Amendment 2, in my name, with a number of other amendments, is consequential on amendment 15. The question is whether we should have the discussion on this amendment or on amendment 15. There are nine consequential amendments to 15. I am quite prepared to argue the main question now.
Public Business. - Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
Amendment 1 (Senators Farren and O'Farrell) not moved.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) This Part of this Act applies to every person who, at any time during the current financial year—
(a) is employed—
(i) as a commissioned officer in or a chaplain to the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann, or
(ii) as a member of the Gárda Síochána, or
(iii) as a teacher in a national school, or
(iv) in any capacity in a preparatory college, or
(v) in any other civil capacity, whether permanent or temporary, in the public service of Saorstát Eireann; and
(b) is remunerated wholly or partly (whether directly or indirectly) out of the Central Fund or moneys provided by the Oireachtas or a fund under the control of a Minister.
(2) This Part of this Act applies to a person whether his employment is whole-time or part-time, or is for particular work or a particular occasion, and whether the amount of his salary is fixed by statute or otherwise, but this Part of this Act applies to a person only so long and in so far as he is employed and remunerated in a manner mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections of this section, this Part of this Act does not apply to any judge of the Supreme Court, the High Court, or the Circuit Court, nor to any justice of the District Court.
Cathaoirleach
What course does the Minister desire?
It is immaterial to me whether the discussion takes place now or on the later amendment.
Cathaoirleach
The Senator can raise the question on amendment 15.
I move amendment 3, which stands in my name and that of Senator O'Farrell.
Section 6 sub-section (1). To delete sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a).
This section deals with public servants, who are classified. My amendment is designed to delete from this section a commissioned officer or a chaplain of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann. I think that it is very unwise for the Government to be interfering with the public service in the manner proposed in this Bill. I think it is true to say that, generally speaking, the public service of this country is one the people ought to be proud of. I think, in order to ensure that faithful service will be given by the employees of the State, whether they be commissioned officers in the Army, chaplains or people employed in any capacity, it is essential that they should receive a salary sufficient to enable them to keep themselves in a proper position, and so that they will be able to perform their duties properly. I do not think it can be said that Army officers are extravagantly paid. They are expected to maintain a certain standard. For instance, if they are going to the theatre they cannot queue up in the streets for the gallery or the pit. I think there is a regulation dealing with that. Army officers are obliged to go to the most expensive parts of the theatre. Many of these men have adopted the Army as a career. They would, perhaps, have done far better for themselves if they had gone in for some other profession. In view of all that I have said, I do not think the Minister is justified in taking a substantial slice off their salaries.
I take it that this Bill was originally conceived for the purpose of exacting sacrifices from all in certain grades in the public service, irrespective of their salary or wages. So far as the Army is concerned it is only the officers and the chaplains who are being attacked. I take it that when the rates of pay for the Army were being fixed, all the facts of the situation were taken into account, and that a certain margin of salary was preserved between, say, the non-commissioned officers and the officers; that a lieutenant got more than a sergeant-major, a captain more than a lieutenant, a commandant more than a captain, and so on. The rates of pay were, I expect, built up in this way, with the rank and file of the Army as the basis —with a bare proportion of adjustment between the various grades. Why, in those circumstances, attack the commissioned officers as is being done in this Bill? Surely the relationship in regard to pay, which is in respect of responsibility, is disturbed thereby. The whole relationship, from the viewpoint of responsibility, is disturbed, so that payment for responsibility must inevitably be disarranged.
Senator Farren has very rightly stated that, having regard to the pay which Army officers receive, perfectly ludicrous social obligations and observances are imposed upon and required from them. I doubt if there is any other section of the community that is required to comply with the same social observances as Army officers, having regard to their rates of pay. I think this must be based on the assumption that, like the old British Army officers our Army officers are people of means who are not at all dependent upon their Army pay for a livelihood, and, thereby, are expected to observe social standards altogether out of keeping with the amount of money they draw for their military service. Anybody who has any acquaintance with our Army will know that a very large number of commissioned officers have an exceedingly hard time in trying to make ends meet at all. Many of them are obliged to live in an air of make-believe, pretending to the public they are pretty well-off when, in fact, they certainly are not. In these circumstances it is really too much to ask them to suffer the deductions proposed in this Bill. As regards the chaplains, I have heard of some who are only being paid £100 a year. On the whole, I think, they are paid scandalously low rates of pay, and it is certainly carrying the farce too far to say that they must give up a share of the little they have. I hope, in view of the small saving that would be effected, and having regard to the peculiar circumstances attaching to these cases, that the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
It appears to me that all the arguments which have been expressed in favour of this amendment are arguments which could properly be directed against the Bill as a whole. In all the services, the rates of remuneration appertaining to the various grades and ranks are relative to each other. It is clear to every person, I am sure, that where a generous sacrifice is called for there are some grades and some ranks which can better afford to make that sacrifice than others. In the case of the Army, the non-commissioned officers and men have been excepted from the cuts, because, speaking now from recollection, the highest paid non-commissioned officer does not draw very much more than £90 a year and, of course, the pay of privates is considerably below that. In the case, however, of the officers of the Army we find that the most junior commissioned rank enjoys a salary, when allowances are taken into consideration, of not less than £300 per annum. That is paid to the youngest officer in the Army, to a person just entering upon his career.
The scale was first fixed in 1923 when, I think, the cost-of-living figure was considerably higher than it is now. In fixing that scale, apart altogether from its relation to the cost-of-living figure, consideration was given to other relevant circumstances; first of all, that possibly the officers of our Army might not be drawn from the wealthier section of the community and would be, in the strict sense of the word, professional soldiers, men who adopted the Army as a profession in order to make a living out of it. Taking every factor into consideration, the scale was first fixed in the year 1923, at a time when the cost of living was much higher than it is to-day. The cost of living has since fallen, and, therefore, the real rate of remuneration of Army officers is considerably more than what it was when it was first fixed. In view of that, it seems to me when the financial position of the State is such that there has to be a general temporary revision of these scales of pay, no case can be made for excepting the Army from the operations of this Bill. If a case were made at all for excepting the Army, it seems to me that that case could be made with equal force in regard to the other services. The logical consequence of accepting the amendment proposed by Senators Farren and O'Farrell would be the rejection of the Bill.
For these reasons I would ask Senators to withdraw the amendment. If they are not prepared to take that course then it seems to me, in view of the fact that the Seanad, on the Second Reading, having accepted the principle of the measure: that in the present circumstances rather than to impose taxation economies must be found in the public services, it ought to reject the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment 4:—
Section 6, sub-section (1). To delete sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a).
In view of what the Minister has said in regard to the last amendment, I think that a special case can be made for this amendment, which deals with the Gárda Síochána. In view of the Minister's statement, I think that if he is logical he will agree to accept this amendment. The special plea that he made to the House to reject the last amendment was on these grounds: that the salaries of the officers in the Army were fixed in 1923; that since then there has been a considerable reduction in the cost of living, and that, therefore, the position of commissioned officers in the Army was very much better now than it was in 1923. The Minister cannot put forward that argument in regard to the Gárda Síochána. When dealing with the last amendment the Minister said the Government did not propose to interfere with the non-commissioned ranks and privates in the Army, but, if one may put it so, this Bill does propose to interfere with the rates paid to non-commissioned officers and privates in the Gárda Síochána. I think I will be able to show in this amendment that the Minister is not logical in the attitude he is taking up. The rates of pay for this force were first fixed in 1922. Since then they have suffered a reduction of 17 per cent. in their salaries. First of all, they got a reduction of 14 per cent. in 1924, and a further reduction of 3 per cent. in 1929.
Now, I think the Minister will agree that already the members of the Gárda Síochána have suffered substantial cuts. They have also suffered through the operation of the cost-of-living figure. The Minister made the case that, as regards the Army, it was only the officers who were being cut, but here it is proposed to cut the rank and file of the Gárda Síochána. I think it is most unfair. The members of the Gárda Síochína are a most efficient body of men. They have very responsible duties to perform in the interests of the community as a whole. They are a body of men for whom, I think, every citizen has the greatest respect and admiration, and they have very heavy responsibilities indeed placed on their shoulders. I think it is to their credit that, during the years that have elapsed since the Gárda Síochána were brought into existence, and considering the onerous duties they had to perform, they have come through with honour to themselves and the country as a whole. If there is one thing at which we ought to aim in this country it is to have an efficient disciplined police force. I never want to see here the methods that we hear and read are adopted in other countries by the members of police forces who are reported, in many cases, to have been in collusion with wrongdoers and breakers of the law. I do not think that, speaking as a whole the slightest breath of suspicion can be directed at the Gárda in this country in that respect, and if you want to maintain that position, and if you want this force to continue to render the service to the community that they have rendered so faithfully and so well, they are, at least, entitled to be paid a wage on which they can live.
The proposals in this Bill are going further to reduce the standard of life of this force and I think it most unfair that these men should be attacked in this particular manner. If we make comparisons with any other class in the service, it will be seen that the Gárda Síochána have contributed more than their share to any economies that have to be sought. It is particularly unfair in view of the specific declarations made on the last occasion when the Gárda were asked to accept a reduction in their salaries to the effect that it had reached bedrock. Those were the words. They were not to be asked to make any further sacrifices than those they were being asked to make at that time.
I think that when a responsible Minister, no matter what Government is in power, makes a deliberate statement of that nature to a public service such as the Gárda Síochána, the country as a whole should honour it. In view of that statement, I think it is most unfair that the Gárda should be asked to accept a further reduction. If you compare the rates of pay of the commissioned and non-commissioned men of the Gárda with those paid to men in other occupations of the same type you will find that the latter are in receipt of higher salaries and wages than the members of the Gárda. Further, people in outside occupations, if they so desire, can, in their leisure hours, enter into other occupations, but a Gárda cannot do that nor can his wife do it. He is compelled by the State to live on the bare amount he receives as salary, and in view of all these circumstances I suggest that it is most unreasonable and unjust to inflict a further cut on these men. I think they are the only police force in the world whose boot allowance has been taken away. I made play during the February election of last year, when we made that subject a live topic as to the last Government taking the boots off the Gárda, and I said that I was not so sure that if the other Party got in they might not take the stockings off them as well, and my words have come true. God knows these men are not being paid too much. If they were being paid a salary in excess of that which they were entitled to receive, there would be some justification for it, but considering that the Gárda on appointment gets 50/- a week and, after 22 years, rises to 83/- per week, I do not think that the rates of pay are extravagant for men with such responsibilities. I want the House to remember this: that the Gárda are not like the old police force we had in this country, the members of which had nothing to do except to stand about the barracks all day and make trouble for some of their neighbours. These men have a lot of additional duties to perform. They administer the School Attendance Act and various other Acts, and in order to carry out these duties satisfactorily a man has to maintain a bicycle at his own expense. He is not provided with a bicycle, and in view of all these circumstances and in view of what the Minister has said with regard to the last amendment, I appeal to the House to support this amendment and prevent this injustice being done.
This is, in my opinion, unquestionably one of the most important amendments on the Order Paper, and I would ask for it the earnest consideration and support of the House. The Gárda, for this particular purpose, fortunately, have no votes and, to that extent, I hope, the House can approach this in a more judicial and impartial spirit than they will, perhaps, approach other amendments on the Order Paper. On the merits of the case alone, this cut is not justified. The rates of pay of the Gárda were fixed in 1922 and, according to the statement which the Gárda made to the inquiry which was set up, they had really no relation to the cost of living at all, but, even if they had, the Gárda, since their rates were fixed in 1922, have suffered a cut of 17 per cent. 17 per cent. since 1922 is a very substantial slice off the pay of the Gárda. What are these rates of pay? A man has to have ten years' active service before he receives 78/- per week. He remains seven years on that figure, at the end of which he gets an additional 2/6 per week. He then remains a further five years on that figure in order to reach the maximum of 83/-. The Gárda have themselves set out the rates of pay for various types of tradesmen which, in practically all cases, are higher than the maximum to which the Gárda can go, but there is this important difference, that the tradesman, once he serves his time, which would be at the age of 20 or 21, immediately gets the maximum rate attaching to his particular trade, while the Gárda has to wait 22 years before he reaches his maximum. He is then 43 or 44 years of age and, during that period that he is working up laboriously to the maximum, his fellow worker, the tradesman, is drawing a higher rate of pay and is, consequently, able to command a bigger purchasing power and to expend more money not only on necessaries, but on social amenities, education for his children and so forth.
