I was hoping that I would have had an opportunity of hearing more from Deputy O'Mara, because he is getting more interesting every day. He read from some book yesterday a statement about the salaries that are being paid in America. That, too, is quoted very often in the newspapers for the edification of those who do not know the facts. He told us the population of the United States, but he did not tell us whether the particular Ministry to which he referred was dealing with the whole population. He forgot to mention, until a Minister here reminded him, that there were 30 or 40 different Governments in the United States.
ESTIMATES—VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
Debate on Deputy Heffernan's amendment resumed.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I was quoting the federal salaries in Washington.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Washington does not govern the United States, except to a very small extent, and it deals to a large extent with external affairs. I am sorry that he did not also read out what the Deputies in the United States are getting. We would be glad to hear that. Deputy Heffernan told us that he met a business man who, if he only got the chance, could do with one-tenth of the number of people the Minister for Finance uses. I am not impressed with these business men and I refuse to burn incense at their shrine. I never met any of these super-men who are supposed to do big things in a big way. I once met a business man from America who suggested that the one salvation for this country was to roof it over. That gentleman is like Deputy O'Mara's bank manager who is more than anxious to lend money to farmers. I have never met such a bank manager, and I would like to know where he is. If his whereabouts could be discovered the police would have to regulate the queues outside his bank. There is a great deal of unreality about this talk of reduced expenditure. What we should devote our attention to is whether we are getting the proper kind of service for the money expended. I regard this matter as something like a co-operative society. We are putting our money into a certain fund and we expect that fund to do certain work. I do not agree with those who say that the higher civil servants should have their salaries reduced and that savings could be effected in that direction. I have come into contact with some of these men and from my experience of them I would say that if you want to see real work done in the civil service you would want to go among the higher branches and among the higher executive officers. I do not believe that there is any reason in looking for a reduction of taxation in that direction. One might usefully ask, for instance, what is the salary of the manager of the Dublin United Tramways, or what is the manager of Messrs. Clery's paid. How would the suggestion be received that the salaries of people responsible for the administration of huge sums of money should not exceed six or seven hundred pounds a year? There would not be agreement on that point from those who believe that no one in the Government service should get more than £500 a year. It all comes back to Deputy Wilson's point that if you want to have the economy of the type asked for, if you want to take up the position that you will insist on the Government spending less of your money and have more of the spending of it yourself, then you must decide that the community shall not carry on some of the services now being carried on and, if those services have to be carried out, you must carry them out yourself.
Take National Health Insurance, which is a favourite subject for economists. The service that the National Health Insurance carries out is an important service. Even now the business men and Chambers of Commerce do not propose that the National Health Insurance should be done away with. If it is dropped, other means must be found to meet the difficulties of the people whose health breaks down; otherwise they will be thrown back on the rates. Everybody says that education and more education is necessary; but you do not want to pay this big bill for education. Are the parents of the children prepared to pay for education out of their own pockets, and are they prepared to ask those who may have no children to give them a helping hand? That is more or less what is happening at the present time. Each of these services will have to be examined. If you want to have these things done economically, you must take up the position that while you have a Government responsible to the elected representatives of the people, you must allow that Government to do the work, subject to whatever constructive criticism the representatives of the people in the Dáil can give. There will be plenty of opportunities for doing that when the Estimates come up for consideration.
If we are to be believers in this idea of big business and mass production, we ought to agree that a centralised body can give more economical service than if the work is distributed amongst units scattered throughout the country. From different parts of the country the call now comes that the roads should be a national service. If the money does not come out of one pocket it will come out of another. Why are the ratepayers calling out that the roads should be made a national service? It is felt, although, perhaps, they do not know it, that the roads can be more economically made and better maintained by a central authority operating a central service than if the work is left to twenty-six or twenty-seven authorities.
Each central authority receives the revenue from the road users, not the local authority.
