bit more detail and justified by the Minister a little bit more extensively than he has done.

The Minister says there is an element of danger in this increase and that he hopes it will be the last. We all hope the cost of living will fall. If we have no great hope that it will fall by the 30 per cent. which certain sections of the Coalition promised they would make it fall, we hope it will fall at least substantially during the next two years, during the currency of this agreement. Certainly, the figure of £10½ million which this will mean for civil servants' salaries next year is a pretty staggering figure. If there is anything in the suggestion that it was not done on a pure judgment of the merits of the case and, if it was not done by the Civil Service holding the Minister to the letter of the agreement, it is going to be very damaging for this country. The Coalition, one can understand, is subject to great political pressure from the various sections that comprise it. It is rather like a three-legged horse on stilts who gets a push one way and a pull the other and cannot resist any of them. If this increase of £500,000 is the result, not of some straightforward calculation, but of the political pull of the Minister for Social Welfare and his union and the push of the constituents of the Minister for Finance, then we are in for a lot more pushing and pulling in the same direction.

Mr. Davin

How much would you have given if you were still there?

Mr. Aiken

I would have held this. If the cost of living had not exceeded the review point before 1st November, I would have given nothing in present circumstances before that date. That is clear, because that was the commitment. As I have indicated, if the cost of living on 1st November was 11 points, as the Minister says, above the review point, then we would have had to meet and deal with the civil servants. I do not think, however, that they could have claimed, in equity, in view of the general circumstances of the community, and in view of the fact that the Government are cutting down all round, a £2 increase per week, or £100 a year on £2,250. I should like to see civil servants paid as well as the country can afford. I hope the Minister will be able to make a case on the basis of justice for this, because I think it is disastrous if he leaves himself open to the allegation that it is a result of a bit of push and pull.

The Minister pushed aside one aspect of this question rather lightly, and that is how he is going to meet the bill this year. I would like to hear from him what are the Estimates he has that would enable him to say that this can be met without borrowing.

We heard the other day, in relation to one class of people to whom great promises were made, that their case would have to wait a review of the budgetary situation. I refer to the pensioned teachers. Does the Minister calculate that, with the various savings he has made and with the various increases in concealed taxation that he has made, he can bridge this £500,000 gap? He claims that he will get out of the additional price of sugar something like £150,000 and out of stamps, £200,000. Has he taken any other calculations into account? Can he assure us that he will not spend some of this borrowed money in paying this particular bill, or that he is not paying it unnecessarily in view of the agreement entered into with the Civil Service?

There are a lot of people in this country who could do with £500,000 at the present time. I do not want to deal with that aspect, but I will say that the Minister for Agriculture postponed one of the best schemes there was in this country; he put it on the long finger in order to save very much less than £350,000.

Mr. Davin

Are you referring to the glasshouse scheme?

Mr. Aiken

No, but the farm improvements scheme. The Government could not spare a mere £50,000 for the Gaeltacht.

Mr. Davin

You nearly got away with that all right.

Mr. Aiken

Another scheme they postponed was the farm buildings scheme. Half a million would have left either of these schemes in clover, able to do something to increase our productive capacity. I hope the Minister, for the sake of good government, will be able to prove that the terms of this fresh agreement were necessitated by the agreement made in 1946 and that it was not simply because of pressure from the Minister for Social Welfare's union and from certain constituents of the Minister for Finance in Dublin.

The Minister should also deal with the super cut in some more detail. It is the first we have heard of this and it would take a long time to look up all the papers affecting it. No one could have any opportunity of doing it now, having heard of it for the first time in the House to-day. I hope the Minister will be able to put in the Library a copy of this agreement and attach to it a list of typical steps in salary grades in the Civil Service, showing the increases in each grade on foot of this agreement.

Mr. Larkin

Deputy Aiken skirted carefully around the whole question and I was not clear whether he was opposed to or in favour of the adjustment of Civil Service salaries—but that is by the way. One point that Deputy Aiken seems to overlook when he speaks of the reasons inspiring this adjustment is that whatever aloofness the Government may have about Civil Service salaries—and we know they generally have got that peculiar attitude—they cannot disregard wage and salary movements in the country. Deputy Aiken will recall that as far back as October, 1947, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, initiated a series of discussions with the unions and these ultimately resolved themselves into direct discussions between employers and the trade union organisations. Out of all this came certain recommendations under the auspices of the Labour Court. Right through until July, when the first adjustment in Civil Service salaries was made, that agreement was put into effect in respect of wide sections of workers engaged in trade and industry. It was inevitable that a discussion of that kind between most representative bodies on behalf of the employers and the workers would have to be given certain attention, and regard would have to be paid to it by the Government as well as by private employers.

So far as I can see, the initial push in bringing about this adjustment is to be found in a statement that was issued in March of this year. That statement was not directly related to the rise in the cost of living as between October and March. It was based on the change in the cost of living which took place between 1939 and 1947, and more particularly the rise in the cost of living between September, 1946, and October, 1947. That type of situation is still not completely resolved—with all due respect to the Minister for Finance. I suggest that we have to look at more than figures when we are dealing with this problem. I was interested to hear the Minister mention the figure of 311 in relation to the cost of living in November. So far as the trade unions are concerned, we are confused as to the official cost-of-living figure to-day.

