Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1956

Vol. 154 No. 5

Vote put and agreed to. - Vote 68—Remuneration.

Mr. Sweetman

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,054,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for payment of certain increases in Remuneration of Civil Servants, Teachers, Members of the Garda Síochána and of the Defence Forces and of certain Employees of Local Authorities.

As the House will be aware, the year 1955 saw the development in employment generally of a round of wage increases which has come to be known as the fifth round of post-war wage increases. It was inevitable that fifth-round claims should be made on behalf of persons in public employment and, towards the end of 1955, claims for increases in pay were lodged by the principal groups whose remuneration is borne wholly or partly by the Exchequer.

The claim on behalf of civil servants falling within the scope of the conciliation and arbitration scheme — which was one for an increase of 15 per cent. on the existing levels of pay and allowances — was discussed in December, 1955, at the General Council. As a result, agreement was reached on a pay revision which went a little over half way towards meeting the claim made. The actual increases given were in line with those agreed for outside workers during the course of the fifth round and I am satisfied that increases of these dimensions could not reasonably have been withheld from civil servants. The settlement arrived at is, in my view, fair both to the taxpayer and to his employees. I subsequently discussed with representatives of the staff association catering for civil servants above the arbitration limits the claim of those officers for a salary revision arising out of the settlement within the scheme and, while I was unable to concede the full claim made, I agreed to an appropriate salary adjustment for these classes.

As regards national teachers, the claim which was received from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation in October, 1955, was based not merely on cost of living and economic factors but also sought to improve the status of the national teacher vis-â-vis the other sections of the community. The opportunity was taken to negotiate a comprehensive settlement with the national teachers under their scheme of conciliation and arbitration.

I should perhaps mention that no provision is being made in this Supplementary Estimate for increases to secondary teachers because this group has submitted a claim under its own machinery of conciliation and arbitration. This claim will be dealt with separately and in due course.

The pay and allowances of members of the Defence Forces and of the Garda Síochána have, as on previous occasions of general pay revisions, been increased in line with the Civil Service revision.

Fifth-round claims were made on behalf of health authority staffs and, when the Civil Service claim had been disposed of, the Minister for Health indicated his preparedness to approve of certain increases in pay for the local staffs for which he is the appropriate Minister. Under the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947, 50 per cent. of the expenditure of health authorities on approved health services including local administrative costs, is recouped by the Exchequer. The increased cost to the Exchequer arising out of the present increases in pay for health authority staffs must accordingly be provided for. Provision is also being made to enable increases, on the Civil Service lines, to be given to vocational teachers and to certain other employees of vocational education committees, should these committees grant such increases.

The effective date of the pay revisions which I have referred to is, in each case, the 1st November, 1955, and the amount for which I am presenting the present Supplementary Estimate, £1,054,000 is, accordingly, the amount necessary to pay the increases in respect of the five months' period from 1st November, 1955, to 31st March, 1956.

Mr. Childers

In connection with this Estimate, it is quite evident that, in accordance with the rise in the cost of living, there have been various increases in wages among different sections of the community and that, in accordance with custom and tradition, it is only right and proper that the servants of the State should have their remuneration increased in line with the rest of the community. I should like to ask the Minister whether he had in mind any point in the cost-of-living index when he made this agreement; in other words, what point had the cost-of-living index reached when this agreement was made, whether in the mind of the Minister or in the minds of those with whom he negotiated? Perhaps he would tell us that in replying?

Having said this Estimate is inevitable under the circumstances, I think we should make the very essential point that this is a gross breach of promise by the present Government which said it would reduce the cost of living. They promised to reduce the cost of government by at least £10,000,000 or even £20,000,000 in a broadcast which was made, and which was heard by a majority of the people. They promised manifold economies in the Civil Service and the Minister for Defence, speaking in my constituency, said Fianna Fáil had created a super-State in which so much money was spent by the Government, in which there was such a huge number of administrative officials, that the people had no money of their own left to spend upon their ordinary existence. He characterised the entire civil administration of the State at that time, when we left office, as ungodly.

