This Appropriation Bill gives to the Seanad the only opportunity it has to deal with all the facets of Government policy, opportunities which are available to Deputies in the Dáil on the various Estimates for the various Departments. We had an arrangement up to a few years ago that the Appropriation Bill came to this House at the end of July or early in August. That was unsatisfactory. We were always caught under the pressure of Ministers being tired, wanting to get away on holidays, of staff wanting to get away and of Senators themselves wanting to get their own holidays. This experiment of taking the Appropriation Bill at this time of the year is, I think, an improvement over the previous arrangement but it is still not quite satisfactory.
We have the situation here that we are trying to finish up this debate by this afternoon. Arrangements have been made accordingly. There are still some Senators offering to speak. I do not want to delay the House unduly and therefore I shall bring down the number of points I wanted to make in this debate to about five or six and make them as briefly as I can.
The first matter I want to deal with is the question of wages and salaries in relation to the economic situation. We have been told by the Minister for Finance, particularly, that the economy is in a very healthy state. I think he was rightly making the point in the Dáil recently that the economic difficulties which brought about devaluation in Great Britain did not necessarily apply in this economy and that the reason for our devaluation was therefore different. As reported at column 1302 of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann, volume 231, No. 9, the Minister, speaking in the Dáil last week, said:
Any objective examination of the statistics shows this clearly, shows that far from our economy stagnating it is, in fact, moving forward at a satisfactory rate—four per cent this year—and I cannot see anything to indicate that we cannot keep up to that growth rate.
In the Labour Party, particularly, we have been critical of the lack of growth in this economy. Therefore, I want first of all to acknowledge that, this year, there has been that growth rate which is relatively good. However, I want to take this a step further.
We are told that the economy is doing well. The difficulties that brought about devaluation in Britain, the attempts to halt wage increases in Britain, do not necessarily apply in this economy where the economic situation is different. This economy is growing. However, many of the people in this economy see no evidence of the health of or of the growth in the economy. I refer particularly to wage and salary earners.
In that same speech, and reported in the same column, the Minister said the real incomes of workers in industry rose by 6 per cent in the first half of 1967. Again, this might have misled us or might give us to suppose that workers are better off. I have not seen these figures but I should imagine that the explanation for this six per cent is, in fact, the overtime being worked in many industries, particularly in building and construction.
The unfortunate situation is that, for many workers, their real standard of living has continued to decline in 1967. The tenth round of wage increases, the £1 per week, was advocated by ICTU and accepted by the unions as an interim increase in the particular difficulties which faced the economy in that year—1966. It did not, at that time, compensate for the change in the value of money since the ninth round.
Congress, as the Minister will know, has been insistent that the trade unions face their obligation and indeed their right to recover the standard of living which workers lost after the ninth round and which has been reduced considerably by the change in the value of money since then and in relation to which workers voluntarily held their hand in the circumstances facing the economy in 1966. The Minister will also know that Congress has laid down a policy for its affiliated unions, which, amongst other things, calls for the restoration of the real wages and salaries lost by price increases since 1964, the protection of workers' real wages and salaries against price increases and the sharing by all workers of increases in productivity, including the increase in productivity since 1964.
This is the policy of Congress which unions will be attempting to apply in the year to come. I want to draw the particular attention of the Minister for Finance to the situation we are facing. The cost of living index which in 1964 stood at 165 had gone up to 193 by November, 1967—a phenomenal increase in a period like this or, to express it differently, a 17 per cent increase in the cost of living since the ninth round was secured for workers. Those workers who have got the £1 per week, the tenth round, have got only partial compensation for the change in the cost of living. There is still a gap there in that respect, an ever-widening gap.
In this debate I want to direct the particular attention of the Minister to the plight of workers affected by the policy statement issued by the Government in relation to the economic difficulties which faced us at the time of the tenth round—and that was in the Spring of 1966. It might be no harm, very briefly, to fill in the background of this. I think the House will recall the long negotiations which took place between the employers and the trade unions, which ended in failure. Congress took the initiative in saying that the trade unions should voluntarily restrain themselves to claims of £1 per week increase, in the circumstances then obtaining. The Government, in March, 1966, following that declaration of policy by Congress, issued a statement calling attention to the difficult economic circumstances of the country. They referred to it as "this critical year" and went on to say, in a statement issued by the Government Information Bureau in March, 1966:
It may be assumed that in the public sector, and this is recommended for the private sector, the Government do not contemplate this year any increase for persons earning more than £1,200 per annum.
