Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 1934

Vol. 18 No. 15

Local Services (Temporary Economies) (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

(d) a school attendance committee, a vocational education committee, and a committee of agriculture.

Mr. Farren

I move amendment No. 1:—

Section 2, sub-section (1), To delete in lines 33 and 34 the words "a vocational education committee."

The object of this amendment is to ensure that the officers of vocational education committees shall not come under the operations of the Bill. It is pretty well known that the salaries paid are not excessive. As a matter of fact, when the Act setting up vocational education committees was under consideration reference was made to the inadequate salaries being paid technical instructors and people of that kind, and in order to ensure that adequate salaries would be paid a special clause was inserted giving the Minister for Education power to see that local authorities or vocational education committees would be compelled, where the necessity arose, to increase the salaries of these teachers. It is, I think, true to say that about 85 per cent. of the teachers employed by vocational education committees will not come under the operations of the Bill, as it stands, because it is well known that 85 per cent. of the salaries paid do not reach the maximum of £300 per annum. The Vocational Education Act was introduced for a definite purpose. It was stated, and I am certainly in agreement with the statement, that our system of economy was lopsided, that sufficient attention was not paid to the industrial end and that an effort should be made to encourage industrial occupations apart from agriculture. When we take into consideration the fact that this country could not for a long period in any sense be described as an industrial one, it was necessary to take steps to encourage industry. When the vocational education committees were set up, qualified teachers were appointed to educate boys and girls in order to prepare them to take their place in the new economy that was to be brought about.

I do not think it can be said that the teachers employed by these committees are overpaid for their work. In my opinion, it is false economy to start interfering with people engaged in that work or to prevent them giving wholeheartedly of their best in carrying out the duties for which they were appointed. Large numbers of brilliant young men and women secured scholarships in the universities after competitive examinations and having gone through their university course they were appointed teachers under the vocational education scheme. It is to the credit of the vocational committees that they appointed such teachers. At this stage it is unfair, having regard to the miserable amount that would be saved, to include these teachers in this Bill. The matter was argued at great length in the other House, where it was pointed out that the small amount that would be saved by the inclusion of these officers would not be an economy at all. The amount involved in most counties would be on the average £15 yearly. The extraordinary thing is that the county councils and urban councils are by statute compelled to strike a certain rate, the full proceeds of which must go to the vocational education committees. If only £15 is saved in the different counties the local taxpayers will not be relieved. I do not see how the general taxpayers will be relieved, because the State is compelled to contribute a certain amount to the committees. Taking all these things into consideration, in all fairness and decency we should not include the officers of these committees in the scope of this Bill. Many of them were appointed in recent years and the salaries were fixed in proportion to present conditions here. Some of these officials were transferred from the technical education committees, and I think it was laid down in the Vocational Education Act that their terms and conditions of employment should not be interfered with.

I am afraid the present proposals are going to bring about a muddle and that it is quite possible we will have the position that was created in the case of certain civil servants. As these civil servants were transferred officers, some of them went to the courts and succeeded in establishing their claim that as existing officers their terms and conditions of employment should not be interfered with. The higher paid officials who will be affected by this Bill, if they are included in it, will be in an identical position. As this amendment was debated at some length in the Dáil, I think, on balance, a good case has been made out by the officers of vocational education committees that they should not be included in this Bill.

Miss Browne

I greatly regret to have to throw cold water on anything that should be a good thing, especially with regard to vocational education. As I happen to be a member of a village vocational committee, I do not think I would be doing my duty if I did not inform the House of my experience with regard to a rural school which employs a male and a female teacher. Of course, I do not doubt if people were prepared to accept the instruction given to their children that the school might be made a success. Our experience so far is that we cannot get people to come to this vocational school. During the first year we had a few boys who came very reluctantly and intermittently. It is now in existence two and a half years. It has been availed of by about half a dozen girls, who come dressed up like young ladies to amuse themselves for an hour or so. They play hurling, learn a little bit of cookery and a few words of Irish. The committee went into the figures recently and they calculated that the entire cost of the school worked out at about £80 per annum per pupil. I do not say that all vocational schools are as great a failure as that, but I honestly believe that the old system introduced by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction worked much better than these vocational schools. I do know another rural school which has been very successful and has done a considerable amount of work but, on the whole, I cannot agree that these vocational schools are worth the money expended on them. In the school to which I have referred, we have no boy pupils although we have a man engaged to teach boys. I regret that, owing to my experience. I cannot support the amendment.

Mr. Cummins

I am rather surprised at the gloomy picture of the vocational schools painted by Senator Miss Browne. My experience, extending over a number of years, has been the opposite. In some cases, there was a reason for the paucity of attendance in the schools. It was in great measure due to the failure to procure openings for the pupils who had passed through the schools. That grievance obtained under past Governments and up to recent times. With the growth of industrial life, which we all hope to see, openings will be made available for the pupils of these schools. In the city of Dublin and other large centres, it is well known that employers go to those schools for their apprentices. The committees set up, acting in conjunction with the employers, are the medium through which many boys and girls attending those schools are placed in employment. They are, therefore, doing remarkably good work.