Exactly. Another proposal might be to distribute the revenue amongst the local authorities and let them do the work. I do not think that will be regarded as an economical proposition. I would be surprised to hear a business man making a suggestion of that kind. The work can be more economically done by the central authority, and the same thing applies to all other services. When the roads are being maintained by the central authority no doubt there will be a cry from the economists that instead of saving you have another half-million added to the national expenditure. Deputy Good will be quoting the number of pounds per head that taxation means to the country; at the same time he is asking that a new service should be put on to the central authority. We cannot have it both ways. If we nationalise our services more money will have to be collected and distributed.
It is already collected in the local rates.
My point is that the local authorities are at present called upon to bear the expense of maintaining roadways. The road users pay a certain amount into a national fund. That is not as it should be. The authority that receives the income ought to deal with the expenditure.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I was contrasting the position where each county would get its own revenue and maintain its own roads, as against the position where money would go to the National Exchequer, which would then bear the cost of maintaining the roads. I have no doubt as to which would be the preferable method.
I would like the Minister for Lands and Agriculture to remove a misapprehension from my mind. He accepted everything that Deputy Baxter said with regard to the position of the farmers and the effect of taxation. He rather said he was accepting it for the sake of argument. I would be glad if he would say he accepted, merely for the sake of argument, Deputy Baxter's description of the position of farmers and agriculture generally. I look on the matter as extremely serious. I believe things are bad, although I do not quite agree with the picture painted by Deputy Baxter. Matters are not quite so bad, if you take the country as a whole. The Government should face the situation in a more serious fashion than they propose to face it. I believe it will be necessary for them to spend not only the amount provided in the Estimates, but much more money, in order to save the position. I believe that something on the lines suggested by Deputy Johnson is necessary. It is necessary to find money immediately, either by borrowing or otherwise, to retrieve the position before it is too late.
Mr. HOGAN
I meant to convey that probably I could get on common ground with Deputy Baxter if I said that farmers needed as much relief as we could give them. We could start on that. We could afford to disagree as to the intensity of the distress from which farmers are suffering. We might have different ideas as to the degree of distress that prevails; but for the purpose of this argument we could have it that farmers are entitled to as much relief as we could give them. I do not deal with the question of how far farmers are in distress, or what are the particular factors that influence that state of affairs. I merely start from the point that it is our duty to give them as much relief as we possibly can. That exactly was Deputy Baxter's point of view. We could also agree that a reduction in taxation was a necessary factor. We could agree that taxation was one factor that affected the farmer, and a reduction in taxation would give a certain amount of relief. I do not profess to go into the question of what exactly is the condition of agriculture. There is no necessity at this stage.
I hope the Minister will do so at an early date. I hope he will give us his view as to what the position of agriculture is.
Mr. HOGAN
Surely there will be ample opportunity for doing that. There is no need to overload this debate with a detailed discussion on agricultural matters.
It is desirable, in view of all that is being and has been said about the position of agriculture, that a statement should be made by the Minister, even before we come to the agricultural estimates. Unless those estimates come very early, it would be very desirable for the Minister to give us, from his inner knowledge as head of the Department, his view as to what the position of agriculture is.
One thing that emerges from this discussion is the view-point that official Labour holds with regard to salaries, and with regard to the position of those who are paid either a wage or a salary. I have listened to Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Johnson, and I think it would be difficult to reconcile their views with those of Deputy Doyle or the Deputy from Limerick. The view-point of Deputy O'Connell is that if any man has a salary from £500 to £2,000 or £3,000, it should not be touched. He is giving value for his money, according to Deputy O'Connell, and the country can afford to pay. There should be no question of paying any man up to the figure he mentions. The same thing, I presume, would apply to the professional classes—according to Deputy O'Connell. I suppose, in a way, we ought to agree with him, from the point of view of class pride. It is a poor community that cannot afford a few gentlemen in every class. It is a poor community cannot afford a few aristocrats. The new aristocracy has come to stay. We hear of two or three motor cars in certain families—one taking the older members of the family out, another taking the younger members of the family, and, perhaps, a two-seater in addition. Deputy O'Connell does not find anything wrong in that. Deputy Doyle, who knows the position of the agricultural worker and the small farmer in his constituency, finds nothing wrong in that either, and finds nothing wrong with the view-point of the official spokesmen of his Party.