This increase which will amount to over £2,000,000 in a full year is necessary, having regard to the general line-up of wages in this country, but it is very far from being a fulfilment of the promise that was made in the old atmosphere of the last general election which was characterised by the general suggestion that the Government should get out of its responsibilities to a considerable degree, that it was like a millstone around the neck of the people. Now we know that no economies can be made sufficient to offset these necessary increases in pay and that all these promises have been ruthlessly broken.

I would also like to point out that, just about the time the results of these negotiations were announced, the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach were making speeches informing the people of the country that salary and wage increases were largely illusory in their effect. In fact, when the increases in remuneration had been fully announced, the Taoiseach, I think, speaking at a banquet in Cork, or the occasion of some annual function of some body, made a remark to the effect that those increases were largely illusory. It was rather poor comfort for all the State servants involved, particularly those in the lower income categories. They had had their pay increased and were told by the Taoiseach that so far as they were concerned the increases were likely to be illusory, that the cost of living would rise — possibly as a result of these increases — and would rise as a result of the increases paid to other salaried workers and workers taking part in the production of industrial goods.

It was poor comfort to them, but as we are now suffering the process of inflation, it would be grossly unfair, unless these sections of the community had the same benefits as were given to the other sections of the community, whatever the results may be. Of course, we notice that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Social Welfare when they speak, see no harm in these increases. They regard these increases in wages and salaries that have taken place in the last two years as complete justification for their elaborate promises to reduce the cost of living and the cost of government. In their speeches, they never refer to the warnings given by the Minister for Finance as to the results of inflationary measures of this kind which may have the ultimate effect of undoing the good they are supposed to do. In fact, at the moment, the Government has no policy in regard to inflation.

Mr. Sweetman

Surely this is not relevent on a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Childers

I am glad the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has given me an opportunity of saying these few words, and with that I will now resume my seat.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. O'Donovan)

I notice that, when the Opposition have to make a case for which there is no evidence in reason or in logic, they always ask Deputy Childers to make it. There was in existence in this State, when the cost of living was put up substantially by Deputy MacEntee in his 1952 Budget, a scheme of arbitration, just as there was recently. The civil servants were awarded in the ordinary way under that scheme of arbitration a certain increase in their remuneration to meet the increase in the cost of living in the year 1952 — an increase brought about by the Government of the day. Was that implemented in accordance with Deputy Childers's words? Was that implemented in accordance with custom and tradition?

The House knows that the new Government had to pay that award for the period from 21st November, 1952, to 31st March, 1953, some years later. Then they talk about gross breaches of promise. I took down the words of Deputy Childers —"a gross breach of promise." That was not just a breach of promise. It was breach of the ordinary canons of decency between the master and his servant, the ordinary rules that govern a contract of service.

I examined the subject referred to by Deputy Childers. In each year that Deputy MacEntee was Minister for Finance, he increased cost of government in this country by £5,000,000 in the first half of each year. It was not in a full year at all, but in the first half of each year he was Minister for Finance.

Mr. Briscoe

£10,000,000 a year?

Mr. O'Donovan

I have made my statement. It went up by £5,000,000 in the first half of each year.

Mr. Briscoe

For how many years?

Mr. O'Donovan

This is the first year that the Estimates volume for nearly as long as we can remember showed a reduction. The people on the opposite side of the House are the people who now come in here and say that we on this side of the House broke our promises.

Mr. Briscoe

Of course, you did.

Mr. O'Donovan

The present Taoiseach made one promise.

Mr. Briscoe

To reduce taxation.

Mr. O'Donovan

He said he would provide good government.

Mr. Briscoe

We have it!

Mr. O'Donovan

We have good government, and the proof of it is that, in difficult circumstances, this country will weather the storm as it never weathered it before.

Mr. Briscoe

Will Fine Gael weather the storm?