Mr. McGilligan

Mid-August was the last figure I gave.

Mr. Larkin

Mid-August of this year? My point is still the same. I do not blame the present Minister for that situation, because it was something inherited, but the continuance of our present interim figure and the basis on which that figure is arrived at is giving rise to complete confusion as to where exactly we stand in relation to the cost of living. The official index figure does apparently indicate a drop, but if you speak to the people outside they express a certain amount of dubiety. I think it is correct to say that along certain lines there has been a drop in prices, but it is opposite to nature when we face great masses of people who, since 1939, have gone through, in many ways, a purgatory because of the cost of living, and when they still find the pressure of living is exceptionally heavy, to satisfy them merely with figures, and what I am satisfied was a juggling of figures, with reference to the cost-of-living index figure.

When I use the word "juggling" I do not suggest there was any dishonesty on the part of those who calculated the figure. What I have in mind is the changing of the basis, the fact that we changed from 319 at one period and that only certain of the previous items were brought into the new figure. All that may be quite understandable to persons acquainted with the process of arriving at an index figure, but to the ordinary worker, the average person outside this House, it gives very little comfort or satisfaction. Meeting ordinary people outside, and mentioning to them the figure of 290 as against 100 in August, 1914, conveys nothing of real material value.

I feel that probably one of the biggest steps that could be taken in trying to get a somewhat better understanding and stability in relation to wages and prices would be to get back to the old figure and let us have a correct basis of comparison and relationship with pre-war wages. So long as we have what I can only regard as this completely artificial figure, it is all the time open to criticism and misunderstanding.

There is only one comment I should like to make on the Estimate and the explanatory statement which the Minister gave. That is, that while undoubtedly there was need to make this adjustment and while I would be the last to suggest that civil servants have not got equal rights to any other section of workers, I do feel it necessary to express the point of view that so far as certain sections of the lower-paid employees of the Government are concerned, we have got to go a great deal further along the road in order to give these men and women even their most elementary rights. It is an outrageous thing that the Government of this country should in certain instances be the payers of the lowest rates of wages. That is indefensible. I do not want to go into any particular case but everyone is aware that we have got groups of employees in the State service, even under the authority of this House, who are trying to eke out an existence on wages of £4 a week and live under conditions of city life. That in my opinion is indefensible. There have been some attempts to bring about some adjustment but I do not think they have been sufficient.

Another factor which requires attention is that the machinery under which we try to deal with these particular claims is far too cumbersome and too slow. I have no objection to higher paid civil servants receiving adjustments in their salaries but I do suggest in all earnestness that when we provide for men already in receipt of anything from £1,500 to £2,000 a year, an increase amounting to £200 a year, we have got to be particularly careful not to reject the very limited claim of the ordinary worker in Government employment who is trying to exist on that same figure of £200 a year. I feel that this Estimate would commend itself much more to the House if we could feel that in regard to the lower-paid ranks, we had discharged our liabilities a little better than we have done so far.

I would particularly urge on the Minister that he might find ways and means of speeding up the machinery dealing with these particular types of cases. These remarks are not only applicable to the cases covered by this Estimate but to numerous classes of workers engaged in all sorts of ambiguous employment whose salaries and conditions are regulated by Civil Service conditions. I believe that we have got a primary duty to the men and women whose salaries are such as to place them week after week in the utmost difficulty in their efforts to meet their commitments. I think they have got first claim and that we must give greater attention to them in future.

The Minister in his closing remarks briefly referred to the question of wages, prices and increased production. I do not want to enter at this stage on a discussion of these matters but it does seem to me that we are still going round in the old circle we have had in the past—feeling that whenever we do adjust what are undoubtedly rightful salary and wage claims we have got to make some apology and to express grave doubts as to whether we are not following courses which will give another push to inflation. It seems to me that until we tackle the problem facing those whose conditions have been so much worsened during the emergency, we ought not to proffer so much advice to them but rather look in the other direction and address our remarks to those who profited out of the emergency.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Larkin said he could not understand whether Deputy Aiken was in favour of this Estimate or not. I understood Deputy Aiken to be quite precise on that matter. He said that civil servants were getting twice as much as they were entitled to. I understood that to mean that if he had control of this Estimate it would be £250,000 instead of £500,000. That was the gist of the Deputy's remarks, and it is not denied apparently. Civil servants have not got away with twice as much as they were entitled to. When the consolidation agreement was made the fixed figure was 290. The fixed figure is now 310 so there has been a 20 points increase. At the time the consolidation agreement was made it was related to a figure of 270 and this is related to a figure of 290, so exactly the same proportion has been preserved.

So far as the "super cut" is concerned, I have nothing to add to what has been already said. The special cut that was made under the bonus system on the higher salaries, it was recognised, had a very unfair result and the unfairness of that result became more pronounced the higher the cost of living went.

I decided the time had come to make some change. I think these people can complain that not very much has been done for them because this scaling down of their bonus has been relieved only to the extent of one-third. I felt that they were entitled to that, seeing that a good deal of attention has been paid to the lower-paid groups.