One thing emerges clearly from the discussion—that it would be altogether wrong to ask outsiders to come in and deal with this question. The view-point of Deputy Egan, Deputy O'Connell and a few other Deputies is: "We are quite capable of dealing with anything that may arise here. We are able to do our own business and nobody can teach us anything. Why should we ask anybody to come here? We have really nothing to learn from anybody in finance or in anything else." The English people, when they were in a certain position a few years ago, did not hesitate—their national pride was not lowered one iota—to seek outside aid to put their financial position right. I take it that the average English business man at the head of a department there knew almost as much about the business of running his department as the business men of our departments know. Considering that the Englishmen had centuries of experience and tradition behind them, they ought to know almost as much as our men. Some doubt was expressed—I think by Deputy O'Connell—as to whether these charges really went back to the land at all. The business people want a certain percentage of profit on their turnover. If you put the question to any business man, he will tell you that he wants to get a certain percentage of profit on the capital he invests and that if he does not it is no good to him. He gets that profit and he passes on the charge ultimately to the man who cannot pass it on. The farmer is the man who cannot pass it on. His profits do not stay with him, but his losses always do. I do not think there should be any doubt in anybody's mind at this hour of the day that the agricultural community are the only people who are carrying this load and who cannot pass it on. I heard reference made to the wonderful harvest we had last year. The only man who ventured on a sarcastic interjection was the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. He ridiculed the claim of Deputy O'Mara and some other Deputies that we had a great harvest. We had not a great harvest. The last harvest we had was one of the worst, from the point of view of yield, that we had for some time, and it was one of the best from the point of view of cutting the corn and saving it.
Deputy White says the country is full of potatoes and that you do not know what to do with them.
That is a good thing. It was the worst year I ever knew for turnips and mangolds. The only salary I ever heard questioned by the Labour Party was the Governor-General's salary, which was referred to once by Deputy Davin. With that one exception, I do not think that any salary has been referred to by the Labour Deputies.
I questioned the salaries.
I do not think the Deputy is the official spokesman of the Party. The question does not arise on this Supplementary Vote, but I should like to hear what papers are getting this £38,000 for advertisements?
It is not £38,000. It is £13,000.
£13,000 is a good sum to go into their pockets, and some of them would abuse the enemies of the Government whole-heartedly for that. I can picture certain quill-drivers about town—the proprietors of gutter-organs —digging their quills very deeply at the prospect of £13,000. Perhaps it explains the abuse that several members of this House come in for. A good deal of play—I will not say cowardly play or dishonest play—has been made with local and national expenditure by people who are not facing the position. Nobody wants to face the particular. They all want to deal with this question in general terms. You hear people talking about the Government's responsibility for the condition of the rates down the country, when the position really is that nobody is responsible in that respect except the ratepayers of the county and their elected representatives. But they want to pass on the blame to somebody else. When discussing the Estimates here, it is pretty much the same thing. We have general statements but no particular statement. We are not facing the position as it should be faced. Exception is taken to our demand for a committee of experts. In my opinion, the only competent men to put on that committee to deal with Civil Service administration would be ex-Civil Servants— capable men who retired from permanent positions and who know their business. "Why not a Committee of the Dáil?" was the question asked. I do not call myself a capable Deputy and I know I would be absolutely lost if I went into, say, the Local Government Department, or any other Department, and tried in two or three months to see what could be put right.
Are ex-Civil Servants responsible to the taxpayers?
They are responsible to nobody. They are not under anybody's thumb. Their position is secure, and those people would know the working of the departments and could say whether a particular department is overstaffed, whether certain men are justifying their positions and whether the members of the staff are giving enough output.
What are you paying an establishment officer a big salary for? Is it not to tell you what the staffs are doing?