Mr. O'Donovan

The Deputy can make any remark he likes, anywhere else he likes, but I should be obliged if he would let me continue my speech. The fact of the matter is that I, as a very junior person, went to my constituents and said to them that I would do my best. When the day comes, we can go back to the people and say we did our best, and this is our contribution.

Mr. P.J. Burke

What about the election pamphlet? Was that not a very good one?

Mr. O'Donovan

All right; I will deal with that in a moment. We said in that pamphlet that the Government in 1952 put up the cost of living substantially and did that deliberately.

Mr. Briscoe

You were to reduce the cost of living.

Mr. O'Donovan

We could have said that Deputy MacEntee deliberately created unemployment in this country, but we did not say it. I am glad the Minister has brought in this Estimate in implementation of arbitration as applied to the Civil Service. I am glad to support the Estimate.

Mr. Cunningham

The introduction of this Supplementary Estimate is an effort by the Government to treat its employees in the same way as private firms have done throughout the country due to the increases in the cost of living. It is purely and simply a result of the increase in the cost of living which has taken place during the present financial year. It is certain that, in the coming financial year, similar steps will have to be taken and that a sixth or seventh round wage increase will have to be met.

These increases to the various civil servants, teachers, and so on, cater for a fairly small section of our people. These, together with the increases given by private employers, do not by any means cover a large section of the community. We have a big section of our people who are their own employers. What will they do about the high cost of living? What will the Government do about it? Can the Government do anything for that loyal section of our people who are self employed?

Mr. Sweetman

And who do not, therefore, come under this Estimate.

Mr. MacEntee

But they are not provided for.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Palmer)

Order!

Mr. Cunningham

I just mentioned the matter as a contrast. This measure makes provision and, rightly so, for the increase in the cost of living. The cost of living necessitates this increase, if not more. I contrasted that with the position of that section of our people who are self employed — small farmers, fishermen and so on who cannot appeal to anyone, who have no unions or other organisations to look after them, and who cannot appeal to anybody for increases along the lines and on the basis on which these increases were given. It is a section of the community which must be looked after.

The Minister mentioned increases for national teachers and that the sum covered more than the Civil Service award. I should like to hear the Minister give the figures in relation to the amount given to teachers which is outside this Civil Service award. I would say it is very small. As a matter of fact, some teachers got no increases at all under this and——

Mr. Sweetman

I beg the Deputy's pardon.

Mr. Cunningham

I took it that the Minister referred to two increases— one as a result of the increase in the cost of living and the other as a result of arbitration and conciliation.

Mr. Sweetman

Is the Deputy talking about the Conroy award?

Mr. Cunningham

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

That does not come in here.

Mr. Cunningham

I thought it did.

Mr. Sweetman

No. That was dealt with in a separate Estimate by the Minister for Education.

Mr. Cunningham

These increases are necessary. They will cost for a period of five months well over £1,000,000 and, in a full year, over £2,000,000. I was amused to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that he can, at the next election, or at any time, go back to his constituency, stand before the people and say he has done his best, but there is hardly a Deputy, no matter on what side of the House he is, who could not do the same thing. All Deputies could go back to their constituents and say they have done their best. That is no proof that the actions of the Government are in line with any promises they made. If one's best proves to be damned bad, there is nothing great about going back to one's constituents and saying you have done your best, especially if your best does not serve the people of the constituency, and the best in regard to the present Government is by no means what the people want.

Mr. MacEntee

I am sure that the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, to the tail end of which I have just listened, will bring joy to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. O'Sullivan)

I have said nothing on this Estimate.

Mr. MacEntee

Of course, there are so many Parliamentary Secretaries. So many posts have been created that the people are losing track of them. I understand now that it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government who spoke in this House and I am sure it will give joy to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance to know that at long last he is supporting them. That was not the type of speech which the Parliamentary Secretary used to deliver on the hustings in his own constituency and which he delivered recently in the South of Ireland when he spoke of inflation.

Mr. Sweetman

Can we come to the Estimate?

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister is not making my speech for me.