Senator Miss Browne should remember that the recent extension of vocational education embraces continuation classes. One of the complaints made, from time to time, was that the course in the vocational classes under the technical instruction committees was of such a character that only a small proportion of the pupils leaving school were qualified to avail of it. That came about by reason of the fact that pupils left school at a very early age. Many of them left before they graduated in the sixth standard. All that is being remedied at present. Very few pupils now leave school before they pass through the sixth standard. They are, consequently, qualified to take advantage of the classes provided by the vocational education committees. I am aware that in one county there was a growing and persistent demand for these schools, not alone for the purpose of technical instruction, but for the purpose of the education provided by the continuation classes held during the day. It was the usual fate of the boy or girl who left school at 14 years to hang around the streets or to get into blind-alley employment, with the result that, when they came to 18 years of age, they frequently went on the dole. If for no other purpose than keeping these pupils occupied in educational work during that important period of their lives— 14 years to 18 years—the existence of the vocational schools would be justified. The demoralisation that sets in in the youth of the country of both sexes during that period is largely attributed to want of educational direction. This, I think, is the only country in the world where such neglect has been allowed to exist. In Germany, they follow up the pupils until they are 21 years of age and see that they are placed. Employers can be induced to recruit their youthful employees through these schools and, with that inducement, the schools are bound to be a prolific source of educational and national utility. Drop them now at this early stage and you do the gravest harm to 90 per cent. of the children of the poor, who have no other facilities for this class of education. The rich man's child may have the secondary school or, later, the university available to him, but these schools constitute the university of the poor man's child. I am speaking now with regard to the statements made by Senator Miss Browne, that these schools are not worth the money expended on them. I think that the sum of £80 per pupil mentioned by her is ridiculous.

The teachers in these schools are men and women of high educational qualifications. I know a married man, an M.A., with a wife and family, who is a full-time teacher under the Education Act and who receives a salary of £170 or £175 per year. I think that that is disgraceful. I do not say that that man will come under the present Bill, but a salary of that kind is very poor encouragement at the present time when the Government are embarking on a very wide scheme of university education for the poor. I think that it is a very bad thing for the Government to come along with these cuts, since the people concerned cannot afford them. The lives of these teachers are very arduous. An itinerant vocational education teacher must not alone be an expert teacher, but must be an expert cyclist. He has to cycle ten or twelve miles at night in all kinds of weather. The same remark applies to lady teachers. They receive meagre travelling expenses, which are not sufficient to provide proper travelling facilities. To apply the "cuts" to those who draw their salaries from the vocational committees is a very retrograde act and will react very unfavourably on the prospects of education being held out to the classes from which these teachnical schools draw their support. I appeal very strongly to the Minister to exclude these officers from this "cut," if he wishes to make vocational education a success.

Mr. Counihan

I oppose this amendment, but not for the reason given by Senator Miss Browne. I believe that these vocational and technical teachers are doing good work but, under the present policy of the Government, we have not the money to pay them. While that policy lasts, everybody should be made bear part of the burden. Senator Cummins said that a salary of £170 a year for a technical instructor was disgraceful. A great many farmers have not half that amount to live on and we have no complaint from Senator Cummins or no argument that they should be relieved of their rates or annuities or that they should get the dole in the many cases where they would require it. I appeal to the Minister to reject the amendment.

Mr. O'Kelly (Minister for Local Government and Public Health)

I cannot accept the amendment of Senator Farren, because this Bill is intended to apply to all officials of local authorities. It would be invidious to select one class, such as the teachers of vocational education committees, for omission. It is true that a great number of teachers in the vocational education schools were very poorly paid as compared with national teachers and other teachers, but two or three years ago—I am not sure of the exact date—a Vocational Education Act was passed by the Oireachtas and power was given to the Minister, in that Act, to prescribe scales of salary for these teachers. That has not been done by the Minister, but, in the last year or two, he corresponded with all the committees and pointed out that, in many cases, the scales of salary paid their employees, particularly teachers, were not adequate. In practically all the cases the committees agreed to raise the salaries of the teachers, and I understand that they are now being paid on such a scale as would have been prescribed if the Minister had acted under the powers given him in the Act. That has been done voluntarily by the vocational education committees concerned. A very big percentage of the teachers—Senator Farren said 85 per cent., but I think that would be somewhat high—will not be subjected to the "cut," because they have not got a salary of £300 a year. The number of teachers who will not be affected will be very considerable, but there is a saving to be made and that saving will go partly to the local authority and partly to the State. The State recoups the local authority certain payments, and if these payments are reduced the amount of the recoupment will be reduced, so that both the local authorities and the State will benefit by the economies.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Section 2 put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger

I move amendment No. 3:

New section. Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

3.—Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing section the provisions of this Act shall not apply to medical officers.