This policy has been held by the Government since in respect of all their servants and it has had effects in some other employments. In a number of employments in the public sector and in private industry the ceiling of £1,200 was not applied—it was broken through—but in Government employment and in some other employments in the public sector the ceiling still obtains.
We have a situation that the change in the cost of living has seriously taken from the value of wages and salaries which obtained arising out of the ninth round. Some workers have got some compensation for the change in the meantime—more needs to be done— but those affected by the ceiling declared by the Government in the critical year of 1966, have got no compensation whatever and I am suggesting that the Minister might take another look at the situation. I refer him back to the statement made at the time, the fact that the emphasis was on a critical year; and when reading the statement I underlined "this year". The statement said:
This year the Government do not contemplate any general increase for persons earning more than £1,200 per annum.
That was in March, 1966. We are now at the end of 1967 and the Government are telling us the economy is in a very healthy state. Surely it is rank injustice, therefore, that the Government should continue a policy which they said was necessary in the critical year of 1966—which they said would apply for that year—that they should continue that policy up to the end of 1967.
An injustice is being done to these people but there is another aspect of it which I should like the Minister to consider. It is the prudence of continuing this situation. It is very easy to let it drift but sooner or later the position will arise when recompense will have to be made for the change in the value of money. We remember the difficulties that were created in all quarters some years ago when civil servants got status increases, increases which were the subject of negotiation for years. They were long delayed and eventually the Government had to face up to the situation that large increases had to be paid in order to rectify the position of most of their employees.
That created difficulties for the Government. It created difficulties for the trade union movement and it gave rise to much unfair and unreasonable criticism at that time.
I am suggesting to the Government it would be prudent to avoid that situation developing in the future. As I have said, the change in the cost of living has been substantial and the reasons for the blanket ceiling in 1966 cannot any longer be said to apply. Therefore, it would be prudent for the Minister to look quietly at the position again. It can be let drift and I suppose there is a temptation in all quarters to say: "Leave this alone. It will be taken up and rectified when further reviews of salaries and wages take place."
This is precisely what I am afraid about because you are then trying to close a wider gap and thereby leading to expectations in other quarters in which the interim increase of £1 a week has been operating. The Government, therefore, may be creating difficulties for themselves and for other people if this position is allowed to drift much longer.
I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right when I say that there is a view put forward by the NIEC— I underline the fact that I am speaking from memory—that adjustments in wages and salaries should be at shorter intervals, the implication being, I suppose, that they will therefore be of smaller amounts which would not be so difficult for the economy to absorb. Here we have a situation for many Government employees, for many employees in the rest of the public sector where employers have adopted the Government's policy of applying a ceiling, in which it is nearly four years since there has been an adjustment in salary levels. There may have been—I did not agree at the time—some merit in the attitude of the Government in March, 1966. There is certainly no merit in persisting in this situation at the end of 1967.
It is ridiculous to have a gap of nearly four years between adjustments in the incomes of these people. It will lead to difficulties for everybody if it is not tackled soon by the Government: and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to direct the Minister's attention to this, to appeal to him in justice and prudence to look immediately at this question of the ceiling adopted and advised by the Government in March, 1966.
The Congress policy in regard to wages and salaries makes particular reference to lower paid workers. The people to whom I have just been referring are regarded by many people as being better paid workers, but the problem of the lower paid workers is, in my personal opinion, a very difficult one for the trade union movement and I do not think it can be solved by the trade union movement alone because you will find that most lower paid workers—there are many also in Government and local authority employments—are in marginal occupations.
We had the situation recently in the bacon curing industry of a strike taking place. I think the real difficulty, looking at it in retrospect, was the inability of the industry itself to recognise a situation where wages were unduly low. The same applies in local authority employment where there are so many workers on less than £10 per week and where, if the trade union movement can put enough strength into it, the danger is that if you succeed in raising the level of the lower paid workers you are running the great risk of putting them out of employment.
That is why I say I do not think this is a problem which can be solved solely by the trade union movement. I think the Government have a responsibility because the figures published recently show that the level of children's allowances paid here work out at less than one-fourth the average level of those obtaining in EEC countries and in the United Kingdom. I made a calculation at the time and I think that is what it worked out at. I think that this is a field where the Government have a responsibility to help the lower paid by a very substantial improvement in the level of family allowances. Yesterday for a moment we drifted into the question of taxation and I might be allowed to say in passing that we strongly contend in the Labour Party that the taxation necessary to bring a substantial improvement in the level of family allowances should be raised by way of direct taxation and not by indirect taxation. Of course, when we accept this we accept that the workers we have been talking about earlier, the sector of people over £1,200, will have to bear a substantial share of this. We accept that. It will have to, by way of direct taxation, in order to help the lower paid workers.