The tradesman is not expected, and never has been expected, to keep up the same social standing. Nobody denounces him; they may pity him if he lives in a very poor habitation, but he can do it and it does not damage his prospects of promotion or his relationship with his employer. The Gárda cannot live in poor quarters. He is not expected to mix with everybody, because he has to maintain a certain standard of independence in order to discharge his duties impartially. He is open to all sorts of temptation in the administration of the law. The licensing laws are an outstanding example. A well-to-do publican might not be above offering a very substantial reward to a Gárda in order to save his business.
A Senator
Shame!
Somebody behind says "Shame," but the Senator who says it knows that these things are done. One of our objects should be to place the Gárda reasonably above temptation in any case. The administration of the betting laws, the Weights and Measures Acts, and so on, all require that he should be placed reasonably above temptation. The Gárda who entered in 1922 saw a prospect at the end of 22 years of getting up to 95/- a week, which was the maximum then. Now, he can only get to 83/- per week, and 2/6 is to be knocked off this in the case of single men. The Minister may justify that on the ground that a single man is well able to afford it, but it would be a great mistake to proceed on the assumption that all single men, or even the majority of single men, have only themselves to support. Many men are single because they cannot afford to get married, because they have dependants such as aged parents, or younger brothers, or sisters, or other people whom they feel conscientiously compelled to support, and to proceed on the assumption that they have no other domestic responsibilities other than their own support would be entirely erroneous.
The commissioned and the non-commissioned officers of the Gárda have also had their cuts and they are to-day paid at a very much lower rate than the corresponding units in either Northern Ireland or Great Britain. The Gárda statement sets out:
"It might be well to mention here that an inspector while of non-commissioned rank—"
that is, in the Free State
"with a lower rate of pay than a station sergeant in the British police is called on to perform the full duties of an officer during a period of four to six months per year."
The inspector is paid at a lower rate than the station sergeant across the Border, but he still performs, although he is a non-commissioned officer, a comissioned officer's duties during four to six months of the year. They have no regular hours of duty. They can be called upon at all hours and on all days of the week. It is a case of work while there is work to be done and they have not got the encouragment in the discharge of their duties that police forces in other countries have. They have had to labour against rather extraordinary difficulties. Even Deputies and others have indulged in sneering remarks regarding them from time to time. That has made their position very difficult and rendered the discharge of their duty very much more onerous than it would in other respects be. Speaking on the Gárda Estimate in the Dáil on 1st November, 1928, as reported in column 1,394, volume 26, Official Debates, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass, used this amongst other statements:—
"We are rather glad that we have got 7,210 people—"
these were the Gárda
"—in this country who can go about in dress suits."
Had they any tall hats?
Not then, evidently.
"Five or six years ago, we could not parade that number of people in dress suits. We have them scattered throughout the country to give a tone to the social life of our towns and villages. That is rather satisfactory but, unfortunately, the members of the Civic Guard do very little else except to give tone to the social life of our towns and villages."
A statement like that coming from one of the responsible leaders of the Opposition of the time—and Mr. Lemass was by no means the worst offender—must have a very discouraging and irritating effect on the Guards and certainly does not help these men in discharging the very difficult duties which they are called upon to discharge. Many of the present members of the Government Party, including some who are members of the Executive Council, opposed any further cuts in the Guards' salaries and opposed the removal of the boot allowance. They are the only police force, I understand, in the civilised world that are not allowed a boot allowance. We all know that a Guard is practically the whole time on his feet, always walking about in the normal discharge of his duties. By the reduction of the boot allowance a saving of £27,000 was effected, while the reduction in the bicycle allowances from £5 to £2 10s. 0d. effected a saving of £13,200. The reduction in the allowances to inspectors effected an annual saving of £4,000. It will be seen from these figures that their allowances have been pared down to the absolute limit. Speaking on the reduction of the boot allowance in the Dáil on the 24th May, 1929, as reported in page 355, Volume 30 of the Official Debates, the present Minister for Justice, Mr. Ruttledge, said:—
"When the Minister seeks to make economies and when the Department tries to effect some economies, they tackle it in a method not approved of by this side of the House. They tackle it by what we say is a rather mean method, they attack the allowances. When these men joined the force the Minister at the time was satisfied that the allowances were only commensurate with the positions they occupied. The Minister, this year, in a wild drive to secure economies, was supposed to take the boots off the Gárda. We all had experience of the Gárda prosecuting unfortunate people all over the country for not keeping shoes on the donkeys. The Minister thinks he can take the shoes off the Gárda and also deprive them of some of their cycling allowance as a means of effecting economies. I suppose we on this side of the House should be glad that something has been done to bring things down to a proper level, but we do not think it is a genuine effort or a decent means of effecting economies to act in this way."
Later on he said:—
"If the Minister went into these matters he would not have to cut down the boot and bicycle allowances of the Gárda in order to effect an economy of £29,000. It is a very easy way to effect economies—it is a very simple and crude way—instead of cutting the pay, to take certain items away so that it does not appear that it is a cut in salary or in wages."
And yet the Government, of which Mr. Ruttledge is now a member, has decided that the Gárda are to be cut further. In this respect I think I can claim the support of the supporters of the late administration. I heard numerous Cumann na nGaedheal Senators declare at the time when it was rumoured that the Gárda's salaries were about to be cut a couple of years ago, that to whatever extent they could prevent it they certainly would prevent it and vote against any such proposal. The circumstances have not changed since. The arguments against the cuts are at least as strong and as impressive as they were two years ago. The Minister states that the rates of pay in the Army were fixed in 1923 when the cost of living was higher than it is now, and he will say that the rates of pay for the Gárda were fixed in 1922 and that a similar argument applies. I think I can answer that argument by pointing out that 17 per cent. of the remuneration of the Gárda has since been taken away, and that, furthermore, these rates of pay were fixed when the prospect of balancing our Budget was even worse than it is this year. We were then in the midst of a civil war and there was then no knowing what was to be the outcome of that war. Yet rates of pay were fixed which were supposed to be the minimum that could be fixed if we were to have an efficient and well-conducted force. Seventeen per cent. has been deducted from these rates already. In these circumstances, I think it is very unfair to introduce a proposal to bring them within the present scheme of economies. The total amount to be saved by the cuts in the Gárda salaries is £33,000. If we cannot find other means of balancing our Budget than by getting this £33,000 from an already underpaid police force, then the country must be in a very bad condition. The Gárda can easily by a quite justifiable discontent and resentment as a result of that cut cost the country 20 times that £33,000, not by corruption but by mere slackness and inefficiency, I suggest to the House that it is a negation of statesmanship to bring forward such a proposal as this.
I agree with the Minister in regard to the question of the remuneration of the younger Army officers. They are an extremely well-paid force considering what they do, but the circumstances are quite different when one comes to deal with a uniformed force such as the Gárda. I wish to support this amendment, because whatever the urgency for getting this money—I will admit right away that the Minister wants the money and that we must help him to get it—I do not think that the Guards should have been included in the purview of this Bill at all. The money should not be got at the expense of the Guards. I base this contention firstly on the theoretical principles which are generally accepted as governing the administration of a police force, namely, that they should be apart from, and should be unaffected by political changes or considerations, so that the law should be upheld without favour or affection, and in the interests of all the citizens of the State. It is an accepted principle, not only in normal countries, but which has been developed amongst those special international police forces which have been brought in in various areas in order to overcome the veniality of the police in those districts. This is a matter about which we should be very careful. It is for that reason that a man on entering the police force is debarred from exercising the franchise. That particular fact immediately makes him, before the members of this House, an entirely defenceless person. He cannot go to the poll to register his disapprobation; he has got to do it by circulating the various documents which Senators have received. Personally, I have not considered these circulars very seriously. The facts are, no doubt, all right, but I tried to form my conclusions entirely apart from these circulars.
The first point to be considered is that the Guards have been cut already and this latest effort makes them much worse off than the police either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. Then there is the Border where you have our Guards meeting a force which is treated on quite different terms. These are matters that we should consider very seriously. I have had considerable experience of disciplined forces and I will say this about our Guards that, taking them all round, all over the country, they are without exception the best type, mentally and physically, that this country could produce. Look at any Gárda and you have to admit that he is physically a fine fellow. He is alert, intelligent and, above all, very kindly and fair to everybody. I think that, notwithstanding the very many things said about them—I have heard myself extraordinary statements about Guards by responsible people or people who should be responsible— they have in my experience done their duty, under provocation very often, fairly and impartially towards both political parties.
It must be remembered that, in addition to ordinary police duties, they carry out an enormous amount of work for the various Departments of Government, even for such a Department as the Ministry of External Affairs. That means that they must have a fairly high standard of education and it costs them something to get it. You have the irresponsible critic, who likes to say that most of the Guards' time is spent sitting in the station while the civilian is working with his hands, but that is really the most irksome part of the Gárda's existence. It has to be remembered too that this inertia is varied at a moment's notice by unpleasant and often highly dangerous duty. Let me give you a simple instance of that. Two Gárda were walking quietly about at a public function at Galway last week when one of these emergencies arose. If the House had witnessed how these two men went absolutely fearlessly right into a wildly fighting crowd, a mob of some 50 half drunken people, without any thought for themselves, I believe that instead of trying to pass these cuts they would pass round the hat and raise a subscription for them.
There are also more serious occasions when, in times of civil excitement such as occur after an election, great bitterness is aroused, and again, here, the Gárda do their duty fearlessly. The individual Gárda goes out at night, very often alone, without any help, well knowing from warnings he has had that he is in danger of assassination from somebody. We are all aware that events like that have occurred within the last few months. That, I think, again puts the Gárda on quite a different plane to the ordinary wage-earner in this country. Two speakers already have dealt generally with the question of the duties which the Gárda have to perform. I would like to compare their duties with the actual work of artisans and labourers. The Gárda has to do, as a minimum, seven hours' duty, divided into two periods, one of which is at night. One day every week the Gárda has to do orderly duty for 24 hours on end. In the towns every Gárda does one month's continuous night duty from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. No matter what the weather may be like, he has got to do his beat. For this the Gárda who has passed his probationery period gets £3 per week, but from that—and this is a point which the other speakers have not made—there is a deduction of 2½ per cent. in respect of his pension. It takes him five years to reach a salary of £3 9s. 0d. and five years more to reach a salary of £3 18s. 0d. He formerly had a bicycle allowance of £5, but that has been reduced to £2 10s. 0d. What does that mean? It costs between £7 and £8 to get a really solid bicycle suitable for work in country districts. That bicycle lasts him about two years. At the end of two years it is practically worn out, and although it costs him at least £1 per annum to keep it in repair during the two years he has had it. At the end of the two years he has received only £5 as bicycle allowance, but he has to buy another bicycle then. That is the way this allowance is worked.