This is a reasonable proposal and one, I think, that every member of this House should support. It is common knowledge that medical officers are doing continuous duty, day and night, Sundays and holidays. They have no free time to call their own. It is impossible for anyone to realise what this means except they have had the experience of it. It interferes with the ordinary amenities of life and not only does it affect the medical officer himself, but it affects his wife and household as well; it interferes with his whole social life. He cannot attend any function without being liable to be called away; he is always conscious of this liability and it restricts his freedom in many ways. That does not apply to any other class of public servants, so that these medical officers are in a class by themselves. They are paid a definite salary without war bonus or cost-of-living bonus, and their private practice has dwindled to practically nothing. Then they have their travelling expenses to bear. In all cases the salaries of medical officers here are much below those paid in England, Scotland and the North of Ireland, while in many cases, perhaps 50 per cent. of the cases, the cost of living is higher in the Free State than in England. I could give many other reasons of the poverty and hardship that many medical officers are suffering from at the present time. I appeal to the House in this matter not for their sympathy or generosity, but simply for justice and fair play.

Mr. Brown

I would like to support this amendment. I understand that something like 75 or 80 per cent. of the medical officers in the Free State have not got salaries which would bring them within the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act. It is only something like 20 or 25 per cent. who will be affected. The whole effect of this Act will be, because very few medical officers are above the limit, to bring in 20 or 25 per cent. who are now paid salaries that would bring them within the provisions of the Act. The result will be that you will bring this small percentage down to the level of the other 75 per cent., and then you will have a dead level of low salaries amongst those medical officers. For these reasons, and the other reasons given by Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger, I support this amendment.

Dr. O'Sullivan

I should like to say, first of all, that there is no man in this House, or in this country, who knows the conditions of the medical officers to-day better than Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger. First of all he was a medical officer himself, then he was an inspector, and, finally, he occupied the highest administrative post in the country as a medical commissioner of the old Local Government Board. Medical officers are in two categories. First, you have the whole-time medical officer and, secondly, you have the part-time medical officer. Whole-time medical officers comprise county medical officers of health, superintendents of mental hospitals and a few county hospitals. No one could suggest that any medical officer of health is getting too high a salary. They are very poorly paid considering their work. Their work is very arduous and very dangerous inasmuch as they have to deal with infectious diseases. The health of the whole county depends upon the county medical officer, yet he is to be cut because his salary reached £600 or £700 a year. Part-time officers consist principally of dispensary doctors and officers of the smaller hospitals and so on. The salaries for these men were fixed 25 years ago, on a graded scale, and it takes 20 years in most cases to reach the maximum. These salaries were fixed very low and did not reach an adequate figure at all. Then, dispensary doctors have their locomotion expenses; they have to maintain a motor car, and to be at the services of the poor night and day. When the times were good in the last 25 years I heard no Government, neither the British Government nor our own previous Government nor the present Government suggesting that medical officers should get increases in salary; but now when the times are bad it is suggested that they must get cuts in their salaries. If there is one man that should be exempted from cuts it is the medical officer. When times are depressed the part-time medical officer finds the income from his private practice, upon which he partly depended, almost cut out entirely. I say without fear of contradiction that medical men throughout the country are not receiving one-fourth of the income, from private practice, that they did some years ago, and the amount that they receive, such as it is, is growing less and less every day. I say the cut proposed here is too big for medical officers to bear.

The Minister told the Dáil the other day that a Fianna Fáil T.D. told him that between 75 and 80 per cent. of the medical officers throughout the country will not be affected at all by this Bill. That is the best argument that could be advanced as to why this amendment should be carried. What this Bill is going to save the State or the local authorities is a mere bagatelle; it is not worth talking about. It is suggested, or it might be suggested, that the cost of living is lower now than when these graded salaries were instituted. That is not so. Everything is higher. Taxes on motors are higher; the cost of petrol is higher, and the rates paid to servants are three times as high as they were in those days. Everything is higher—the cost of running the show, so to speak, is higher, and no medical man makes one shilling profit out of his attendance on the poor. I think medical officers should be entirely exempt from these cuts.

Mr. Bagwell

To select for exclusion from the operations of this Bill, one class of men in the way this amendment does, requires justification. I think there is justification for it, in this instance. The amendment being a comprehensive one, one can speak on it in general terms. I believe there is no class of men in the country who get so little remuneration for the work they have to do, and which they only begin to do after long expensive training, as doctors affected by this legislation. It is well known to everybody who takes an interest in life in this country that probably the hardest and most disagreeable job is that of the dispensary doctor. It is a terrible life. They get little remuneration; it is a continuous job night and day, and one in such a position can never depend on calling any part of the 24 hours his own. A disheartened, discontented medical service is very bad for the community. I think the House would be justified in passing this amendment and exempting these doctors altogether.