I cannot see in my experience that any holding back of money to better paid workers, any restraint by them in limiting any increases they can negotiate, helps in any way the lower paid workers. I have never seen that if you agree to take a lower increase for a particular group for whom you are negotiating that that will help the lower paid workers in the same employment or any other employment. The facts of life are such that that does not happen. It is no solution to the problem of lower paid workers to depress the standard of living of the better paid workers. That is what has been happening by reason of the Government's policy of maintaining a ceiling on those above £1,200.
The second matter I want to deal with is in regard to decentralisation. Here again let me acknowledge that we in the Labour Party—I think we moved the motion on that very subject quite a number of years ago so it can be acknowledged and accepted right away—favour a policy of decentralisation. We advocated to the Government, the Fianna Fáil Government at that time, to adopt a policy of decentralisation, but I know in fact that since then two Government Departments have been set up and they have been set up in Dublin. It seems to me to be appropriate that where you are, in fact, establishing a new Department, and you are moving people, they will voluntarily apply for promotion into any new Department. When you are setting up a new Department that is the time to take steps in regard to decentralisation.
We are in favour of decentralisation but I criticise the way it was handled by the Government, in regard to their recent announcement and I criticise the reasons for it. First of all, in regard to the way it was handled, there was a blatant lack of real consultation. We all agree that this is one of our real problems and is something which should be approached patriotically and that it should improve the level of employer-employee relations in this country. When you have a Government acting in this way it is very bad example for private employers.
Now, the Government have some example from which to draw. The decentralisation policy is being pursued by the Government in Britain for some years and the Government here know how the problem there is handled. They know that before any firm decision is taken as to a Department going to any particular city, it is a matter for quite a lot of discussion and consideration by the staff of that Department before arrangements are made for representatives of the staff to visit alternative cities. It gives some choice to the staff concerned as to where they are going. Maybe some people might say it is a choice of how you are going to be executed. I may be too cynical but there is this meeting of the sections concerned instead of facing them with an announcement made by the Minister for Lands, which is read by the civil servants in the paper the following morning: "You are going to Castlebar."
That brings me to the second criticism I want to make. I believe this was a Party political decision. It was made for Party political purposes and not for any other purpose. You could not imagine the Government here giving any choice to Department of Lands civil servants asking if they would like to go to A, B, C or D. That would not suit the Fianna Fáil Ministers. That would not suit the Minister for Lands who wanted his political pride. He wanted his Department in Castlebar. I believe that is the reason for the way this decision was taken.
Much has been said about the hardships that will be involved for the people concerned. There are very real hardships involved. It is all right to say that the Minister or the Government will give the option to people to volunteer to go to Castlebar or Athlone, but I think we all know from the information we have to hand that, in fact, the staffing cannot be dealt with by way of volunteers. There will not be sufficient of them. I would be very happy if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary could contradict me and say: "Yes, in fact, it would be possible to solve this problem by way of volunteers. People will be willing to transfer to those new places." Another criticism I want to make about this is the choice of the town. Again, I am speaking from memory, but surely the NIEC were advocating some time ago that we should concentrate on growth centres, that this general idea of hoping to set up industries in every little village and town around the country was simply not feasible no matter how desirable it would be and that if we wanted to make progress we would have to pick a number of places.
Galway was mentioned, Waterford was mentioned, Limerick was mentioned and Cork, of course, last but most important. Progress has been made in this direction. An industrial site is in process of being established and has been built in Waterford. I think progress has been made in Galway, I am not clear as to how far, but surely places like that which we have consciously picked as growth centres would be appropriate places to send Departments in the process of decentralisation, where civil servants could be absorbed in the local community and where they would not exist in a ghetto. For example, in Galway there is the university available. In Waterford we hope to eventually have a college of technology, another good place where the movement of a Department would not create as much hardship for the people concerned. They would be in a larger centre and it would help in the growth of these centres which we have already consciously decided should be regarded as growth centres. Instead there was a Party political decision made. It suited the Minister for Lands to get his Department to Castlebar and that was the end of it.