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order, Sir, may I request that the debate be brought to the Estimate before the House? We have had speeches from both sides of the House which were not relevant.

Mr. MacEntee

I am speaking on Vote 68 the title of which is "Remuneration". It is pointed out in Part III of the Estimate that in respect of the period from 1st November last to the end of the financial year, £1,054,000 is to be paid out, if this Supplementary Estimate is passed.

Mr. Sweetman

Certainly.

Mr. MacEntee

I would ask you, Sir, to ask the Minister for Finance to put some restraint on himself. This Estimate has to do with the amount required for the payment of certain moneys. On that basis I am entitled to ask where is the money going to come from and what is it going to represent, not merely in the Budget of this year, but in the Budget for next year. I am entitled to remind the House of the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government. I gather that is the office. There are so many Parliamentary Secretaries running up and down the steps of Government Buildings that they are falling over one another and I would suggest, for the guidance of the people and of members of this House, that these functionaries should go around bearing a placard saying "I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government" or "I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach."

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order, might I point out that there is nothing in the Vote for the payment of any Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. MacEntee

No, but they are assisting the Minister for Finance and the Government to spend the taxpayers' money. That is why it is necessary to point out that they are responsible with their colleagues to this House for the amount they are demanding from the people of the country; from the farmers and businessmen of North Kerry and from every other unfortunate individual now being salted because he believed the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government and by the Minister for Finance. I would congratulate the Minister that, on this occasion at least, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government has spoken in support of the Minister for Finance and not in criticism of him as he recently did in a platform speech in the South of Ireland.

Mr. O'Donovan

If Deputy MacEntee suggests that I spoke in criticism of the Minister for Finance I think he should quote what I said.

Mr. MacEntee

I would not inflict on the House the pain of listening to what the Parliamentary Secretary said in the South of Ireland.

Mr. O'Donovan

That is not the point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What the Parliamentary Secretary said does not appear to be relevant to the Vote.

Mr. O'Donovan

He should not purport to say what I said unless he is going to quote me.

Mr. MacEntee

The Parliamentary Secretary owes his seat in this House to the fact that he preached up and down the country that taxation must come down and that there was nothing which would have such a beneficial effect on the people as a reduction of 6d. in the £ in the standard rate of income-tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see how taxation policy can be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate. It has not been the practice in this House to do that. Only what is in the Estimate can be raised on it.

Mr. MacEntee

I am discussing the question of remuneration. The House would stultify itself if it were to pass an Estimate for £1,054,000 without asking the Minister is the money there and, if it is not there, where will it come from? Is it going to come out of the loan which is now standing at a discount of 10 per cent.? People who paid £10 on the loan are now anxious to sell that instalment for £9. I want the Minister to let us know where he is going to find the money.

My recollection is that he made no provision for a Supplementary Estimate of this magnitude in the Budget of 1955-56. He told us that he had very carefully considered the question as to whether a provision should be made for Supplementary Estimates. This is now the first of many Supplementary Estimates which are going to come before this House before the end of this year. Where is he going to get this £1,054,000? Where is he going to get the money next year?

Mr. Sweetman

That is not relevant to this Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter is not relevant to the question before the House.

Mr. MacEntee

This Estimate is only to cover expenditure from the 1st of November last. It is only to cover expenditure for five months of the financial year. This expenditure, together with the additional sum required under Vote 54 for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, will amount altogether to £1,139,000. The two Supplementary Estimates together represent an increase in expenditure at the rate of £2,800,000 a year. Surely, in justice to the people who sent us here, we are entitled to ask the Minister for Finance where he is going to get that money? I am certain he is not going to send the that round the Dáil in the expectation that he will be able to raise it from the impoverished members of this House. I am perfectly certain he is not going to open a public subscription. The only question I ask is this: Is he going to raise it by Exchequer bills from the bank? Has he the money?

