Vol. 141 No. 9
I move:—
That it is expedient to authorise such charges on and payments out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to increase, with retrospective effect, the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
On the last occasion we had a lecture from the Minister in relation to our action as members of the inter-Party Government in giving an increase to another official. I would ask the Minister now to look up the debate in relation to that matter and see who was the Pontius Pilate then. Did he not play a prominent part in opposing that increase on the grounds that the granting of such an increase at that particular time was not opportune? In asking us to agree to the present increase he referred to the increase given by us to a particular gentleman in 1951. In 1951 the Minister, then Deputy MacEntee, said that the inter-Party Government was trembling on a tight rope. What is the position of the present Coalition Government to-day? Are they not trembling on the rope in view of the decision that will be asked in South Galway? I object to this increase as a matter of principle. I am opposed to any increase remembering that the Minister has failed to give justice to the lowest paid workers in the community.
The Minister said that I objected to an increase for a certain official and for certain higher paid civil servants; I do not believe that the Minister could quote one statement from the record showing that I ever made a plea on behalf of those men in receipt of£2,000 or £3,000 per year. I have always supported the demands of the lowest paid workers and I have always tried to get justice for them. Of course, I am well aware that the Minister's Party went out at one stage and pointed out that we were only concerned in an increase of salary for the men with £2,000 and £3,000 a year and forgot to mention the men with £3 and £4 a week. The Taoiseach, knowing that that was a golden opportunity, went to the country, and got the people to believe that every Party in the House, other than the Fianna Fáil Party, were interested in the men with £3,000 and £4,000 a year. Of course, there was the time when the Minister's Party opposed an allowance of £30 a month for T.D.s as they had opposed the grants for the then Governor General. We heard them on the hustings all over the country. The people also believed that they were against the salaries which the higher paid civil servants were receiving. The Minister's Budget in 1952, and the policy contained in it, affected all sections of the community. The Minister is not concerned with the lower paid worker. He has come into this House with a Bill concerning men who are receiving £4,000 a year. He asks us to remain silent and to grant such men an increase of £400 or £500 a year, while at the same time the unemployed are getting a miserable allowance. If they are unemployed for nine days they only get paid for five.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but this resolution——
I am pointing out the inconsistency of the present Government.
The Deputy is not prepared to listen to the Chair?
I cannot hear. I am pointing out the inconsistency of the Minister.
I want to point out to the Deputy that this proposal is for a certain amount of money to be allocated to give an increase insalary to a certain officer. To speak on anything else, is not relevant.
Did you not give £1,000 to the chairman of the E.S.B.?
That does not arise.
You suggested that the reason he received the increase was because he was a companion——
Why did you give it?
Why are you granting an increase to-day to other people— not this individual, but the judges? You will get the answer to that in South Galway as you got the answer in Wicklow.
Labour has no one there.
Neither has the Deputy.
What I am concerned with is the attitude which the Minister took up on this. I think it was uncalled for. He referred to the attitude that I had taken on the Bill. So far as this Bill is concerned, I am going to exercise all the rights that I have as a Deputy by prolonging this discussion, if necessary. I do not want to do an injustice to any individual. If the Minister had been more reasonable I could have taken a different attitude. I do not want to be personal in any way. I want to tell the Minister that I do not want to wash my hands of anything that I have done. I do not think that, in my 30 years in public life, I have acted unjustly to any section of the community or to any individual member of this House. I pointed out to the Minister that I took a certain line of action. I believe that I was justified in the action that I took as regards the salaries of the judges. I think I was justified in doing that until something was done to improve the position of other sections of the community who are in greater need of some assistance. I think it would be more consistent of us to do that—to do something for those sections of the community which havebeen suffering since 1952. They should have got some increase to meet the increased cost of living.
The Minister wishes to have all stages of this Bill to-day. That all depends on the Minister's attitude as far as I am concerned. If the Minister takes up the attitude which he has taken up on many an occasion in this House, then there is no alternative for any Deputy but to use the powers which he has and to have a certain amount of delay in connection with the carrying out of this proposal.
Roughly four years ago when Deputy Costello was Taoiseach and Deputy Everett was a Minister in his Government, I drew the attention of the House to what, in my view, was the very inadequate salary that was being paid to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The then Taoiseach agreed that it was inadequate, and that steps would be taken to increase his salary. Those steps, apparently, were not taken until now. The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not a civil servant. He is, under the Constitution, an officer of this House. He is the person that this House relies on to investigate everything in connection with our public funds, their proper application and their proper expenditure. He is above the Civil Service. He is an officer vested by the Constitution with very express powers, and he exercises those powers not on behalf of a Minister and not on behalf of a Department, but on behalf of this House and of the public. Every member of the House knows the importance of the position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in a democratic Parliament and in a democratic country.
My objection to the measure before the House is that it does not make adequate provision for an officer who holds the important constitutional position which the Comptroller and Auditor-General holds. In my view, he ought to be paid the equivalent of the salary of a Supreme Court judge. There should be no doubt about that, and there should be no difference about it.
I regret very much that Deputy Everett has taken the line that he has taken, because it is a line that is not founded on any principle. It is not a responsible line, and it is not a line that should be adopted by any person who has been honoured by this House, and by the country, to carry the responsibility of ministerial office. Every Party and every Deputy in this House should be jealous of the independent position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and should ensure that he must get an adequate salary so as to leave him free to carry out the very heavy and important responsibilities of his office. All of us, I hope, will do everything in our power to see that the just claims of every section in the country are dealt with fairly. In so far as the demands of the unemployed are concerned, we can support, and we can fight for, the realisation of these demands, but here we are concerned with a position which is not dealt with under Civil Service legislation because of the peculiar position occupied by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. When it is necessary to pass a Bill to increase his salary, that Bill should be welcomed and supported by everybody in this House.
I would appeal to Deputy Everett to look at this matter from the point of view of the important principle on which I am trying to place it. I would specially request him not to carry out the threat he has used that he will hold up and obstruct this legislation and not allow it to pass into law until the Dáil reassembles in the autumn. I put it to Deputy Everett that he could be doing a grave injustice to an important officer of this House if he were to adopt that course. I am perfectly certain, at least I hope so, that he has no intention of doing that. Supposing we were to run this Parliament on the basis of obstruction, that a measure that was beneficial, say, to the Labour Party, being put through by the Government was obstructed by another section who did not agree with it——
This does not seem to be very relevant.
I am dealing only very briefly with the expressed intention of Deputy Everett to obstruct the Bill. I hope that Deputy Everett does not mean that. I hope he will reconsider his attitude to this important matter and that he will allow the House to mete out a measure of justice to a most important officer of this House.
Did he look for the increase?
Anything that I might have to say in relation to this motion has been very well said by Deputy Cowan and I do not think I should burden the House with any further remarks from me.
Deputy Cowan has made an appeal.
The Deputy is not entitled to speak twice on this motion.
I do not want to create any injustice, having made my protest.
Money Resolution put and agreed to.
Money Resolution reported and agreed to.