Senator O'Quigley yesterday criticised the Minister for Labour for his attack on the general president of the Irish Transport and General Workers Union. Let me say at the start that we in the Labour Party are not a bit afraid of attacks and criticism. In fact, we love it because it is an acknowledgment by this Government that the Labour Party is the Party to fear; that the Labour Party is the Party that will take power from them eventually. We welcome this sort of criticism. We had it in Cork and the Cork electorate in the by-election gave a suitable answer. However, this was something more than a political Party criticism and this is where we take issue with the Minister and the Government. It was a personal abuse of the general president of the largest union in this country. It was not simply a disagreement on policy. I read it and I regard it as a personal attack of a very low order. I resent it on that account. It was deplorable coming from the Minister for Labour who is charged with the responsibility of trying to improve employer-worker relations. What was most nasty about it was the implication that because this official did not agree politically with this Government, did not agree with Fianna Fáil, he was, therefore, unfit to hold an office in Bord Fáilte, to be a member of the board of Bord Fáilte. That was what was read and understood by the people in the newspapers. Maybe the trade union movement are being told that to secure positions, to be nominated to the boards of semi-State organisations in the future, one will have to be something more than a trade union official, one will have to be a member of Fianna Fáil. I hope we will be able to stand up to that. I think we have more guts than to be kicked around in that way. This is a man who is the principal officer of the largest union in this country. All of us who know him, whether we agreed with his viewpoint at various times or not, accept that he is a most sincere individual, hard-working and self-sacrificing, sacrificing himself for his members and the ideals in which he believes. We resent bitterly the sort of personal abuse that was heaped on that man. We do not mind political arguments. We love them, in fact, but this sort of attack by a Minister for Labour and his reference to the fact that this man was a member of the board of Bord Fáilte was deplorable.
The next item I would like to deal with is the NAC. Maybe the climate is changing. We have had assurances from all sides of the House that all parties, the NFA included, support the Minister for Agriculture in any steps he may think necessary to protect the country from the ravages of foot and mouth. I hope in this changing climate there might be a bit of back tracking. We in the trade union movement have always advocated that agriculture should be represented on a national economic committee. It should simply not be a national industrial committee, it should be a national agricultural committee. It is no solution to simply take people from the NAC appointed by the Minister and of whom the Minister is chairman and place them on top of the NIEC. That is out as far as I can see. It is no solution but maybe in the changing climate an opportunity might arise, without scoring any political points, for the Minister concerned to quietly wind up the NAC but, at the same time, come to some agreement or arrangement to have agriculture represented on a national economic committee. I shall leave that subject. It is not a subject on which any of us wants to score political points. We regret the situation which has developed in agriculture over recent years. I feel we are all sufficiently patriotic to hope that these will be overcome and I do not want to create any difficulties at all.
The next point I want to mention briefly is the Vietnam issue from which I think we are running away. I thoroughly agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that our Minister for External Affairs should come out openly and support the proposals of U Thant for peace in Vietnam or for some improvement in the situation there. Of course, we have more—and this is something that we as a Catholic country are conscious of—than the proposals of U Thant. We have the appeals of the Pope for peace in Vietnam repeated again and again and again. We seem to be silent on this issue. There is some fear that we might hurt the feelings of the US. I must confess that I have every sympathy for the US because I think they were put in a bad position by France in regard to Indo-China—Vietnam—but they have compounded the position ever since and they seem to be making the position worse week after week. I think what they are doing is probably destroying the whole moral fibre of the nation in the situation in which they find themselves. I certainly do not want to avail of this opportunity to make any attack an the US. I have the utmost sympathy for the position in which they have found themselves and their apparent inability to extract themselves from the deplorable situation in which they find themselves in Vietnam. Here we have the proposals of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and I do not think it is taking from the dignity of even the United States that they should accept and go along with the proposals of U Thant. Whatever about hurting the feelings of our United States friends, our Minister on behalf of this country should be prepared to get up in the United Nations and support U Thant's proposals.
I do not want to dwell on the subject. Other people want to speak, but may I briefly go back on one point, and perhaps other people will support me, if there is time? It relates to the injustice and to the imprudence which exists in regard to continued statements which might have been necessary in the circumstances of the 1966 wage and salary increases. This was a statement made by the Government in what I call this critical year. In this year, that is in 1966, no increase was contemplated for persons earning more than £1,200 per annum, That policy was recommended for this year, that is 1966. It is now the end of 1967. We are told the economy is sound and completely different from the economy in Britain, and I am suggesting that it would be prudent and that it is time for the Government to look vitally at the problem of this issue and quietly withdraw the ceiling. Otherwise, they would only create for themselves large and difficult problems for the future.