Mr. Staines

I think I am justified in saying that everybody in this country is justly proud of the record of the medical profession, the way they attend the poor and the way they attend the middle class for very little payment. It is marvellous the way they attend on red tickets. The way they treat other cases as if they were red ticket cases should entitle them to the sympathy of every right-minded man of this country. We have in Dublin some of the best doctors in the world. At the same time we have some of the poorest paid doctors of the world in this country. If we cut the pay of these poorly paid doctors, how do we expect them to stay in the country? Do we want to export them to England or to other countries? Their education has cost a lot of money here. I think when they have qualified the least they might expect from us is that we might pay them a living wage. They are not being paid a living wage. We are told that their salaries are so poor that these cuts will not touch them, and that it is only the older men who have devoted years of their lives in the service who will be affected. See what the lot of these men would have been had they gone to England in their earlier days! First of all they would have got much bigger initial salaries than here; and they would get larger increases. But we want to cut them and we are doing that at the very time when England is restoring the cuts in spite of the depression we hear so much about. I strongly support this amendment and sincerely hope the House will pass it.

Mr. Counihan

I support this amendment. I would like to explain why I support this amendment after opposing an amendment in favour of vocational teachers. The dispensary doctor is a part-time medical officer. It was calculated that the salary he was getting was only part of the remuneration he would get as a doctor. I am going through the country constantly, and I am positively certain that the salary the medical officer is getting as a dispensary doctor is entirely inadequate for the work he is doing. That is a fact so far as the dispensary doctor is concerned and for that reason I support this amendment. I am not out for cutting the salaries of any particular class of the community, but the present time necessitates the cutting of salaries in almost every case. But we should make an exception in the case of medical doctors, particularly dispensary doctors, until we can restore all the cuts.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am sorry to say I cannot agree to accept the amendment. Speaking as Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I am very anxious that we should have a contented medical service. But I do not believe the cuts proposed here will, to any extent, make the medical officers of the local authorities in any way discontented. First of all, as has been pointed out by several Senators, it is only a relatively small percentage that will come under the cuts. There has been made already special provision putting medical men in a privileged position vis-a-vis others that come under local authorities. We went, as far as we could, to improve the several privileges that apply especially to dispensary doctors and medical men in the service of local authorities. While only part-time officers, they are treated as whole-time when it comes to pensions. There is no other part-time official of local authorities that gets a pensions. Medical officers in that respect have special privileges under the local authorities. It is not quite correct for Senator Dr. O'Sullivan to say that these scales of salary were fixed 25 or 26 years ago. The scales of salaries were revised eight or nine years ago —in 1925 or 1926.

I am not saying that, even after that revision, the salaries are too high, but I do not think it a good principle to select for special treatment any one class, no matter how deserving they may be or what good service they may have rendered, and unquestionably the medical officers of local authorities, whether they be the county medical officers instituted in recent years, other officers of the medical service, or the dispensary medical officers, have all rendered good service to this State. I do not think that anybody has any doubt in his mind about that, particularly anybody who occupies a position under a local authority or who is connected with the Government. I think everybody must admit that while there are unquestionably black sheep in the medical service as there are in every other service, taking them all round the medical officers have rendered excellent service to this State and to the local authorities. Nevertheless, even making all due allowance for the excellent service they have rendered and even taking into account the fact that their incomes from other sources, as has been stated, may have decreased, I believe that under present circumstances, as Senator Counihan has said, it is only fair that when the majority of citizens have to suffer something in their incomes, the doctors should also be prepared to bear their portion. I do not see any special reason to exempt them, nor have I heard any argument of such a nature as would induce me to change my mind and exempt medical officers from the operations of the Bill.

Dr. O'Sullivan

I just desire to refer to one statement of the Minister. Twenty-five years ago the salaries of most of the dispensary doctors in Ireland were fixed on a graded scale. There were some few cases of boards of guardians who refused to fall into line, until the time the Minister mentioned, but they were a very small proportion of the total number. I have a very vivid recollection of being a member of a deputation which met Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger when he was chief medical commissioner and Sir Henry Robinson 25 years ago. It was then the graded scale of salaries was instituted. Most of the boards of guardians in Ireland adopted these graded scales. There were a few who refused to do so and these few had to be brought into line in the last ten or a dozen years.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 12.

Tá

• Bagwell, John.
• Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Cummins, William.
• Douglas, James G.
• Duffy, Michael.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
• Griffith, Sir John Purser.
• Guinness, Henry S.
• Keane, Sir John.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• Moran, James.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
• Staines, Michael.
• Wilson, Richard.