The case for the cut in the married sergeant's pay is equally untenable. He has got to keep up a very special appearance in public. If he has got money on Saturday he cannot go to a football match with a scarf round his neck. He must be tidy or people will say: "Well, the way the Guards are dressing nowadays is certainly strange." He has got to clothe himself and his wife and family decently and to live in a better house than the ordinary artisan or labourer. He gets 10/- a week in the small towns as a house allowance. I have ascertained several cases where station sergeants are paying 22/- for decent houses for their families, while guards are paying 10/- or 12/-. That charge puts them out of pocket right away. A sergeant's fuel and light bill is heavy compared with that of an artisan or a labourer. I do not think the public is aware that when Guards go on leave they have to transport their families and themselves at their own expense no allowance whatever being made by the Government. The railway companies have given a half-fare concession, but that was not obtained by this Government, or by the previous Government, but the Guards' Association. When a guard is transferred, at his own request, because he may wish to live near his relations, he gets no allowance. The married guard or sergeant gets no dispensary allowances and no free medicine. If he goes to hospital he has to pay his expenses. As he does not get dispensary treatment for his wife or family all these things reduce the pay. Compare that with the position of an agricultural labourer or a bricklayer's labourer who has 30/- weekly. In my part of the world the bricklayers' labourers struck until they got £2 2s. a week. As a rule, the labourer has a house and an acre of land for a small rent, vegetables and potatoes for his family, and probably milk for nine or ten months. The labourer has a very small bill to meet for fuel and light, while he gets free dispensary treatment for his family and himself, and the old age pension without making any contributory payment. The labourer works only eight hours daily and has not to maintain the same standard of living as the Guards. As the House will see, there can be no comparison between the position of the Guards and labourers. The labourer has not to have the same standard of education, yet he has the trade unions behind him to insure that his wages are maintained. In some cases artisans earn from £4 to £4 12s. 6d. weekly, but they get free medical treatment and eventually the old age pension. In addition to having everything found for him, the soldier gets a free house and other perquisites.
I have some experience of handling disciplined forces, and I say without hesitation that the type of men of which our Guards is composed is mentally and physically the very best this country produces. I am satisfied that there is nothing more dangerous than to mess about with the pay of a uniformed force. You can make unrest and dissatisfaction in the finest force in the world by doing that. We are not yet a Communistic country, is it right or wise to make a differentiation in the various types of service in the country? Without the services that the Guards have rendered, and are loyally rendering to whatever Government is in power, I have no hesitation in saying that the ordinary citizens would not be free to go about their business. I urge the Minister to consider this matter and to leave the Guards' pay as it is.
I desire to support the amendment, which I think is one that should commend itself to the House. Considering the conditions that existed in Ireland it is wonderful, in my opinion, that we have been able to set up a force to maintain order about which there has been no adverse comment of any kind. Personally, I hate economies because no one believes that any permanent advantage can come to any country or to any business by economies. I am perfectly satisfied that they are hateful to the Minister. It is, perhaps, difficult to make a comparison amongst the people who are to make sacrifices under this Bill, but, I have no hesitation in saying that of all those whose salaries are being cut the Guards are the least deserving of being asked to make a sacrifice. The amount to be saved is trifling. It is only £30,000. The Guards are comparatively the worst paid of any of the classes affected by the Bill. In our cities and towns there are plenty of unskilled labourers drawing as much money as the Guards. The Guards are specially qualified for their duties. They are highly educated and are men of exceptionally good character. It should be remembered that their vocation is not without risk.
I remember on one occasion driving to Dublin on a very bad night. As we say in Cork, "it was snowing and raining," the light was bad. At one stage of the journey my companion shouted: "There is someone in front." I found that I had very nearly run down a guard in the dark. When I stopped and apologised he said: "That has happened to me six times to-night, so it does not make any difference." Recently, when attempting to rescue a lunatic in Cork a guard lost his life. Two or three other members of the force also lost their lives performing acts of bravery. These things should be taken into consideration when we are dealing with the Guards. In Cork the Guards have shown themselves to be friends of the poor. In former years benevolent citizens promoted an entertainment at Christmas for the poor children of the city. For some reason that custom fell through until last year, when the Guards provided a substantial meal and an entertainment for about 300 children. Some of the citizens intimated that they were prepared to take part in the entertainment, but the Guards pointed out that they could only get a hall to accommodate 300 and that they would not take any subscriptions from outsiders. We know that all over the world a policeman's lot is not a happy one. We know that policemen are subjected to more temptation than other men, and that unfortunately they have succumbed to that temptation in other countries. I do not think any of us ever heard it suggested that any member of the Guards has done anything that was not in keeping with his uniform. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment, which only represents £30,000 throughout the Free State.
I wish to support the amendment. I want to lay stress on this, that no Government has a right to get away from its contracts, that these young men joined the Guards under certain conditions and so decided their future course. We have no right to alter those conditions now. If we are so hard up that we must save money is it to be got from generations of guards yet unborn? In future we must ask people to join under different conditions.
I do not want to give a silent vote on this question. Senators should remember that the Guards have a bare living wage. They should also remember that the majority of the population do not help the police. That has been ingrained in the people for generations as a result of foreign rule or, if you like, British misgovernment. We were taught to hate government, and to hate preservers of the peace. I felt that when an Irish child was born its cry after birth was: "To hell with the Government; to hell with the police." If a burglary can take place in Dublin, in daylight, by some of those gentlemen who go around the streets watching people to leave their houses so that they can break in, that is the explanation. That could not happen in most other countries. It happens here and it makes the Guards' lot all the harder. Then we have the Oireachtas passing Acts of Parliament mechanically, and even invoking the guillotine. That makes more work for the Guards, although recruiting for the force has been stopped. When a Department or a commercial firm run on business lines, finds that work is accumulating, additional help is brought in. In the Guards, more work is being piled on every day but recruiting is stopped. A quarter of the work that policemen have to do now should be charged to Departments of State other than the Department of Justice. I am not accusing the Government of deliberately helping Communism in any way, but I say that Communism is growing here. That cannot be denied. As proof of that we had unofficial strikes within the last few months on the railways and at the ports. That has meant a great deal more work for the Guards. If it continues what will be the end? The soil of Ireland is well ploughed for the seeds of Communism. This Bill is harrowing the soil for the weed known as Communism. The Bill is setting a headline to other employers to reduce salaries and wages. That will fertilise the soil for the growth of Communism. I ask you to remember that the only thing between this country and ruin is a contented police force. If this cut is put into operation you will not have a satisfied police force. You will have a dissatisfied force. If this generation is not prepared to pay the police force what they are entitled to—every labourer is worthy of his hire—then our children and our children's children will pay for it in the years to come.
I feel that I have a special responsibility to the Gárda Síochána, for the reason that I was the founder of that force. I was Minister of Home Affairs when the Gárda Síochána Force was first established. I presided at the first meeting of police officers in the Gresham Hotel to make recommendations to the Provisional Government as to the form the force should take. The first commissioner of the Gárda was my friend, Senator Staines. I know probably more of the Gárda Síochána than do most people. I know what their responsibilities were and the difficulties we had to encounter when we were trying to form that force. Scores of young men were taken out of the train at wayside stations and beaten when they were being brought up for training. At the time, we had not a depôt. The recruits had to sleep on the floor in the Exhibition Hall at Ballsbridge. They were fired on at night and had to defend themselves with machine-guns. It was months before we could get a place that could be called a depôt. All these were men of great courage to join the force at the time they did. As I said, I was Minister for Home Affairs at the time and my friend, the present Minister for Finance, was engaged in a different form of activity at that time. I appeal to him in all seriousness to accept this amendment. The Guards cannot afford this cut. I know several of them personally. Walking around, I get talking to them and I know their domestic circumstances. With the cuts they have got already, they cannot afford this cut. As some Senator has already stated, the Gárda when he goes into plain clothes has to be fairly well dressed. He has to keep his wife and family in a decent place. How can he afford a further cut and live in the circumstances in which he is supposed to live while—and this is an important thing—not placing himself in a position in which he would be liable to accept bribes. The Gárda must be independent. He must be able to keep his wife and family and himself in such a position that he will be able to do his duty independently according to his lights. The amendment will be carried, I know, but I appeal to the Minister to accept it and not to let the matter go to a division.
Looking at the Minister, I have a shrewd suspicion that uppermost in his mind is a feeling of gratitude that he has a Seanad to take him out of some of the dilemmas he has been placed in in connection with these cuts and, in particular, the cut we have before us. I am also satisfied that many Senators who are objecting to these cuts now would, if another Government were in power, be supporting them. We heard Senator O'Farrell speak of the allowances to the Gárda for boots and bicycles being reduced. Now, we have crocodile tears shed by some of these people because there is a further cut in connection with the Gárda. I have a shrewd suspicion that some of the arguments used by those opposing the cuts are not sincere when I remember the shilling a week, or £2 12s. a year, taken off the old age pensioners by some of these gentlemen. I have the greatest sympathy in the world with the Minister for Finance and with all Ministers for Finance, because they evidently can please nobody. They are placed in a very invidious position.
The Minister has told us that the economic condition of the country demands these cuts. If that be so, let us be fair. What is he to do? We have the economic war. We have trade depressed. We have the shopkeepers in the City of Dublin and in many cities throughout the country almost on the verge of ruin. I am told that there are more writs in the hands of the sheriffs in the different towns and cities in this country than there ever were before. Is it too much that men in Government positions, with fairly decent salaries, should bear a share of the poverty, if you like, which we have around us? Having said so much, I am conscientiously of opinion that the Minister and the Government are making a mistake in reducing the pay of the Gárda. I do not, for a moment, suggest that the Gárda should be pampered but I really think that all Governments should go out of their way to have them contented. Senators O'Farrell and Farren dealt with the question in a much better strain than I could deal with it. Many temptations are thrown in the way of the Gárda. When Senator O'Farrell said that a moneyed public could do a great deal I was the one who said "Shame." All men with money, whether they are on the commercial register or not, can do a great deal of harm with their money. Although I am prepared to support the Minister in every one of the cuts contained in the Bill, a contented Gárda Force is a great factor at the present moment. I am not going into the question of the wave of Communism pictured for us by my old friend Senator Staines. The pay is, undoubtedly, not over-generous, and if the Minister could see his way without cutting up this Bill to let this economy remain inoperative he would be doing a good day's work for the country because, as I explained already, a tremendous amount depends on a contented Gárda Force. For that reason I am going to vote for the amendment and I suggest very respectfully to the Minister that he might consider allowing it to pass.
It seems to me that there is a great deal of misapprehension as to what exactly is the position of the Gárda in relation to pay and, particularly, in relation to the deductions which are imposed by the Bill. Senator General Sir William Hickie based his support of this amendment upon the principle that no Government has a right to get away from contracts. I do not wish to argue that but I think that it could be said that, whenever a contract became unduly burdensome upon the general body of the people, any Government in discharge of its duty to the people would have to seek a release from or a modification or amendment of that contract. Apart altogether from that—I do not ask the Seanad to agree with me in that view—I ask the Seanad to consider whether, in proposing the deductions we do under this Bill, we are getting away from contracts. Senator Duggan has recounted for us the circumstances under which the Gárda Síochána was formed. Senator Staines has spoken in support of the amendment but neither of them has told us the circumstances and conditions under which the prevailing scales of pay for the Gárda were fixed. They were fixed by a Pay Order in the year 1924. Accompanying that Pay Order was a memorandum. I am sorry that Senator General Sir William Hickie is not here to listen to its terms. The pay of the Gárda was related to what was known as the Desborough scale and in the memorandum these words were used:—
"The scales commonly referred to as Desborough scales must be regarded as applicable only during the period when the increase in the cost of living over pre-war varies from 100 at the lower limit to 130 at the upper limit. The cost-of-living figure has for a considerable time past been less than 100 above pre-war and is at present—"
in the year 1924
"—about 80 to 85. The Desborough scales have accordingly been adjusted to meet this reduction in the cost of living. This adjustment has been made on the basis upon which the remuneration of civil servants is adjusted to meet variations in the cost of living. The scales of pay proposed for chief superintendents, superintendents and inspectors are based on the scales now being paid and are broadly equivalent to the rates fixed in 1919 for county inspectors and district inspectors of the R.I.C., similarly adjusted. It is not proposed that the rates of pay of the force should be subject to variation to meet trifling or temporary fluctuations in the cost of living and the rates now proposed are based on a cost-of-living figure of 85 above pre-war and are intended to be applicable while the cost-of-living figure varies from 70 at the lower limit to 100 at the higher limit above pre-war.