Before we vote this sum of £1,054,000, we ought to ask the Minister for Finance if he has the money— or are we going to be faced at the end of this year with another Budget like the Budget of 1951, which was almost £7,000,000 out of balance?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss the 1951 Budget now.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not going to, but I am asking whether we are going to have, at the end of this year, when the books are closed and the accounts are balanced, a deficit in this year's Budget of the order of £7,000,000? That is the question which I think we are entitled to put to the Minister for Finance before we vote this Supplementary Estimate. Seven million pounds was the order of the deficit in the 1951 Budget. We do not want it repeated on the Budget for 1955-56.

The Minister came in here last May and said he was going to balance his Budget for 1955-56. In order to do that he had to maintain the taxes at the rates that were imposed before he took office. What is he going to do next year in order to find the additional £2,800,000?

Mr. Sweetman

On a point of order, I must insist that Deputy MacEntee keep to this Estimate. It is a long-established canon that this House goes into Committee on Finance each financial year to deal with that financial year alone. While I accept without question Deputy MacEntee's remarks which, though highly fanciful in regard to the current financial year, are relevant in respect of the next year, I submit they are entirely irrelevant now and should not be made.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is confined on the Supplementary Estimate to the purpose for which the money is required, and nothing else.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely we are entitled to know, before we vote to give the Minister for Finance £1,054,000, whether the money is there or not?

Mr. Sweetman

I did not challenge the Deputy's right——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is allowing that question but not Budgets or Budget deficits.

Mr. MacEntee

The importance of that is this. We are debating to-night a Supplementary Estimate. Are we going to have to debate a supplementary Budget before the present year closes? This money, if it is to be provided at all, will be a recurring sum. Therefore, it will have to be provided year after year at the rate of £2,800,000 per annum. Has the Minister made any provision to meet this current expenditure out of current revenue? He is asking the money that he may increase remuneration. On the principles which he has laid down, he is, I suppose, entitled to increase public remuneration, if he thinks the country can stand it, but can the country stand it? Can the country find this £1,054,000 without additional taxation? Can the Minister answer that question? That is all we are asking. It is a simple question. Will the Minister find that money out of current revenue? Can he find it out of current taxation? If not, what is going to happen? Is the Minister going to borrow for it?

We were told when the last loan was being floated that the money was required for productive work. It was going to be used for constructive expenditure. Is this £1,054,000 to be found out of the borrowed moneys? Surely that is a relevant question and one that the Minister should answer before we decide to vote this money — or, if not, if the Minister has £1,054,000 at his disposal, could he not employ it more beneficially than in this way? Has he examined that question? We are told that there has been a crisis in the Dublin building trade. Would this money be helpful there? Many people are finding it very hard to meet the cost of living. Those people who are not covered by this Estimate, those people who will have to find a large share of the money which this Estimate is asking us to provide—would the Minister consider devoting that £1,054,000 to helping them to solve their cost-of-living problems? Surely these are some of the things we are entitled to know?

I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government — I will have to be very careful about these titles — who, when I came into the House, began to attack me on the grounds, if you please, that I took up the attitude, in regard to all these moneys we were asked to vote, that we would provide them if the Budget of the year allowed. That was the principle upon which I stood, anyhow, and it is the principle upon which in this debate the Parliamentary Secretary attacked me. Has the Minister for Finance abandoned that principle? I want to know if this is the Minister's attitude: "It does not matter to me what the condition of the Exchequer is, how high the rates of taxation are, how heavily the people groan under the burden of taxation which they are carrying at present, I am going to ask the Dáil to give £1,054,000 to a section of the community." Is that what he is going down to Kerry to talk about? Is that what is keeping the Parliamentary Secretary out of Kerry?

Mr. O'Donovan

Is this sackcloth and ashes?

Mr. MacEntee

Are you in sackcloth and ashes? I think you must have been. You came in here and ate humble pie this evening when you made your speech. It was certainly making retribution to the Minister for Finance and your Taoiseach. However, I want again just to say this to those members of Dáil Éireann who are listening to me. You will notice how empty the Labour Party Benches are. They are not caring about taxation now on the poor man's pint. They are not caring about taxation now upon tobacco or cigarettes. They are not caring now about the old age pensioner. They are not caring now about the widows and orphans. They do not mind.