Níl

• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Comyn, Michael, K.C.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• O'Neill, L.
• O'Rourke, Brian.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• MacEllin, Seán E.
• MacKean, James.
• Moore, Colonel.
• Robinson, David L.
• Robinson, Séumas.
• Toal, Thomas.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Sir E. Coey Bigger and Dr. O'Sullivan; Níl: Senators David L. Robinson and Séumas Robinson.

Amendment declared carried.

Mr. Farren

I move amendment No. 4:—

New section. Before Section 3 to insert a new section as follows:—

3.—(1) This Act shall only apply to such local authorities as shall determine to adopt the same in the manner in this section hereinafter provided.

(2) Within one month after the passing of this Act the Chief Executive Officer of every local authority shall summon a meeting of the members of the local authority of which not less than seven days' notice shall be given in the manner in which notices of meetings of the local authority are usually given, at which meeting the local authority shall decide by a majority of the members present at such meeting whether the Act shall be adopted or not. In the case of an equality of votes the Act shall be deemed not to have been adopted.

(3) A certificate in writing of the Chief Executive Officer of the local authority, countersigned by the chairman of the meeting, shall be conclusive evidence of the adoption of the Act.

(4) The decision as to whether the Act shall be adopted or not shall be a reserved function of the councils of the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork and the borough of Dun Laoghaire.

The object of this amendment is to allow local authorities themselves to decide whether or not this Act should be enforced with regard to their employees. On the Second Reading of the Bill, statements were made to the effect that local authorities were almost howling for such a measure or for reductions in salaries of the employees of local authorities. I think the Minister said that he had received demands from local authorities for much larger reductions in the salaries of employees of local authorities than were proposed in the Bill. There may be a legitimate difference of opinion as to whether local authorities are in favour of reductions in the salaries of their employees or not and it is in order to give local authorities an opportunity of giving expression to their opinions that this amendment has been put down. The amendment proposes that before reductions can take place in the salaries of employees of local authorities, each local authority shall have an opportunity of considering the matter and that, if a local authority decides that it is not in favour of a reduction in the salaries of its employees, the Bill shall not operate as far as the employees of that particular authority are concerned. This raises a very important issue as to whether the people who pay the piper are entitled to call the tune. The members of local bodies in this country have been elected in their respective areas by the ratepayers to manage the affairs of these areas. This amendment proposes to give the elected representatives of the people an opportunity of deciding whether or not the proposals contained in this Bill with regard to reductions in the salaries of the employees of local authorities, shall operate.

The conditions of employment and the rates of pay with regard to the higher officials employed by local authorities have been under consideration for a very long period. In the early days of the Sinn Féin movement one of the proposals in the programme of that Party was that the higher officials employed by the local authorities should be recruited by competitive examination on a Civil Service basis: in other words, that there should be a local Civil Service system. That proposal was never given effect to. Personally I regret it, because I think that the higher officials employed by the various local bodies throughout the country are, from the point of view of the welfare of the country, engaged on very important work. I think that the local bodies are entitled to the services of the best men and women that are available, and that they are entitled to say whether their officials are at present being paid such salaries as would justify a reduction. Because of the failure to set up this Civil Service for the recruitment of local officials there is another good reason why this amendment should be adopted, and it is this: That you may have officials in one county being paid a much lower salary than officials engaged on the same work in another county. That sometimes occurs. It also happens that the officials who are being paid the lower salaries are more competent than those in a neighbouring county getting higher salaries. Is it fair that people, already on low scales of salary in proportion to their responsibilities and the offices they hold, should be made subject to the same "cuts" as officials in neighbouring counties engaged on similar work and paid higher salaries?

The amendment also provides that, in the County Boroughs of Dublin and Cork and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, this shall be a reserved matter to be dealt with by the elected councils and not be left to the decision of the borough managers. In view of the statements made on the Second Reading of the Bill with regard to the terrible necessity that exists for the cutting down of the salaries paid to local officials, I think there is an additional reason why this amendment should be passed. The local bodies, I think, ought to be allowed to express their opinions on this matter: on the statement that they are all in favour of the proposed reductions. They, at least, ought to be given an opportunity of deciding it for themselves. There is a fundamental principle involved in this amendment: that those who have been elected on the local bodies by the votes of the ratepayers ought to be the masters to decide whether reductions shall take place or not. What is the good of having elections to local bodies if those elected by the ratepayers are not to be allowed to decide an important issue like this? From every point of view, I think the Seanad ought to accept the amendment.