"These rates—"
this memorandum accompanying the Pay Order in 1924 went on to state
"—will, accordingly, be subject to readjustment if the cost-of-living figure passes outside that range."
Now there was a contract, and there was a vital condition in the contract: that when the cost of living fell below 70 above pre-war, the rates of pay of all ranks of the Gárda were to be subject to adjustment. That condition of the contract was never waived not even by our predecessors.
A reference has been made by Senator O'Farrell to the statement that the pay of the Gárda was at bedrock, but that phrase was taken out of its context. It was used during the debate which took place on the Gárda Síochána Allowances Order, this Order which deprived the Gárda of the boot allowance in, I think, the year 1929. If the members of the Seanad care to refer to columns 1660 and 1661, volume 29 of the Dáil Debates they will find that there the then Minister for Justice, now Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, used those words:—
"I have before me the memorandum which accompanied the penultimate order, and it is this."
He then went on to make the quotation which I have just given to the Seanad. Having read this memorandum for the Dáil he went on to say:—
"It has not passed outside that range. That is the promise made by my predecessor. That is a promise, as I have told the representative body of the Civic Guard, that will be honourably observed. The rates of pay of the Civic Guards will not be altered, and I take it that since that is a promise made by a responsible Executive, that promise must be binding on all future Executives."
The position of the Government was more definitively expressed by the then Minister for Finance in the same debate. Mr. Blythe said:—
"But, obviously, if something occurred which caused the cost of living to come down 25 or 30 points, a new situation would be created and the value of the pay on the present scales would be very considerably increased if that happened."
He then went on to imply that the terms of the memorandum would be enforced. That was the position that was taken up by the Executive towards the Gárda from 1924, and that it was maintained by them is clear from the fact that in December, 1931, when for the first time, the cost-of-living index figure fell below 70—to 65—a new Pay Order reducing the scales of pay of the Gárda was prepared. It was ready for submission to the representative body of the Gárda when the members of that body sent in their individual resignations dissolving it, and so, for the time being, holding up the promulgation of the Order. It is quite clear that there is absolutely no change, no modification of the Government's attitude as expressed in this memorandum of 1924; that is, that the pay of the Gárda as a whole had to be related to the cost-of-living figure. As the cost-of-living figure in this country of primary producers, mainly agricultural producers, is a reflection of the national income, I cannot see how any Government, bearing in mind its responsibility to the people and to the general body of taxpayers can, at any time, in considering the pay of public servants leave this cost-of-living figure out of consideration. It is clear that was the view also of our predecessors. It is the view of the Government to-day and, to some extent, it explains the reason why, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we have endeavoured to take every circumstance into consideration; to relate the cuts to the fall in the cost-of-living figure which has taken place over the period that has elapsed since the scales of pay were first determined.
I would like the Seanad to bear this fact particularly in mind, because it seems to me that most of the statements made to-day have been made on the basis that we were violating some contract with the Gárda. There has been no violation of a contract. The position to-day is that, so far from the cost-of-living figure being 70 above pre-war it has now fallen to 50 above pre-war, representing, once again I would like to emphasise, a very substantial decrease in the income of the community as a whole, and, therefore, a very sound reason why the salaries or remuneration of all sections of public servants paid out of that general income should be reduced accordingly.
First of all, I have made it clear that we are entitled to reduce the salaries of the Gárda. It has been said that there is no margin for a reduction, but it is quite clear that as compared to the circumstances that existed when the original Order was promulgated there is some margin for a reduction in the circumstances that at present exist. It has been said that the pay of our police compares unfavourably with the pay of police elsewhere. I do not think that we can accept that. It may be that the scales of pay here are lower than they are in Northern Ireland or Great Britain. If that be the case, the reply is that the resources of those communities are greater than ours. They are industrial communities, and the demands upon the police in such communities are more exacting than they are upon ours. At any rate, they can afford to pay their police more than we can afford to pay. Apart altogether from that, I would like to consider the position on its merits. These scales of pay have persisted now for ten years. We must assume that during these ten years they were more than sufficient, because there has been no demand for an increase. There could not in all the circumstances be any such demand. In any event, there has not been any demand from the representative body, nor from any responsible section of opinion in this country, to increase the pay of the police force. There would have been such a demand if the pay of the police force had been reduced to that margin at which there would be any danger of widespread corruption, or any of the evils or abuses referred to in the debate to-day, creeping into the administration of the police force here. Therefore, I am arguing that, in all the circumstances, the pay of the Gárda hitherto has been more than sufficient to prevent these abuses from creeping in.
It has been said by Senator Duggan that, notwithstanding this, the Gárda cannot afford this cut in addition, he said, to the cuts already enforced. What were the cuts already enforced? Senator O'Farrell said that they represented a reduction of 14½ per cent.
17 per cent. counting the cut made in 1929.
I wondered, in my own mind, how Senator O'Farrell arrived at that proportion. I can only conclude that he arrived at it by taking into consideration the alteration in pay which occurred when the definitive scales for the force were promulgated in 1924. The rates of pay in 1923, during the particularly trying conditions which existed at that time, when the force was being formed, were undoubtedly provisional scales. They were scales which may have been inflated because it was necessary, in the particular circumstances of the period, to attract men into the Gárda. They were attracted into the Gárda, but at any rate, in 1924 the definitive scales of pay were promulgated and there has been no reduction in the scales of pay since 1924.
These scales have been in force now for almost nine years. There has been no reduction. There has been, in the interval, a reduction in the subsistence allowance paid to the Gárda when they are away from barracks, or from home, but that cannot be classified surely as a reduction of scales of pay. There has been a reduction of £2 10s. per annum in the cycling allowance, and the boot allowance of 1/6 per week has been abolished. That is all that has happened since 1924. These are the only alterations, so far as I can learn, in the scale of allowances paid to the Gárda since 1924. They are not a reduction in remuneration. They are a reduction in allowances which can be justified.
Take the case of the cycling allowance, which was originally fixed in 1924. The cost of a bicycle was very much higher at that time than it was in 1929. The purpose of this allowance is to allow a man to provide himself with a machine, and to maintain the machine in serviceable order. If the price of bicycles declined between 1924 and 1929 was the State not to take advantage of the decline, and if the State does take advantage of such a decline is that to be referred to as a cut in the pay of the Gárda? Surely the whole principle on which an allowance is based is this: that it must barely cover the cost of the service or expenditure which the particular person who enjoys it has to incur in the discharge of his duty. It cannot allow any margin for private profit. Otherwise it ceases to be an allowance and becomes a perquisite or remuneration. Senator The McGillycuddy has told us about the hard lot of the Gárda who has to provide himself with a bicycle. I am not clear at the moment as to whether it is obligatory on every Gárda to provide himself with a bicycle or not. Some do and, if they are on the strength, they get an allowance but, at any rate, I think it is a very poor bicycle that, having been purchased for £7 or £8, lasts only two years. I do not know, but I think that the ordinary bicycle, if properly taken care of, might last eight or ten years and, in that circumstance, it seems to me that an allowance of £2 10s.——
Not with the weight of a gárda on it. It might do for you or me.
I think that if he got an extra strong frame for a few shillings extra, it would carry him all right. Bicycles have gone out of fashion nowadays, but I remember the time when very substantial business men of 12 and 14 stone had bicycles and kept them serviceable for ten or 12 years. They did not care very much about appearances but they happened to be wealthy men so it did not matter. However, that is a mere by-point. I say that, in considering this question, we have to leave out of account altogether any reduction in the allowances of the Gárda and bear in mind that, since 1924, the Gárda remuneration has not been reduced and the question will then arise: "Can the gárda afford at the present time any cut in his remuneration?" It seems to me that most of the Senators who spoke on this matter did not study the Schedule to the Bill, because they talked of the gárda, the married man with a wife who had to live in a decent house and maintain his family in comfort and decency. They seemed to proceed on the assumption that, so far as the ordinary gárda was concerned, if he was married he was going to be cut in his remuneration also, but the salary of the married gárda under this Bill is not being cut. The salary of the unmarried gárda is being cut, and the argument, therefore, narrows itself down to this: "Is the cut which we are imposing on the unmarried gárda excessive? The question immediately arises as to what is the average remuneration of the unmarried gárda. Most of the members of the Gárda have eight, nine and ten years' service, most of them having joined the force at its foundation, and the average pay of the gárda at the present moment is from 75/- to 78/- a week. I am not quite certain of the figure but, at any rate, it is higher than 75/- a week.
That does not include the officers?
No, the unmarried gárda has over 75/- a week.
That is because recruiting has stopped.
If a gárda is unmarried he lives in barracks; if he happens to be married he lives outside and has an average rent allowance of about £20. It varies according to the place in which he is stationed, but, if married, he has an average rent allowance of about £20, and if he is unmarried he lives in barracks and has no rent at all to pay. Living in barracks he has all the advantages of community life. He has common service, common catering——
Which he pays for.
But he has all the advantages of it. Living in a community like that must cost him less than if he were a single man living in lodgings in the city.
He would have community life in lodgings, surely.
Yes, and the landlady would have her profit out of it. He lives in barracks and has all the advantages of common attendance, common commissariat with fuel, light and other things thrown in, and his average pay as a single man is 75/- per week. Can a man in those circumstances, in the present position of this country and the situation of her people, not afford to accept a cut of £5 18s. 2d. per year?
On a point of correction. Might I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the actual rent allowance for sergeants and guards is £13 per annum in rural districts. Most of the guards are in rural districts and in small towns. In the case of cities such as Cork, Limerick and Waterford the allowance is £26 per annum, and in Dublin, £30. Perhaps that does work out at an average of £20.
I made it quite clear that the allowance varied, and I think that even the Senator is not correct. In rural districts the allowance is from £13 to £18 and most of them have the £18, but, in any event, the average rent allowance—and any person can check it from the figures given in the volume of Estimates—is £20 a year to a married gárda. The whole focus of this amendment is the unmarried gárda. The married gárda does not enter into it, because his pay is not being cut by the Bill at all. The pay of the unmarried gárda is being cut and the question which I think Senators have to ask themselves is: Can the unmarried man with an average remuneration of 75/- per week, and living in the circumstances which I have described, not afford, in present circumstances, a net cut of £5 18s. 2d. at the rate of 2/6 per week, or £6 10s. gross? That is the point, and that is the question on which the Seanad will have to make up its mind and vote. I think also the House must take into consideration the memorandum issued in 1924, which definitely related the scales of pay of the Gárda to the cost of living and definitely announced that should the cost of living fall at any time below 70 these scales would be due for revision in accordance with the fall in the cost-of-living figure. There is another important consideration which, I think, the Seanad must bear in mind in dealing with this amendment and it is that this Bill must stand as a whole. We cannot pick and choose amongst the public servants. We have to assume that the salaries and remuneration of all branches of the Civil Service were fixed with due regard to the functions they have to perform and the responsibilities they have to bear. To exclude the Gárda from the operation of this Bill would be, in effect, to say that, during the past ten years, the Gárda have been underpaid and, therefore, that if the present circumstances passed and the pay of all the services which had been cut were to be restored to its previous level the pay of the Gárda would not merely be allowed to remain static. It would have to be increased proportionate to the exemption the Gárda would be granted if this amendment were carried.