The situation under this agreement is that the increase is related to a 20-points increase in the cost of living. Should it suit any civil servant to take the 11/- rather than the 20 points increase, he has that option. If he prefers to take the 20 points increase rather than the 11/- he can do so.

There may be some people in the lower grades who feel that if the scheme were related to a 20 points increase, they would not get as much as if they settled at the 11/-. In any event the choice is theirs. At the same time, this arrangement has made some, though not a very, substantial contribution to an improvement of the conditions of those whose conditions were worsened by the "super cut".

Mr. Aiken

Could the Minister give any indication as to how the one-third reduction in the "super cut" will affect higher-grade Civil Servants getting a specific salary.

Mr. McGilligan

I can get all these figures for the Deputy if he puts down a question. I do not pretend to have all the details before me now. The average increase on the 1946 settlement is one of 6 per cent. I do not think that that can be counted a very heavy increase at this time. I do not know what meaning has been read by Deputy Aiken into the words quoted about the announcement in regard to Post Office workers. There has been no anticipation of the revision that took place. I intended that it was not to be taken by these people that we were going to give them an increase on the 29th May and that in addition they were going to get a further upper revision once November came. It is pointing out that this is part of the November revision they are getting ahead of time, and I intended no other meaning than that.

Mr. Aiken

My meaning was that the Minister was doing so as the result of the terms of the agreement in 1946.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes—because as Deputy Larkin said, the 11/- arrangement was come to between the employers generally in the country and the employees' associations. That had been accepted by the Labour Court and it was making awards on the basis of the 11/-.

Mr. Aiken

It was not the 1946 agreement that was pressing?

Mr. McGilligan

It could have waited but it was obvious that the revision had to come in November unless exceptional changes occurred in between. But once there was a tendency outside marked by this 11/- award to employees generally, I could not see any hope of resisting the claim made on behalf of civil servants.

Mr. Aiken

Civil servants are in a very different position to ordinary persons who are subject to the fluctuations of employment.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy is revealing his hand more and more. I met the Post Office workers and some 24 or 48 hours later, I met the Civil Service Alliance. I suppose I should not, according to the conventions of the Civil Service, have done so, but I do not think that much harm was done and before the negotiations were finally completed I had them all in the room together. The Deputy referred to my speech and to the fact that I said that I thought wage increases had gone far enough and that no increase should be looked for except in exceptional circumstances. We recognise exceptional circumstances in regard to these lower groups in the Civil Service. I have no apology to offer for what was done.

I am asked about a lot of promises that were made in regard to teachers and pensionable people generally. Promises were made and some of these days they will be fulfilled. There was no promise that everything would be met in the same year. We gave priority to the old age pensioners, to the widows and orphans and to the blind persons. The second section was the civil servants and we approached the representative groups on the 29th May. Their case was a pressing one. There had been an agreement and I felt that it had to be honoured. The other cases will be met in due course but I want Deputies to realise the difficulties. It is not too easy to find all these moneys right away. I could do a great deal more if I had not, as Minister for Finance, some very desperate heritages. My colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has announced that the accumulation of turf in the Phoenix Park will have to be got rid of one of these days at a loss of possibly three million pounds. What we will lose on coal will have to be added to that. If the Deputies opposite want a monument to their activities they can take a walk through the Park any day. One of these days we will affix a figure for that particular loss.

Mr. Davin

Is it coal or slack?

Mr. McGilligan

Let us not degrade it. We will have to sell it some day.

Mr. Connolly

Can you make a monument out of it?

Mr. McGilligan

It is a monument already but not a testimonial.

Mr. Aiken

You might be very glad some day to keep it.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Lemass knows that he has left us what I have described as "improvident" wheat purchase from the Argentine. We thought it bad when we first heard of it.

Mr. Lemass

It must be made clear that the Minister is not concluding. We are in Committee——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was about to ask the Minister to relate his remarks.

Mr. McGilligan

We are asked about certain other advances to people. I can collapse what I have to say into three or four more sentences.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Very well.

Mr. McGilligan

If I had not to meet such waste I would have a lot more money in hand to devote to good purposes.

Mr. Little

Do all the payments of the lower grades date from the 29th May?

Mr. McGilligan

£350 and under.

Mr. A. Byrne

Can the Minister say if he proposes to give the Garda Síochána an increase at an early date? It has been promised to them for the last couple of months. They are a very hard-working group of people.

Mr. McGilligan

If they would take an increase in pay in turf I would be able to give it but so long as I have turf in the Park——

Major de Valera

Does the Minister intend, eventually, to apply this principle to the Army?

Mr. McGilligan

I will not say that now.

Major de Valera

Why should the Army be on a different basis?

Mr. McGilligan

Because I have to meet losses on turf and wheat and things I cannot afford.

Mr. Aiken

That is bunk.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not bunk.

Mr. Lemass

Was it not a very cheap price to get through the war? We got off much lighter than any other country in Europe.

Mr. McGilligan

That may be so, but it is £3,000,000 of a loss.

Mr. Lemass

It is an indication of ingratitude.

Question put and agreed to.

Votes reported and agreed to.