Mr. Comyn

I think it would not be wise for the House to accept this amendment, and for the following reasons:—The House has already, in passing the Second Reading of this Bill, agreed to the principle that there should be a scaling down of salaries to meet the present emergency. The cause for that scaling down is general. It applies to the whole country. I do not think there is a rural district in the Twenty-Six Counties to which the case for this scaling down of salaries does not apply. That is the first reason why the House should not accept this amendment. The second reason is a practical one. Suppose that you leave it open to the various councils to elect whether they shall apply this Act or not, the first result will be that you will have canvassing all over the country to a degree which was never known before. Every official in the country who happens to hold a political view will have two incentives to go out canvassing. The first incentive will be opposition to the present Administration, and the second will be to save his salary. Mind you, it is not one person looking for votes for office, such as we have heard here this evening, that will be out, but every other person in the country, canvassing, and you will have general confusion. Is there any sound reason why you should face a situation of that kind? I submit that there is not. That brings me into conflict, friendly conflict no doubt, with my friend, Senator Farren, in regard to one of the statements which he has made. He has said that the local authorities in the matter of salaries should be the masters in their own house. So far as I know they never have been the masters in their own house, and if some of the local authorities of whom I have had experience had been masters in their own house, then certainly you would have had very queer vagaries in regard to salaries. We all know that these salaries are subject to the sanction of the Minister who, for the time being, represents the Parliament of this country. Therefore, the Parliament—the Dáil and the Seanad—are the masters in this House as well as in regard to every other matter concerning the salaries of public servants.

Mr. Farren

In theory, but not in practice.

Mr. Comyn

My friend seems to have considerable knowledge of these local bodies. It is extensive, but mine has been varied. It embraces the whole country. I know the working of these district councils, county councils, and councils in urban areas. I know what would happen in case a general campaign of canvassing were started. On the grounds that I have stated I would ask the Seanad, seeing that they have already agreed to the principle of this Bill on Second Reading, to refuse to accept the amendment.

Mr. Duffy

I cannot agree with Senator Comyn, who says that the necessity for this Bill is general. In the county I come from I have been a member of all the public bodies there for a number of years. I have experience of the salaries paid and I can say that they are not excessive. That county is in the happy position of having the lowest rates, I think, in any county in Ireland. I am of opinion that if the officials there are subjected to the "cuts" which this Bill would involve them in they will be unfairly treated, notwithstanding what Senator Comyn has said. We are in the position in that county of having practically a new set of officials. They are all employed at salaries which are much lower than the salaries paid in other counties. Therefore, the position will be that they will suffer the same ratio of reduction as officials in other counties, some of whom may have twice their salaries and whose work is not nearly so onerous, and where perhaps the ratepayers are not in as good a position to pay. I think, if this amendment is not accepted, that some provision ought to be introduced in the Bill whereby salaries fixed within a reasonable period of time, which are below a certain amount, should escape the operation of this Bill.

Mr. Counihan

The object of this amendment is not to deal with the question of salaries, but rather that it should be left to the option of local authorities as to whether or not they will enforce the provisions of this Bill. Personally, I would prefer to vote for the rejection of the Bill than to accept the amendment because, as Senator Comyn has pointed out, the acceptance of the amendment would lead to any amount of canvassing and corruption. It would result in this, that it is not the deserving officials who would escape the cuts but those who would be the best canvassers: those who would have friends influential enough to exert themselves in canvassing the members of local bodies. This amendment would cut across the whole principle of the Bill, and if it were accepted by the House I would move that the Bill be rejected altogether. I think that would be a preferable course to adopt.

Sir John Keane

I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the amendment. There is no such thing as a uniform scale of salaries for the officials employed by local authorities. To a great extent they have been fixed arbitrarily by the local bodies. The salaries of some officials have their roots in the past. Some of them are a survival of the old Grand Jury days when salaries were fixed on a rather liberal scale. Some local bodies, in fixing the salaries of their officials, did so in a rather parsimonious spirit. So far as these local officials are concerned the Minister will, I think, admit that there is no uniformity such as you find in the case of big corporations like banks and similar institutions. Would I be wrong in saying this: that the real object of this Bill is not economy. It has been introduced partly to be consistent and to fall into line with the general cuts made in the case of other public servants. I feel disposed to say that politically the Bill is a popular one in the country. It is popular, from the Fianna Fáil point of view, with the large masses of small farmers who want to see salaries cut and slashed. We must be honest with ourselves and admit that that is a very important factor. All legislation has its political reactions. The Government in this Bill has given evidence of its intentions, and if there is strong opposition to it it can say "the Seanad has blocked us". That, of course, will fit in admirably with its general policy. The savings anticipated under the measure are negligible.

Mr. Staines

I desire to support the amendment, as I do not see any reason why the option which local authorities possess should not remain with them. I say that in view of the fact that there is no standard scale of salaries for the officials of local bodies. Senator Farren pointed out that the policy of the old Sinn Fein Party was to standardise local government and to join up local services with the national services, so that there would be standard rates of payment. It is ridiculous for Senator Comyn to talk about scaling down salaries when there are no standard rates.

Mr. Comyn

They cannot be uniform when counties are so different in size.