It seems to me that we have to assume that during the past ten years, taken as a whole, the pay of the public servants has been fair and that no section of the public service has been treated unjustly as compared with any other section so far as pay is concerned and that, therefore, when the necessity for sacrifices arises, all must bear their share and more or less in the circumstances in which we see it. To exempt the Gárda now would mean that it would be exceedingly difficult for us to proceed with this Bill. It would mean that we should have to fall back on some other line; it would mean, in effect. I think, that we should have to come forward with fresh proposals for taxation and these proposals for taxation would naturally have to fall on the backs we thought best able to bear them. There cannot be any alternative. We cannot exclude one section of the public servants and expect the Government to proceed to cut the remuneration of the three or four remaining. We feel that the burden, as I say, must be distributed over them all and, accordingly, on this ground and on the ground to which I devoted the earlier portion of my speech, namely, that we are not breaking any contracts and that the Gárda knew when they accepted these scales in 1924 that, when the cost of living fell, they were going to be subject to a cut, and that the sacrifice that we are asking from them is one which that section of the Gárda which will be most largely affected, namely, the unmarried Gárda, is one that he can make in the present circumstances, I ask the House to reject this amendment.
I am glad that the Minister intervened so early in this debate because I was greatly perturbed by the observation made by Senator Sir William Hickie. He said that we are breaking our contract with the Gárda. The Minister has explained and, I think, explained very satisfactorily, that there is no breach of contract. I would have wished that a different method of approach to this question had been adopted by the Government. In order to understand the realities of the present situation, it is necessary to consider what has been the increase in the value of money measured by commodities generally in the last ten years and to consider, as a second question, what has been the increase in the value of money measured by agricultural commodities in the last ten years or in the last four years.
Do you apply that to lawyers' briefs?
It would be easy for me to join in the chorus of praise of the Gárda Síochána and, indeed, I do support every word that has been said in their praise from Senator The McGillycuddy to Senator Crosbie. They are fine fellows and so are the farmers of Ireland who have to pay them fine fellows.
Whose sons are they?
They are sons of the farmers of Ireland.
And they are trying to keep the roofs over their fathers' heads at present.
I think that the best way to deal with the situation which has arisen would be to keep the value of money in relation to commodities generally as steady as possible and to bring back the value of money to the proportion which it bore towards commodities in the years 1923 and 1924. If that were possible, it would solve a great many difficulties, and the greatest difficulty of all that I see is this: the salaries of public servants are reduced and why should not all salaries be reduced? That is the question—if there is to be an effective method of dealing with this situation, why should there not be an income tax on all salaries, not merely the salaries of all public servants——
And a reduction of income tax.
That is a method which, apparently, has not commended itself to the Government. It may not have been possible. This is not a complete solution of the situation. I think it is a partial solution, and I am glad to see that it is only a temporary solution because this is a temporary measure and, if the Seanad carries this amendment, I think it will seriously embarrass the financial arrangements of the country. I cannot see why one section of public servants should be exempted while other sections are liable to these reductions.
If they were safeguarded under the Constitution like some of the lawyers it might be all right.
I do not know what the Senator is referring to.
If the Senator read the Constitution he would find what I am referring to.
I have seen no safeguard in the Constitution against any cut. I do not attribute this to any Senator, but it is a fact that it is very easy to gain a little popularity by pressing amendments which one knows cannot be accepted. It is very easy to say: "We are perfectly bona fide in this amendment which we propose because the police have no votes." But when my friends canvass for votes they also canvass for influence—"your vote and your influence." I am sorry my friend by his irregular interruption drew from me an observation of that kind. I support this amendment——
Senators
Hear, hear!
I support the Government in their opposition to this amendment believing——
And in everything else because it pays.
A Senator
Withdraw.
I shall not ask my friend to withdraw because the interruption which he made is in character and quite unjustifiable.
It is only by what I might call a "fluke" that the Seanad has the right to interfere in a matter of this sort. I suggest that under the Constitution the Seanad has no right to deal with matters of finance. At least, all they have the right to do is to make recommendations. They have no power to reduce the Minister's financial proposals in any way. They will be taking power, if they vote against this Bill, to reduce the Minister's Estimate and to force upon him the necessity, as he said himself, to find the money somewhere else. In effect, voting against this Bill will be the same as if the Seanad voted against a Money Bill.
This is not a Money Bill.
In theory it is not, but practically it is.
In fact, it is not.
There is no doubt that whatever reduction this amendment will effect, if it is carried, will force the Minister for Finance to revise his method of financing the services of the country. In that respect, if I were the Minister for Finance I would make the Seanad pay for the reduction. Nobody likes to interfere with the Guards. I could, from my experience, give as great a testimonial to their character, their perseverance and their rectitude as anybody. Nevertheless the circumstances of the time require a reduction and I would ask the Seanad to bear in mind that their function is not to interfere in the financial provisions submitted by the Minister for Finance. The Constitution does not give them that power. I would say to them: "Do not interfere in what is really not your business, let the Minister for Finance carry out the policy he has enshrined in this particular Bill."
We can go home.
We need not go home. After all, we are in the position of a Judge who has to give effect to the findings of a jury. The jury, the Dáil, has decided this matter and the judges, the Seanad, have got to implement these findings.
If I had not known the title of the Bill before the House, I would have thought the last speaker was speaking in favour of a Bill which we had recently before us and which we rejected.
Which Bill?
The Seanad Bill. I think that possibly Senator Wilson represents a certain type of mind in this country which looks simply at this question of reductions in cuts from what I might call an extremely narrow point of view. I do not say that Senator Wilson takes that point of view himself but he represents that type of mind. I have a shrewd suspicion that he is not fully satisfied in his own mind in regard to his attitude to this particular amendment because he did not argue against the amendment. He simply took the attitude that in effect this was a Money Bill and he had nothing to say to the amendment at all. I took it from him that he at any rate has been influenced by the discussion that has taken place. I also took it from his speech that the vote in this case is going to be a non-Party vote and that each member of the House has got to make up his mind for himself. I do not believe that that applies to our friends opposite but as far as the majority of the House is concerned, it seems probable that we shall have a free vote.
On the Second Stage of this Bill I stated that I did not believe the House ought to reject the Bill. I think I also stated that I believed that if we inserted all the amendments we should like to see put in the Bill, it would simply mutilate it and it would have the same effect as if it were rejected on Second Reading. There is a very large number of amendments down in the names of Senators O'Farrell and Farren. If we were to pass all these amendments there would be practically nothing left of the Bill. Some of these amendments, without doubt, I should like to support and some I am not so sure of, but I do not propose to support the whole list or even the whole of those towards which I would be favourable for the simple reason that I do not think that you should tear a Bill to pieces in Committee Stage after you have passed the Second Reading, particularly a Bill of this character. I think the House has to consider whether in the case of this amendment there should be any exception to the general rule, whether there is anything in the case of the reductions in the pay of the Gárda towards which it may be claimed we owe a particular duty. I am perfectly certain that when Senator Wilson suggested that the cost of this reduction, if the amendment were carried, might be defrayed by members of the House, he knew he was making it much harder for members to vote against the amendment. Fortunately, or unfortunately, however, Senator Wilson is not Minister for Finance, so that some other way out will have to be found. Having given some consideration to this matter before, and having listened to the speeches which have been made in the course of the debate, I think this House is quite justified in voting in accordance with its own feelings in regard to these cuts.
I am more convinced by the arguments put forward by Senator The McGillycuddy than by any other arguments which have been made here to-day. In particular, I believe the Senator was on very sound ground when he said that it was a very great pity that the question of the status of the Guards and their salaries should be brought into a general "cuts" Bill. We all know that the question of the "cuts" has been and will be bandied around and has been one of the biggest issues a general elections. Whatever arrangements may be made in regard to the Guards should—and this applies to the Army as well—deal with these services particularly, after discussion with representatives of these services, and they should not be brought into a general "cuts" Bill. Most of the national teachers, for instance, have their representatives in the Dáil They are well represented there. They have votes and they have a very considerable political influence. Senator Comyn will say that the Guards have political influence also. I do not say that they have no influence but I do say that both Parties would feel very aggrieved if at the time of an election that, influence was unduly or improperly used or if the Guards interfered in the election. This fact makes it incumbent on this, as the Second Chamber, carefully to consider the circumstances in regard to these "cuts." While in the case of the national teachers, who have a very strong political representation, we may say this is a money matter and should be left to the Dáil, I say that in the case of the Guards, we are dealing with a non-political matter and we would be justified in sending forward a suggestion of this kind to the other House if we really believed that a case has been made for it.
The Minister's speech is very interesting. It was to some of us a matter of considerable satisfaction to hear him defend the action of his predecessor with such vigour and obvious conviction. That is all to the good. I am not making use of that observation in any slighting way. I think it is a good thing it should be so, but I was very much surprised and somewhat alarmed at the general run of his arguments in relation to this amendment. I think they arose out of a remark by Senator Sir William Hickie. His first argument was that this was a purely temporary Bill, but almost the whole of his argument was for a permanent cut. The second argument was that you cannot in a Bill of this kind, pick and choose. I have not got a very wide knowledge of the services of the State, but it seems to me that that is the very thing this Bill does. There is a very considerable amount of picking and choosing. I think that is to a large extent inevitable and I am not too critical in regard to it. I regard the Government as being in the position of employers generally in that respect. They have to pick and choose and they have to consider the services rendered in deciding on the remuneration to be paid. I believe that the importance of the services rendered by the Guards in this State is such that it it not desirable to pay them a substantially lower scale than is being paid in Great Britain, in Northern Ireland and in other countries as well. The Minister states that the resources of Great Britain and, incidentally, those of Northern Ireland are greater than those of this State. I know he is a loyal Ulsterman, but I doubt the statement in regard to Northern Ireland. Even if that were so, I am satisfied that in the building up of a new State in which we have had such unfortunate circumstances in the past—a State in which we have two large Parties which, for a period, have between them been responsible for the Government and the maintenance of order—the maintenance of a proper police force may be clearly regarded as one of the most important objects which either Government should uphold. To bring this force into a temporary "Cuts" Bill is a mistake of the first order.
Whatever may ultimately happen, I believe that this House would be justified in asking the other House if it believes this was a mistake to amend the Bill accordingly. Personally I am not going to vote for any other amendment of a general character which would affect any large class of the community, but on giving the matter consideration, I think an exception should be made, and that it can properly be made in the case of this amendment.
I was interested in the Minister's speech to see how he argued from one angle only, that which included the cost of living. From that point of view he made an extremely good case. He failed to deal with the point that the pay of the Guards, all selected men, is being gradually scaled down to the pay and perquisites of labourers who have not to have the same qualifications. As to the question of rent allowances, the amount in rural districts and in small towns is £13. The Accounting Officer for the Vote stated that there is power to increase that amount to a sum not exceeding a maximum of £18 in large towns to £26 in Cork, Limerick and Waterford and to £30 in Dublin. That is an admission that one-half of the Gárda is concentrated in big towns. Possibly I put the price of a bicycle somewhat high, but the other kind would be a poor type of machine. Has the Minister considered what would happen in a country like Meath if these men refused to avail of the bicycle allowance. If the Guards decided to walk, would not that mean an enormous increase in the number of Gárdaí that would be required? I do not suggest that the Guards would refuse to do the duty, but I draw the Minister's attention to the point that by taking the bicycle allowance and covering 20 or 30 miles a day there has been a saving to the State.
Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks suggested that a bicycle would only last two years?