Mr. Sweetman

Could we come to the Estimate?

Mr. MacEntee

The point I am putting is that they do not mind how the Minister for Finance spends the money so long as he spends it and they have no regard for the manner in which this money is going to be procured. We have. We would like to see the £1,054,000 devoted to the purpose of permitting the public officers to maintain a proper place and a proper standard of living within the community. However, before we vote the money, we are entitled to know whether or not the money is there, and, if it is not, how the Minister proposes to provide it, not only to meet the expenditure which he is going to incur in this year, but how he is going to provide it to meet expenditure which he is going to incur in the coming year. That is the question. It is up to the Minister to answer it.

Mr. Sweetman

Every time Deputy MacEntee gets on his feet in this House, I get more and more amazed at him. However, I am grateful to him this evening for showing again — for the second time within a very short period — that the Fianna Fáil Party is split from top to bottom. About a fortnight ago, or less, we had evidence on another measure that the Fianna Fáil Party spoke with different voices. To-night we have had the same evidence. Deputy Childers took the line that it was necessary that public servants should have their remuneration dealt with in the same way as the remuneration of those outside in private employment. Deputy MacEntee took a different line. He asked one question that was relevant and with which I am going to deal in a minute.

I hope when Deputy Kelly goes back to Monaghan and when the postman brings him his post to-morrow morning, or Saturday morning, he will tell the postman that the spokesman of Fianna Fáil on this Estimate this evening, Deputy MacEntee, does not approve of postmen's wages being increased commensurate with the fifth round increases. I hope Deputy Brennan in Wicklow will tell the postman who calls to him the same thing. I hope the other Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party, when they go back to their homes in rural Ireland, will tell their constituents that Deputy MacEntee got up here and said that the £1,054,000 which this Supplementary Estimate represents should not be spent for this purpose. I hope that will sink in——

Mr. MacEntee

I suppose, Sir, that is a piece of——

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy MacEntee said that. He said that if I had this £1,000,000 I should put it to a better purpose.

Mr. MacEntee

I did not.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy did say that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is in possession.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy did say that.

Mr. MacEntee

That is just a piece of unbridled mendacity.

Mr. Sweetman

Is that in order? Is the term "unbridled mendacity" in order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it that it is meant as a political charge, and a political charge can be made in this House.

Mr. Sweetman

I must say I am so lost in admiration of the phrase that I am glad to have it for use on a future occasion. Deputy MacEntee does occasionally use clichés like that, clichés which are quite useful when they are ruled in order. When Deputy MacEntee sits down and reads the record, he will see that he said, speaking on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, that if the Minister for Finance had this sum it should not be used for this purpose but should be used for another purpose. I hope all the Deputies in the Opposition, when they go home to their constituents, will tell people like the rural postmen and the rural workers, the members of the Defence Forces and the Gardaí, that the official spokesman of Fianna Fáil does not approve of their being put on the same basis as others outside in relation to what has commonly come to be known as the fifth round increase.

I must confess I am not quite clear whether I heard Deputy Cunningham correctly when he said that he thought there was a sixth round and a seventh round coming. I sincerely hope I did not hear him correctly. I sincerely hope that no such prophecy or prognostication of Deputy Cunningham will prove true because, if we get into the situation in which, as the Taoiseach said quite recently, wages are merely chasing prices, the increases will be illusory. What we want is an increase in production and an increase in productivity, not merely an increase in monetary values.

Deputy Childers asked me a specific question in relation to the cost-of-living index figure on which this award was based. I made it quite clear to the representatives of the Civil Service Associations, in discussion with me on this matter, that the award was made in a realistic appreciation of the facts of the cost of living as they were at the end of November, 1955 and not by reference solely to any index figure or to anything like an index figure. We were not living in isolation. We knew exactly the facts in relation to the cost of living itself at that time as apart from any question of the index figure; it was in the light of that realisation that the amount was fixed.