Mr. Staines

I do not want to mention names, but everybody has read in the newspapers of certain secretaries of county councils having salaries of nearly £2,000. We know that secretaries of county councils have been appointed at salaries of about £700 yearly. I do not want to exaggerate the position, but I think I am correct in saying that the salaries in the case of new appointments to these positions would be about two-fifths of the old salaries. To cut the salaries of people who were appointed a few years ago is not just. Everybody knew about the depression, economic and otherwise, when these officials were appointed, so that it is unfair to cut their remuneration now. I hope the House will pass the amendment.

Mr. Guinness

As I read the amendment, if it is passed, it would be as well to scrap the Bill straight away, because this proposal cuts across every clause, and gives the local authorities the power that the Government seeks to retain in its own hands. It does not follow, of course, that I am in favour of this Bill as a whole. The Government has brought it forward and apparently a good deal of time was taken in preparing it. While they considered the Bill necessary, this very cleverly drawn amendment, if it were adopted, would mean scrapping the Bill. Possibly the Minister will correct me if that is not so.

Mr. Douglas

When I read the amendment I was rather favourably disposed towards it. On further consideration I have come to the conclusion that it would be a mistake to pass it. In the first place the responsibility for the whole policy which underlies this Bill is with the Government and not with the local bodies. There is a great deal to be said for the case made by Senator Duffy if he will only tell us how the amendment is going to meet it. The Senator made the case, and I believe it is correct, that this Bill will not operate fairly; that the scale of payments is different, but he did not give us any evidence as to how adoption of the amendment would do anything to right that state of affairs. I am inclined to think that county councils that pay the lowest scales would be the first to vote in favour of cutting salaries. There is no evidence that this proposal will work out equitably. The Bill is a good attempt to have justice done to local officials. It is not an attempt to right any injustice that exists but simply provides for a cut in salaries consistent, as the Minister suggested, with the cut that has taken place in the case of other officials. The responsibility lies with the Government and with the Oireachtas. As there is the possibility that some county councils would not adopt this proposal, probably there would then be a greater grievance.

Mr. Bagwell

I desire to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Counihan. I did not like this Bill. On the contrary I considered that it should be rejected. The House did not reject it, but gave it a Second Reading, and if I were to vote for the amendment I should do so on the principle that the Bill is one I dislike. If the amendment were passed it would create an extraordinary state of affairs and make the position worse. I do not think it is the proper course, having given the Bill a Second Reading, to pass an amendment of this kind.

Mr. O'Kelly

I think what Senator Guinness said was quite correct, that if this amendment were adopted it would cut right across the principle of the Bill. I think I would rather scrap the Bill if the amendment were adopted, because it would destroy all uniformity. I do not suggest that there is uniformity in the salaries now paid by local authorities, but it would destroy all uniformity in the cuts made in salaries. There is a uniform system of cuts and different salaries are cut accordingly. If a man has £700 or £800 a year, say, in County Meath, his salary would be cut in proportion. If a man had a salary with cost-of-living bonus, the cut would be lighter than in the case of a man who has had a cut in the cost-of-living bonus. People with cost-of-living bonus have suffered cuts in the last few years that other officials have not suffered. A great many anomalies would be created if the amendment were adopted. Perhaps some county councils, where the officials are well paid, would not adopt the Act while you would have other local authorities, where the officials may be badly paid, adopting it and making cuts in salaries. Whatever anomalies exist at present would then be intensified. Perhaps you would have a county council adopting the Act and a board of health in the same county not doing so, so that anomalies which undoubtedly exist would be intensified and there would be further grounds for real discontent. It would be very unwise of the House to adopt the amendment. If cuts in salaries are to be the order of the day, and as this House has agreed in principle to these cuts, then it is better to have them uniform, so that if there has to be a sacrifice all officials should be asked to bear them in proportion.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 22.

Tá

• Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Cummins, William.
• Duffy, Michael.
• Duggan, E.J.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
• Keane, Sir John.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
• Staines, Michael.

Níl

• Bagwell, John.
• Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Comyn, Michael, K.C.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Douglas, James G.
• Griffith, Sir John Purser.
• Guinness, Henry S.
• Linehan, Thomas.
• MacEllin, Séan E.
• MacKean, James.
• Moore, Colonel.
• Moran, James.
• O'Neill, L.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Robinson, David L.
• Robinson, Séumas.
• Toal, Thomas.
• Wilson, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Farren and Duffy; Níl: Senators Séumas Robinson and D. Robinson.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Farren

I move amendment No. 5:—

Section 3, sub-section (1). To insert before paragraph (g) a new paragraph as follows:—

(g) payments by way of fees, salary or other remuneration paid to an officer of a local authority appointed in pursuance of Section 10 or of Section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1875, for the due discharge of the duties therein mentioned.