I want to offer a few comments on the Minister's reply. The Minister's speech was admittedly a very clever one, and he was probably impressed with his arguments. The Minister would have the House believe that the beginning of the Guards, as far as pay was concerned, was in 1924 and not 1922. The Guards were established in 1922 and had a great deal of dangerous and unpleasant work to do between 1922 and 1924. Their rates of pay were fixed on the basis of the Report of the Desborough Commission from which the following is an extract:—
"In considering the standard rate of pensionable pay which we should recommend, we have taken into account, not merely or even mainly, the rates of pay in force before the war and the percentage to be added in consideration of the increase in the cost of living, but we have endeavoured to appraise as well as we can the services rendered by the police to the community; the standard of qualifications required and the rate of remuneration which seem to us to be reasonable and proper in all the circumstances and likely to attract recruits of the right stamp."
It will be seen that they did not mainly consider the question of an increase in respect of the cost of living. The rates fixed enabled a guard to start at 70/- instead of 50/- now, and to go to 95/- instead of 83/-, which is the present maximum. The late Government came along with the axe in 1924 and they hacked that down by 14 per cent. The Minister would have us assume that the rate for the Guards was that of 1924. Moreover, if it was the original intention that the cost of living should figure in the rates of pay why was not a sliding scale established for them, as in the case of the Civil Service generally. Why was not the pay of the police across the Border, and in Great Britain, whose wages were fixed in accordance with the Desborough Commission Report altered to meet the reduction in the cost of living? It was only a mere assumption—a mere statement of the Minister for Finance in the Dáil— but a passing statement made by a Minister does not alter the facts of the situation. The facts are that the Desborough Report, admittedly fixed the rates of pay, and that they have been very considerably cut into since. The Minister states that the Guards have made no application through their representative body for an increase of pay since 1924. Because they have not done so, that seems to be an indication to him that they are well enough paid, if not too well paid. That is a very straight hint to the Guards that, in order to impress the Minister that they should not have their rates of pay cut, they must be sending in periodical applications for increases. Similarly it is a broad hint to the civil servants. He said that if they did not include them in the cut it would be an admission on their part that they were not paid high enough for the last ten years. Why is it that civil servants with £350 per annum are free from any cut? Is that an admission on the Minister's part that the Civil Service was not paid highly enough for the last ten years?
In regard to the question of differentiation, as Senator Douglas pointed out, the Bill is bristling with inequalities. A teacher with £140 is cut 5 per cent. while a civil servant with £300 gets no cut. The teachers can prove that since 1922 they have suffered reductions equivalent to what civil servants have suffered in the cost-of-living bonus. The Minister made very light of the cut in the cycling allowance. It may be a small thing as perhaps, in his opinion 50/- a year, or 1/- a week is sufficient for the maintenance of a bicycle. Across the border the allowance is £3 per annum plus a mileage rate of 2d per mile, with a maximum of £1 per month, and a further maximum of £15 yearly. All the change that has taken place there is that the maximum has been reduced to £14 per annum for a bicycle. I cannot imagine that in regulating the maximum for the police force across the Border they were extravagantly generous and that there was not some real justification for making this allowance. While the boot allowance has been reduced in other places the allowance made here has been taken away altogether.
The Minister stated that the Bill must stand as a whole and that everything goes crash if any amendment is made. He might have made a similar argument in the other House. Surely a Bill is never so watertight that certain adjustments cannot be made. In view of the fact that it is bristling with differentiations and that some thousands of civil servants are escaping any cuts in salaries, we are not going to have a collapse of social order because the Guards are not compelled to make further contributions to national finances. I do not think anybody need have any great terror of the fresh taxation that will have to be imposed in order to recoup the Minister what he will lose if the Guards do not have to pay. No fresh taxation will be necessary. In any case we heard about a loan that is to be floated to meet expenditure. I do not say that it should be floated to pay the salaries of the Guards, but if a loan is being floated for some millions of money, the question of £30,000 should not debar the Minister from agreeing to what is an act of simple justice, and one which may have very vital consequences for the good order in this State.
The Minister in his reply gave some quotations. If I cared to give certain quotations from official statements issued by the Party of which the Minister is such a distinguished member, with regard to the rates of wages paid, and if I were to quote statements made by the President on a famous occasion with regard to what salaries should be, I think I would blow away his case. The Minister referred to the position of single men. It is well known that the bulk of the Gárda, about 97 per cent. of them, are sons of small farmers. Even though these men are single, very often they have greater domestic responsibilities than some married men. Does not everyone know that they help the people at home? If some of the guards are not married it is not their fault. Do they not suffer from the disability that if they marry without the permission of their superiors, they get no marriage allowances? I think it is a bad thing to have an underpaid police force. I do not think the Guards are overpaid. No one will admit that they are overpaid. I could quote higher rates of wages paid to men who do not require to have the same standard of efficiency, mentally or physically, as the Guards. We ought to aim at getting a police force which is up to a high standard. It has been proved that our police force has been able to overcome the crooks and wrongdoers who come here from other countries. I think they are doing their duty very well. It is a bad principle to bring their pay below the level at which it now stands and, accordingly, I ask the House to pass the amendment.
I have not been influenced in the least by the speeches that were made in support of the amendment. As the Minister pointed out it is absolutely impossible to pick out one section from the Bill and to let the position of the rest stand, because we would then reach the position that when conditions changed and when this Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill was no longer necessary the people who had been exempted under this amendment would be entitled to claim further increases.
Listening to some of the speeches convinces me that many of the members of this House are not in touch, so to speak, with the masses of the people. I could understand various members of the Opposition speaking in support of the amendment, but I find it very difficult to understand the arguments put up by the representatives of Labour in this House. Various reasons have been put forward as to why this amendment should be accepted and as to why the Guards, of all others, should be relieved from contribution under this measure. Somebody suggested that the Guards would, if they came within the provisions of this Bill, be a dissatisfied force and would not give the service they gave in the past. I am sure that the Senators who made these statements know as well as I do that such a condition would not naturally follow as a result of the passing of this Bill. Every day applications are being sent in by very desirable young men for admission to the Gárda Síochána. I do not suggest that the men who are now applying are in any great measure, if at all, superior to the men in the force. But I do say it is ridiculous to suggest that all the good men, all the decent men and all the brave men in the country have already been drafted into the Gárda Síochána, and that if they got dissatisfied, they could never be replaced.
Nobody said that.
These interruptions are wholly unnecessary.
I find it very hard to see eye to eye on this matter with the Labour representatives in this House. It was pointed out that if the salaries of the Guards were reduced it would cause great dissatisfaction in the country. I do not agree at all with any such statement. I believe that if the salaries of any section were increased, or even allowed to stand at their present level, while every other section of the community must suffer as a result of world conditions, or of conditions in this country, the people in the different localities would be a little uneasy. They would be a little bit anxious if, while they were allowed to suffer to a very great extent, members of the Gárda Síochána, or any other section of the Government service were allowed to carry on as they had carried on when things were better —that they should be called upon to maintain such an expensive service while they were compelled to reduce their own standard of living.
There is no reason whatever for making a comparison with the police force in this country and the police force in other countries and arguing that the police here is not paid on the same basis as other forces. That, to my mind, is absolutely ridiculous. Surely, the police force, or any other force of a country, must be paid in proportion to the capacity of the people who are paying them. If we were to look up the history of other countries, we would probably find that a policeman in the pay of some such State as Butte, Montana, in the gold days would have been receiving a salary per day greater than that of a chief superintendent of the Gárda Síochána per year. It would not be at all unreasonable to find that such a thing happened. I saw in the papers the other day where the gold shoes with which a miner shod his horse were now being thrown into the melting pot. It is not unreasonable to expect that a ridiculous comparison could be dug up in this way whereby a man would be at liberty to suggest that the salaries paid to the Guards should be increased to some extraordinary extent. I oppose the amendment and I support the Bill as it stands. Regardless of what official Cumann na nGaedheal or of what the official Centre Party, the Farmers and Ratepayers' Party, or even the Labour Party may say to the contrary, I am perfectly convinced that this Bill, as it stands, is a popular Bill.
The last speaker is surprised that the Labour Party should oppose these cuts. Of course, the Labour Party oppose them. They oppose them on broad principles and on the specific ground that the miserable amount obtained from the Guards in this way will not make for the objects which the Labour Party have in view. On the contrary, I maintain that this £40, approximately, by which the salary of the unmarried guard is being cut will be a distinct injury to the most deserving class in the community—next to labour, perhaps. I refer to the small farmers, some of them in possession of uneconomic holdings. It is from the small farming class that the force is largely drawn. I know that many homesteads are kept from a state of penury by the contributions of the guards. I know that the guards are at the moment assisting sisters and other relatives unable to get employment but who, at one time, occupied important positions, carrying substantial remuneration. Apart from the general effect of the cuts upon these people, reference has been made to the dissatisfaction which will be caused. Undoubtedly, the cuts will cause immense dissatisfaction. Forty pounds will have been taken off the miserable salary of the lowest paid police in the world if this Bill comes into force.
The Senator is under a misapprehension. The deduction amounts to 2/6 per week.
The Senator is taking into account the total cuts since 1922.
Yes, since 1922. I was surprised to hear Senator Quirke speak of maintaining "a most expensive force." Will anybody agree with the Senator that, during the last ten years, the Gárda Síochána service has been an expensive service? I am surprised that the suggestion should be made. The Gárda Síochána gave good service to the community, irrespective of party. In times of great difficulty, when political feeling ran high, the Gárda Síochána dealt out even-handed justice. In such circumstances I cannot understand how any Senator can describe the service as "expensive." The cut which is now proposed is having its effects in the country. It is having the effect upon those who contemplated entering the service. They know that they will have no security whatever. They have no guarantee as to what their position will be or whether these cuts will take place year after year. Various grades of the public services have been left untouched. There is a very wide field outside the employment of the Government which the Government could explore, and I say they should direct their attention to that field rather than to cuts in the salaries of the Gárda. I was very much impressed by the suggestion of Senator Douglas, that when it was proposed to rearrange salaries —I do not regard this as a mere cut; it is a readjustment of salaries—the proper course was to bring in a separate Bill. After consultation with those authorised to speak on behalf of the Guards, that course could easily be adopted. If there is one body of men in respect of whom the big stick should not be wielded it is this body. I suggest to the Minister that even at the eleventh hour, if he finds it absolutely impossible to exclude the Guards, he should deal with them through the medium of a separate Bill.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided:—Tá: 28; Níl: 9.
Tá
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Crosbie, George.
- Cummins, William.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Duggan, E.J.
- Fanning, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Keane, Sir John.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
- Milroy, Seán.
- Moran, James.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- O'Neill, L.
- Staines, Michael.
- Toal, Thomas.
Níl
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, Michael, K.C.
- MacParland, D.H.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séamus.
- Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Farren and O'Farrell; Níl: Senators S. and D.L. Robinson.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment 5:—
Section 6, sub-section (1). To delete sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a).