Mr. Derrig

Why has the Minister not told the House what the facts are as they were represented?

Mr. Sweetman

I do not know exactly what Deputy Derrig means.

Mr. Derrig

The Minister has stated that he did not approach this on the basis of the cost of living but, I take it, on the general circumstances. As far as I know, Deputies have received no official document to enable them to know what the basis of this award or this agreement was. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister what was the basis of it in actual fact? Was it simply because increases were granted by other trades and vocations outside that this had to be granted? Was there an objective basis?

Mr. Sweetman

Is the Deputy entitled to make a speech?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is in possession.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Childers asked a question and I am answering it. Apparently Deputy Derrig is not able to understand.

Mr. Derrig

The Minister is not answering it.

Mr. Sweetman

Apparently I have got under Deputy Derrig's skin——

Mr. Derrig

The Minister has not got under my skin.

Mr. Sweetman

——by making it clear that Deputy MacEntee has spoken with one voice and Deputy Childers with another. It seems to me the Fianna Fáil Party must be a little touchy about this dual-purpose leadership which seems to go in different directions, even on such things as a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Derrig

The Minister ought to treat these things seriously.

(Interruptions)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Remarks made in a speech in Kerry are not relevant on the Supplementary Estimate. The Minister should be allowed to continue.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Childers asked a specific question: what cost-of-living figure was this offer related to? I want to make it perfectly clear that it was not related to any specific cost-of-living index figure. It was related to a realistic appreciation of the cost of living, as we saw it, at the end of November and the beginning of December. At the time when the offer was made, the cost-of-living index figure for mid-November had not been published. It was published subsequently. It was not by relation to a figure that had not been made public and it was not by relation to the previous figure that had been published three and a half to four months before that the award was made. It had, therefore, to be related to the facts as they were. I hope that has sunk in on Deputy Derrig.

Mr. Derrig

It certainly has not.

Mr. Sweetman

I am sorry. I cannot help it if the Deputy is not capable of reception.

Mr. Derrig

I am not capable of appreciating this sophistry. I would like to know what the facts are.

Mr. Sweetman

I am afraid that is the Deputy's loss.

Mr. Briscoe

Nobody else understands it either.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy MacEntee asked me one specific question which was entirely relevant when related to this matter. He asked me how the expenditure would be met. I want to say quite frankly that when, at the beginning of December I was considering what offer should be made to the civil servants and when I made the offer that was ultimately agreed at conciliation level I made, at the same time, an appraisal, as best I could at that stage, with something like three and a half to four months of the financial year still to run, of the financial situation in the current year; and, in the light of that appraisal, I felt reasonably satisfied, notwithstanding the heavy and unanticipated charge on the Exchequer that the offer involved, that the Budget, unless something entirely unforeseeable should occur, would break about even on current account.

I say quite frankly that I accept Deputy MacEntee's statement that I was bound to make such an appraisal. I made that appraisal. I came to the conclusion, with four months of the financial year still to run and with the information then available to me, that the best estimate I could make, even allowing for the fact that this was a heavy and unanticipated charge, was that the Budget would about break even. I hope that my Estimate will be realised, but I am not able to say whether it will or will not be realised until the out-turn of the financial year is concluded. That, of course, is the position that there would be at any time in respect of any Supplementary Estimate.

I do not propose to follow Deputy MacEntee down the paths of previous projects. He suggested, for example, in a most mischievous way, that this Estimate, this £1,054,000, was going to be met out of the proceeds of the National Loan. Of course, the Deputy knows that that was entirely untrue—"unbridled mendacity", was, I think, the phrase he used a second ago himself. If the Deputy thinks, as he said himself a moment ago, that my Budget of last year is going to be unbalanced to the tune of £7,000,000, he is in for a very big disappointment.

Vote put and agreed to.

Supplementary Estimates reported and agreed to.