I do not seem to be fortunate in getting support for my amendments but I think I can appeal to the good sense of the House in respect of this amendment. This amendment deals with very few persons, who are in a very special category It deals with only four persons who have been appointed by local authorities as public analysts. The remuneration paid by the local authorities is very small. It is as low as £15 per annum and the highest figure is £100. The average, I suppose, would be between £40 and £70. The position of these people is rather peculiar. They are appointed by the local authority as public analysts and some of them occupy the same position for a number of local authorities. Because of their occupation, they have to maintain a laboratory and to employ a number of assistants. They are obliged to spend a large amount on chemicals and all the paraphernalia required for the laboratory. The bulk of the salary received by them is not paid directly by the local authorities. They are public analysts and they receive fees from private persons for examining samples submitted for public analysis. The amount of money involved, so far as the local authorities are concerned, is very small. It is provided in the Bill that the amount of money received for analyses such as I have described is to be regarded as part of their remuneration. I think that that is grossly unfair and should be looked into. If the Minister is not prepared to deal with the matter today, I am prepared to leave over the amendment until the Report Stage so that he may have an opportunity of examining it. It is a matter that requires consideration and examination because these people are not in the same category as direct employees of a public authority.

Mr. Guinness

Are we to understand that this amendment is applicable only to four individuals?

Mr. Farren

Yes

Mr. Guinness

And that they are all experts?

Mr. Farren

Yes.

Sir Edward Coey Bigger

I do not think that the private fees that an analyst gets should be included in his salary. I am doubtful that they are intended to be included. According to the Food and Drugs Act, the public are entitled to have samples analysed at a fee of half a guinea. That fee was fixed a very long time ago and it is a very small fee, because analytical work involves the expenditure of a good deal of time and requires a great deal of expert knowledge. I do not think that that should be included in the analyst's salary. I think that the analyst gets a salary from the county council over and above that, and no cognisance should be taken of these fees, because one analyst may do a great deal of this class of work and another analyst may do very little of it. I do not care to give a positive opinion, but I think that private fees should not enter into the calculation in this case any more than in the case of the dispensary doctor.

Mr. Brown

I do not think that they would come in on the true construction of the definition of "salary." But if there is any doubt about it, as there are only four persons affected, it would be better to strike them out. According to sub-section (1) of Section 3, the word "salary" means "salary in respect of employment by a local authority."

Mr. Farren

Paragraph (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 refers to

payments by way of fees or other remuneration paid to an officer of a local authority, the amounts of which such officer is required either by statute or by contract to hand over to the local authority by which such officer is employed.

Mr. Brown

That shows that the fees referred to are fees earned officially and not fees earned by private work.

Mr. Farren

I do not suggest that it is private work outside the work carried on for the local authority. A person who gets an analysis carried out through the local authority pays the fees into the local authority.

Mr. O'Kelly

I shall look into the matter further. Not many analysts would come under the section. It is not correct to say that fees for private analytical work would be "cut." The fees concerned would be fees paid by the local authority, whether paid as salary or for work specifically done.

Mr. Farren

The point is, that if a person goes to a local authority to get an analysis, which is done by the analyst to the local authority, the fees are paid to the local authority. The bulk of the analyst's income is derived in that way.

Mr. O'Kelly

I do not know that that is quite correct. There is a special position with regard to the analyst to the Dublin Municipal Council. He is paid a salary by the Municipal Council. He is also analyst to a number of local authorities. The fees that would ordinarily be paid to him as analyst for other local authorities are not received by him but go into the Corporation exchequer. These fees would not be subject to any "cut." Money passing from one local authority to another by way of fees would not be subject to the "cut."

Mr. Guinness

I had several analyses of water made by the late Sir Charles Cameron and the fees were always paid into the Corporation, who gave a receipt for them.

Further consideration of amendment adjourned to Report Stage.

Mr. Douglas

I move Amendment No. 6:

Section 3, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—

(h) payments by way of fees or other remuneration payable to registrars of stocks or securities issued by local authorities.

I am not sure whether the Government really intend to include payments made to registrars of stocks issued by local authorities. Probably they do not, because the registrars of State stocks were not affected by the other Economies Bill dealing with State employees. My principal object in putting down the amendment is to bring the matter into uniformity. The scales of fee paid to registrars of stocks—only very few are affected— were fixed a very long time ago and were based on salaries paid in 1890. Although there have been enormous increases in salaries since 1890, the fees have remained the same. On general grounds, I think there is a case for exemption, but my main reason for moving is to secure uniformity of treatment.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am willing to accept the amendment, but I should like to look into the wording of it.

Further consideration of amendment adjourned to Report Stage.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Farren

The question raised by amendment No. 9, which deals with officers appointed by vocational education committees, has already been debated and I do not propose to move the amendment.

Amendment No. 9 not moved.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Amendments 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 not moved.

Section 6 agreed to.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.

Amendment 15 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Sir Edward Coey Bigger

I move, as an amendment, to delete section 10. This is a consequential amendment upon one already carried.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 were agreed to.

Amendments 16 and 17 not moved.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered to be taken on Wednesday, 25th April, 1934.