In moving this amendment, I feel that I am embarking on a more or less forlorn hope, mainly for the reason that the amount looked for in the way of economies from the teachers equals, I think, about 62 per cent. of the total economies contemplated by the Bill. One of the principal arguments against this proposal to include the teachers in the manner in which they have been included is the inequitable way in which they have been dealt with, as compared with the civil service. A civil servant must have £400 a year in order to be asked to make any sacrifice at all, and then he is only asked to make a sacrifice of 2 per cent. The teacher is cut 5 per cent. right from the lowest figure. The justification for that type of inequality is that civil servants have made contributions, by way of reductions in bonus, that justify their exemption up to the figure of £400. Well, I am not going to argue in favour of including anybody that is not in the Bill. My anxiety is to have similar treatment extended to the teachers. The teachers themselves point out that, in the case of a civil servant with a combined salary and bonus of £370 a year in 1922, and a teacher with the same salary, the contributions made since in the aggregate, over the ten year period, are £105 greater on the part of the teacher than of the civil servant, and they argue that the same principle operates throughout. The teachers had a cut of 10 per cent. in 1923 or beginning of 1924. In addition they have had cuts in their allowances since which brings their total aggregate cut to about 12 per cent. That, spread over the period, means that they have, unit per unit, given up not only as much but more by way of income as the civil servant. Why then should they be treated in the manner in which they have been treated? They get cuts as high as 8 per cent.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I sought to prove, and I think I proved to the satisfaction of the House, that the cut in respect to the teachers involves a definite breach of faith on the part of the Government, as pledged by the President himself to the teachers. The Minister was unable to counter that, but he stated: what was the position before the last election? The teachers knew well themselves that the cut was going to be imposed and they failed to make an issue of it at the election; they certainly had no doubt in their minds as to what was going to happen, and the Government indicated beyond all doubt that they intended to cut the salaries of teachers. Well, I do not think that is the position. The teachers state that the President himself told their members at Westport in January last, just prior to the election, that he would abide by the spirit of his declaration made at Rathmines previous to the 1932 election. To make sure, the teachers in Mayo sent a deputation to two of their representatives in the Dáil—to Mr. Ruttledge, the present Minister for Justice, and to Mr. Cleary, who is a very vocal back bencher of the Government Party. They reported back to the teachers' executive in Mayo to this effect: Mr. Ruttledge stated that there was no cut in contemplation, the whole trouble being the pension fund and that the teachers might be asked to contribute towards this fund. In this connection, he said he could not oppose a contribution from the teachers to the pension fund. Incidentally, I may say that they are contributing to it at present. He said definitely that he was against cuts in teachers' salaries and that if there were to be any cuts in the salaries of public servants generally his Party would begin at the top. His Party looked upon the money spent on primary education as money well spent as the majority of people get no other education. Mr. Cleary stated that there was no intention of cutting teachers' salaries. An assurance from the President himself together with an assurance given by one of his Ministers would normally be quite satisfactory and quite sufficient for any trade union. They would not require every Minister to give an assurance because they would naturally assume that that might create some embarrassment politically. All that they wanted, and they looked upon it as a reliable assurance, was that the spirit of the original pledge given by the President was going to be observed.
I think these instances are sufficient reply to the Minister's statement on the Second Reading to the effect that the teachers were well aware that the cuts were going to operate after this election. These cuts have been justified also on the ground that they are only of a temporary character, but the Minister made a rather alarming statement during the Second Reading of the Bill when dealing with the question of teachers' salaries and the proposals that he made to the teachers in June of last year. He said:
"I met the teachers and I put certain proposals before them which represented at that time the absolute limit of concession, a limit that will never again be reached so long as I have any responsibility for the national finances."
Does that mean that, if the Minister is in office a year hence or three years hence, these cuts will still continue because we were given to understand that this was just a temporary provision and the Bill itself so states? Yet he states that the offer he made to the teachers last June was the best they will get while he is in office. Another point that puzzles one is why he made worse the offer he made in June last. Would he, even at this stage, consider reverting to the flat rate cut of 5 per cent.? Is he determined that because that offer was not accepted by the Fianna Fáil Executive, elected on a slogan of "no cuts," which made it impossible for them to accept the offer, the teachers are going to be mulcted to the extent, in some cases, of 3 per cent. more? I scarcely think he would like to be vindictive to that extent or, alternatively, is it because the national finances now are so much worse than they were a year ago? The increase in the amount of the cut has been a puzzle not only to me but to the teachers themselves and to anybody who has considered the situation, and it would lead one to believe that a certain amount of vindictiveness or resentment at the failure of the teachers to accept what was offered to them has entered into the consideration of the matter.
It is a very pleasant thing to stand up here as the champion of the various classes of the community, firstly, the commissioned officers; secondly, the Gárda Síochána; and, next, the national teachers, and it is a rather invidious thing to speak against the reduction of salaries of these various classes. I should like to say for Senator O'Farrell's information that in the Government there is, so far as I know, no feeling of vindictiveness or ill-will against the national teachers, but there is considerable pressure from those who are farmers in this country and who consider that they represent the interests of the farmer that salaries should bear some sort of relation to the capacity of the people to pay. I do not like to say one word against the national teachers, but when we are reminded that their salaries were so much in 1922, and that there has been a reduction, I would like to recall what their salaries were in 1917 and 1918. There were considerable increases in salaries, I think, about the year 1919 and there have been some reductions since. If this method, admittedly a temporary method, of helping out the finances of the country is the one to be resorted to, namely, reductions in the salaries of public servants, I certainly shall support it, because it is necessary in order to relieve the tax-paying community whose incomes have been very greatly reduced. I would have preferred, I say again, another method of dealing with the question which would not have involved any reduction in the nominal rate of salary.
The conditions of the present time are not normal. There is in progress an economic war, or a dispute, call it what you like, with Great Britain involving penal tariffs on the other side and involving hardship to the great class in this country—the farming class, the agriculturists, and those whose livelihood depends on agriculture, whether they are farmers or country shopkeepers. Are they to be the only people to suffer as a result of this dispute? I would have imagined that all classes in the country would gladly bear their share of the hardship or inconvenience which undoubtedly results from the dispute now going on. The effect of the dispute has been that the value of salaries of all kinds has greatly appreciated. A comparison between some of these gentlemen and the labouring man does not hold. When it is said that the labouring man has 25/-, 30/- or 35/- a week, I ask is that permanent? How many labouring men have been put out of employment in the country in the last six or 12 months as a result——
As a result?
——of the dispute and how very few labouring men have complained. No, they are patriotic. The poor labouring men of this country are patriotic and they have made very little complaint. Are they sure of permanent employment? Is the farmer sure of the sale of his cattle? Senator The McGillycuddy said that we were triyng to reduce police officers and teachers to the status of the labouring man, and he said, airily, that the labouring man gets 5/-, 7/6 or 8/6 a day. He reminded me of a barrister whom I once knew. He said, when he got a two guinea brief: "Well, to-day I am living at the rate of £720 a year." Is Senator The McGillycuddy going to give the agricultural labourer 7/6 a day permanently or will he only give it to him while he is saving hay or digging potatoes? He will not, of course, give it to him for digging potatoes. There are two classes in this community who are suffering and who are not at all inclined to be humorous about these salaries—the farmers whose incomes are reduced and the farm labourer whose employment is likely to be curtailed—and they ought to be considered. I feel that it is a very pleasant thing to join in a chorus of pleasant speeches and to speak for a particular class and to back them up and to be able to say later: "I supported you against that terrible Minister for Finance." It is a very nice thing to say, but the people who ought to be considered in this struggle, above all others——
Are the people who are suffering from it.
——are the farmers and agricultural labourers. They are the people who are suffering most and the people who are complaining least because they are the backbone of this country and the best people in this country.
The Senator, evidently, holds the farmers entirely responsible for the cut in teachers' salaries. I deny that his statement is at all justified by the facts. As a matter of fact, the majority of the teachers come from the small farming class. When the farmers were getting fabulous prices during the peak period, were the teachers jealous, or did they wish for a moment that the price of the farmers' stock would be reduced? Did they suggest that it would help them in any way if the farmers got a lesser price for their produce? We can argue from a similar standpoint in regard to the present relations as between the farmers and the school teachers of the country. Will it benefit the farmers if the teacher, after 35 or 38 years' service, suffers a cut amounting, if we include everything, to 22½ per cent., practically one-fourth of his salary? Will it benefit them to have the spending power decreased in every locality where the teacher and his family live? It is well known that teachers are not hoarders and that they spend their money in the locality in which they live, educate their families, and give their services to the nation, and that the money passes through their hands. We do not see, in the records of deaths and legacies, teachers scheduled as being amongst those who leave enormous sums of money behind them. I know of no teacher of my acquaintance—and I have a very long service—who is in possession of wealth. Their money circulates in the community in which they reside and not a penny of it goes out of the country.
It is not fair, I think, to charge the farmers with this. I know that we have farmers in this House who, unfortunately, cannot be convinced that the teachers have any case whatever. The picture is always present to their minds of the two married teachers, but it is very often force of circumstances that brings about these matters. I do not say that they are all love affairs. There are conditions governing the life of the teacher in rural districts that very often make necessary an amalgamation of the heads of the male and female schools in a particular place, and if those things happen, surely they should not be taken as typical? It is well known that married lady teachers are most efficient and it is well known that they earn their salary very dearly. If she has to leave her home and carry out her work successfully she has to employ at least one servant, and, if the Almighty is kind to her in other ways, she has to employ two or three, so that money is paid out in labour. She is not a hoarder. It is not fair, and I would plead with the farmers here on this matter.
There are very few farmers, I am sure, who have not got associations with teachers. The great trouble is the question of the dual salaries, together with the motor car which used to be looked on as an article of luxury, but which is now an absolute essential in the life of many teachers if they are to do their duty successfully. Teachers very often live long distances from their schools and their effectiveness and utility would be greatly decreased if they did not have this very essential means of transport to carry out their engagements.
The Minister made the alarming statement referred to by Senator O'Farrell. It has caused the very greatest alarm and very great disappointment. The picture which teachers conjured up of the Minister for Finance when he made his promise, when he attacked the late Minister for Finance for daring to interfere with the teachers' pensions, has been transformed. The idol has crashed. The statement referred to was of a most alarming character. Might I remind the Minister for Finance that he could have repeated the offer he made last June? Things must have come to a deplorable pass in the country when the Minister was induced to make that statement. Let us hope that it was merely through pique or for some other unaccountable reason that the Minister allowed that statement to slip. I do hope that he will have an opportunity of setting our minds right on the matter now. The farmers may again get good prices for their cattle and I hope that the teachers will not then be excluded from their share in that prosperity and that, in these circumstances, the threat which the Minister issued on Friday week will not be carried out. When the Vote on the teachers' salaries was taken in the Dáil there were only 93 Deputies present and in such a House there was only a majority of 27 in favour of the cut. I maintain that that is not a strong mandate or that it does not represent a very large percentage of the people.
On the question of equality of treatment, I think that most misleading statements have been made. No other sections with such small salaries have been affected as the teachers have been. The case of the Guards is bad enough but what about the teacher, who after several years' training is paid a salary of only £2 12s. 6d. per week? I maintain that it is almost impossible for a young teacher to carry on on that salary in the City of Dublin or to live in any decent locality on such a miserable pittance. Everybody here knows that after he pays the cost of his board in a decent locality he has very little left. He must dress above the average if he wants to maintain the decency of his position and to set an example of cleanliness and neatness to those under his charge. I maintain that a man such as that is in very grave danger of financial embarrassment. We all know that there are few difficulties which rack the mind so terribly or which have such a distracting effect as financial difficulties. Any man in the City of Dublin who is compelled to live in a decent locality and who is compelled by force of circumstances to contribute generously to every charitable movement out of a small salary, is in very grave danger of becoming involved in financial troubles. I maintain that it is very dangerous and that it is a wrong position in which to place who are entrusted with the care of 80 per cent. of the youth of the country.
Is it equality of treatment when two-thirds of the £280,000 which the Minister requires is taken off the teachers? By far the bigger proportion is taken from teachers with salaries of £300 and under because very few reach a salary of £400. The percentage reaching a salary of £400 is very small. I should say that not more than five or ten per cent., and they are very favourably circumstanced, reach that standard. I say that no matter what effort is made to camouflage the treatment of the teachers, there has not been equality of treatment. The result of these cuts will be fatal to education. No young man of spirit would think of going into this profession under such circumstances. We may get the poorest of the poor into our colleges and train them for the profession, but will anybody contend for a moment that the poorest of the poor can compete in excellence of brain-power and broadness of outlook with the cream of the young men drawn from other walks of life?
In the course of his remarks the Minister said that the teachers were unreasonable men. Unreasonable in what? He alleged that he could not deal with them. Was it unreasonable for the Minister at one period of his career to promise them with all the force of which he is capable that if he got into power there would be no cuts so far as he was concerned? Was it reasonable for him to attack the previous Minister as a betrayer of the teachers' cause? It was, in his opinion, a crime on the part of the late Minister to interfere with the educational machine by attacking the grants to the teachers. After all this unreasonableness on the part of the Minister he states now that the teachers are unreasonable.
I would ask anybody who has followed the course of events, followed the promises made by the President, the Minister himself, and by prominent members of his Party throughout the country, where the unreasonableness came in? The old Executive were thrown out of office largely by reason of the promises of the Minister and his colleagues. Possibly the old Executive were too slow-going for the modern young man, buoyed up by enthusiasm by the promises of Ministers. If the old Executive had remained, some of the arrangements the Minister offered would probably have been accepted. One of them was actually accepted by the old Executive and it is here we have a strong grievance against the present Government. The old Executive accepted a settlement offered by the late Minister and that settlement was condemned by the present Minister. On the strength of that condemnation, the young members of our profession threw the members of that Executive out of office and brought into power a body who for the most part were sympathisers with the present Government. These men could not believe their senses when they got into that position. They could not believe that the Minister of to-day was the same man as last year. They turned down his offer and surely there was some justification for it. They could not believe that such a change could take place in the Minister's attitude. Even his own words would not convince them. The settlement offered in June last year was turned down by that body, a body that was entirely sympathetic with the Minister when he was seeking their votes. I suggest that the Minister should consider reopening negotiations with them before the Bill passes, on the basis of the offer of last June. The small amount of money saved by the teachers' cuts will make nobody richer while you would make the teachers and those dependent on them very much poorer indeed and very miserable in their outlook. It is pitiable. I cannot describe it as other than a tragedy.
Two-thirds of this £280,000—65 per cent.—is to be taken from the teachers. After all, considered in relation to the total expenditure of the nation, it is only a small amount of money. Why should all this disturbance, all these heartburnings, all this damping of enthusiasm of the people engaged in the educational work, be brought about for these few miserable pounds that we maintain could be found in other quarters? It is a tragedy in the history of Education, unparalleled even under the British régime. For 50 years the teachers of this country worked unselfishly at salaries that were a disgrace to any civilised community. They gave their services freely for the restoration of the language and I maintain that the restoration of the language to the position which it occupies to-day, is in a great measure due to their efforts. We had teachers leading in the fight in 1916. We had teachers taking a prominent part in every district in the country. Has it come to this that the ideals which they set up for themselves, the ideals which they set in national education are to be scrapped for a miserable pittance? I would again appeal to the Minister, without any bitterness of Party spirit, to consider the situation on the basis of the offer made in June last to see whether a compromise could not be arrived at even, with some modification that might be agreeable to all concerned.
It seems to me that some statements made by Senator Cummins ought not to be allowed to go unanswered. I should like first of all to say this, that I did write some letters to the newspapers. They were written in December, 1931, and they related to one aspect of the settlement which had then been arrived at between the teachers and the Executive Council, but only to one aspect of that settlement, and that was the proposal to hand over to the Minister for Finance the Teachers' Pension Fund. I never, at any time, condemned my predecessor for looking for, and the teachers for accepting, the cut of 10 per cent. in their pensionable salaries. I never opposed at any time a settlement on these lines. I never pledged myself to the teachers that if I came into office, I would not have consideration for the financial circumstances of the country, and would not have to bring about whatever economies might be necessary in order to put its finances on a sound basis. Personally I did not make that speech. An undertaking was given in February, 1932, as to the manner in which the Government's proposals regarding economy would have regard to salaries and the general economic position of the individuals to be affected. Naturally I was bound by that pledge. In the circumstances in which it was given, and in the light of the defective knowledge which I and other members of the Opposition possessed as to the real financial position of the country, I was asked to accept responsibility as Minister for Finance for the country's finances, and it was clear to me that it would not be possible for us—no matter how heavily taxation was increased within reasonable limits; as any further increase would result in diminished yield—to secure a balanced Budget, unless we asked members of the public services to accept some reduction in their salaries for the year 1932-33, ending on the 31st of March last.
I asked representatives of the teachers to meet me in regard to that matter, having already received from them a statement that at a meeting of their organisation held in April, 1932, they had gone back on the agreement which had been made, not merely between the Government on the one hand and the executive of the teachers' organisation on the other hand, but an agreement made by these two bodies and subsequently ratified— and that is the important point—by a special congress which was called in December, 1931, in Dublin by a majority of the votes cast, almost two to one. After I had received intimation that the teachers did not propose in the new circumstances to honour the agreement I asked them to send a deputation to discuss the matter with me. I pointed out then that in view of the gravity of the situation as disclosed to us when we came into office it would not be possible for me or any other Minister for Finance to carry on without asking the teachers, in common with every other section of the public service, to accept some reduction in their salaries during that year. After discussion an agreement was arrived at which I had reason to believe was acceptable to the teachers' organisation. Certainly I thought it was acceptable to the delegates at the conference because the agreement was very much more favourable to the teachers as a whole than that which had been accepted by the special conference to which I refer in 1931.
May I ask if the Irish national teachers' representatives informed the Minister that they were going to represent or to recommend that settlement to the conference?
I know this, that no special undertaking of that sort was given by them nor sought by me. I know that the conference between myself and the teachers' representatives broke up in the best of good humour. As they went out the door the remark was passed that the settlement they had got from the Minister for Finance justified the action that had been taken in regard to the old executive. What was the position? Here was a body of men, strongly organised and well disciplined, who in 1931 when the financial position was nothing like so serious as it was in June, 1932, had entered into a certain arrangement. They had departed from that. They came forward and an alternative offer was made to them which, it is admitted now—and no one cavils at it—would be a more advantageous settlement than the one they had previously accepted. Would not anyone have thought, in these circumstances, that the new agreement would have been accepted with gratitude? Instead of that it was flung back in my face. I was held to my promise, to the undertaking that there would be no reduction, and there was no reduction during the year that closed on March 31st, 1933.
Is not all this what was promised in 1932-33?
Cathaoirleach
That is hardly relevant.
In the meantime, a general election had taken place, and it was clearly indicated to the teachers that I did not believe any Government could carry on without asking them to make some contribution. The teachers asked the President of the Executive Council to renew the undertaking which was given in February, 1932. The President refused. He stated that he could give no undertaking without consultation and agreement with the Minister for Finance. No attempt was made, because my mind on the subject was perfectly well known, and no attempt was made to show that the teachers' organisation intended to keep the agreement if it was found necessary, in the circumstances, to ask them to accept the reduction. I hope once and for all that I have killed the idea that I ever gave a pledge that the agreement of 1931 accepted by the teachers would not be imposed on them except in the circumstances I have related, that it might be considered a pledge as part of the general undertaking given by the President, or that I ever wrote to the newspapers criticising the teachers' organisation or the Government for imposing a cut of 10 per cent. I did, in the interest of the teachers, as I pointed out, with a view to safeguarding, if I could, the pensions fund for the community as a whole, oppose handing over the pensions fund to the Minister for Finance. That is all. That is the only part of the settlement I criticised. If my letters were produced and read in the Seanad I say that every line would substantiate what I am saying.
It has been stated in regard to this matter that the reductions which we propose to impose on the teachers are inequitable as compared with the reductions we propose to impose on the Civil Service as a whole. The deductions to be imposed on the Civil Service in this Bill are not the first deductions that civil servants will have suffered since the 31st of December last. Every member of the Civil Service, no matter what his pay or salary has been, has, by virtue of the cost-of-living agreement, suffered deductions of pay to the 1st of January last, and not merely January last, but virtually every year since the State was established.
What we propose to do in this Bill is to impose on that portion of the service which is in receipt of more than £300 inclusive a super cut. There is no necessity to bring the lower grades of the Civil Service into the Bill. Their remuneration has been out already, and out continuously since 1922. It is not possible for us to institute a natural comparison between the Civil Service and national teachers, on a salary of any given kind in the year 1922, because in the interim both civil servants and teachers would have received increases which would have altered the salaries. We can take hypothetical cases. Take the case of a civil servant receiving £100 on the 1st of April, 1922, and receiving no increment since. That civil servant does not exist. Take the teacher who had a salary on the 1st April, 1922, and received no increment since. That teacher does not exist either. We can put two hypothetical persons side by side, and see the alteration in salary which each has endured since the 1st April, 1922. The teacher who on April 1st, 1922, had a salary of £100 would now, in virtue of the cut made in 1924, have only £90. The civil servant whom, according to Senator O'Farrell, we are supposed to be treating with partisanship in this Bill, who had a salary of £100 in April, 1922, would only have £78 1s. now. If we take £200 the teacher would have £180 and the civil servant £157 3s.; taking £300 the teacher would have £270 and the civil servant £236; taking £400 the teacher would have £360 and the civil servant £322; taking £450 the teacher would have £405 and the civil servant £366. On civil servants with more than £300 inclusive we are imposing a super cut. In fact the position is this: that the operation of the cost-of-living bonus in relation to the Civil Service this year has cost nearly £800,000 less than it did in 1922. The teachers have not made any contribution commensurate with that, nor has any other section of the service. I do not want to get into the position that I am going to speak for one section of the service more than another. I am merely concerned to refute the statement of Senator O'Farrell, that the treatment the teachers are receiving under this Bill is unfair, compared with that of civil servants. I think I have fairly refuted that statement.
On the question of the offer to which Senator Cummins and Senator O'Farrell have referred, I have detailed the circumstances under which the offer was made. The first investigation we were able to make of the financial position made it clear that something had got to be done if we were to balance the Budget this year. I had certain proposals which I submitted then to the teachers. I had certain proposals also for the other public services. The proposals then made were made by me on the basis of an estimate as to what the probable position would be at the close of the financial year. They were not given effect to. They were not accepted by the teachers and, therefore, could not be imposed, because we could not secure acceptance of the agreement by any other section of the Service, and the whole of the economies were held up because of that fact. A year went by and, at the end I was able to make some examination of what the position would have been if the proposals had been accepted. I found out this, that leaving out of consideration all the expenditure due to the economic war, and all the special and abnormal revenue which accrued to us on account of that war, I should have a deficit at the close of the financial year of £214,000, approximately the £250,000 we are hoping to get from reductions in the salaries of public servants. I think the position has not improved this year. I am not sure that the position is going to improve next year, but, at any rate, I do know now what we must get from all sections of the community, if we are going to be able to pay our way, unless there is a radical change in the circumstances. Therefore, in view of the information with which I am now armed, I could not in conscience repeat the offer I made last June. That offer is dead. The teachers' executive put the proposals to the organisation as a whole and the organisation as a whole rejected them. The opposition to the June settlement was led by the people who accepted the settlement of December, 1931. That offer is dead. It has been killed and buried by the teachers' organisation itself.
A problem still remains to be settled —the problem of the Teachers' Pension Fund. It must be settled one way or another and it must be settled soon because the Pensions Fund is being gradually liquidated. The deficit is growing heavier and heavier and somebody must step in to deal with the situation. Ultimately, if the matter was allowed to drift, the responsibility for providing the teachers' pensions would probably be thrown back on the public Exchequer. Therefore, if the teachers who are also a party to, and also vitally concerned in, this matter are not going to take any steps to assist us, the Government will have to deal with it itself. If the Government has got to make a settlement in respect of the Teachers' Pension Fund, and in making that settlement is not going to have the co-operation of the teachers, then the settlement will have to be based, so far as we can see, in large part upon the proposals contained in Part IV of this Schedule.
Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 7 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.