Perhaps it would be a great advantage to our establishment officer if he had a committee to place his opinion before. If the Minister for Finance is right, and if the officials in Government Departments could, if they so chose, fool any committee who went to their Departments, how much more certain is it that they would be able to fool a committee of this House? I do not think there is any doubt about the question. I accept the description of the Minister for Finance. The officials could certainly fool a committee of this House, if they so desired, but I do not believe they could fool a committee of men who spent their lives at this work and who would know what they were inquiring into.
Let us come to the particular and take one item here—the Army. I would like to know how many are at present on the superannuation or pension list of the Army. I would like to know how many got compensation, in one form or other, or pensions, and how those numbers would compare with those on active service in the old days before the Truce. I am sorry Deputy Mulcahy is not here to answer the question.
He is here, but you must ask somebody else the question.
Let us make an allowance for those retained in the Army, to whom pensions and allowances do not apply, and let us make allowance for those outside belonging to another political party and very few of whom come under this head, and let us be told how the numbers in receipt of pensions and superannuation compare with the numbers who were available when they were wanted to do anything.
Somebody referred to increased production as the cure. No doubt it is a partial cure. But if you want increased production, the people who are to give that production must see some return for their extra effort. The system of sucking the result of the farmer's toil from him is so complete that there is very little real inducement to increase production. I am rather doubtful of the response you are going to get until this position has been made right. Three years ago, when it was suggested there should be economy and when the reduction in teachers' salaries and old age pensions were made, we advised that it would be the right thing to have a ten per cent. cut right through the whole administration. Everybody should have stepped into the same boat then. That was not done. I held that opinion three years ago and I hold it to-day. The Government should have stepped into the boat with the rest of the community then, and shared the load equally with them. I think they were wrong when they did not, and I think they are wrong still. The position was not bad in 1922, or early in 1923, when we were discussing this question. But the position is bad now. And if the people are required to effect economies, the Government should show example from the top. There is not a Deputy in the Dáil with a spark of patriotism but will agree to the suggestion. I think the Government lost a golden opportunity that time, but it is not too late yet. It would put them right with the people and it would be evidence that, whatever the position, the Government and every citizen of the State are in the same boat and are prepared to hang together.
Deputy Johnson has one invaluable remedy for every economic ill this country has ever suffered from—that is, to pay more in salaries and to pay more in wages. As a result, the appetites of the people of Dublin are going to increase. So much are they going to increase that they will provide a market for the farmers' surplus produce. Really, when you come to analyse the question, there are very few people in Dublin who are not eating almost enough. There may be some but they are very few. The little bit more that they would eat would not appreciably affect the position, to quote the Minister for Lands and Agriculture. I do not think it would add very much to the extent of our home market, but it would increase still further the gap between the industrial employee and the agricultural employee. There is something wrong, and what Deputy Johnson refered to is not the cure for it. Something more is required. I recently consulted an authority on boot-making in this country as to how the tariff affected the industry, and he told me of the case of a new factory near the Border. A few hands were imported, men who could not be dispensed with, but otherwise the firm recruited its staff locally from raw labour who knew nothing about the business. Gradually the standard of the article improved, because it was a very good article for the money, and increased orders were coming in. The firm increased its staff and went to Cork for trained men. It did not want to take in any more green hands off the streets of Dundalk. They picked up a few in Dublin also. They had not these men very long until they found that they had to be got rid of, because they were a nuisance in the factory. That shows one thing; if anything is to thrive in this country you have to get rid of the old atmosphere, get rid of the doctrine that has been preached here, not by Deputy Johnson, but by some people who went before him—the doctrine of "ca' canny" and "go slow." The continuance of these men in that factory would mean failure, and anyone who likes can put that in his pipe and smoke it.
There is no evidence of lack of money in Dublin. There is more evidence of the spendthrift in Dublin than of the lack of money. The cinemas and other houses of entertainment show that, and most of the money spent on this class of thing is leaving the country. If there is a blister on the public mind at present it is this, that the public believes that the members of the Government are not inclined to share the same bed with them, are not inclined to get into the same boat with them and to belong to the same crew. They see that the salaries of members of the Government are secure for some years, and that they are not going to give away anything to the rest of the people. I think it is time for the Government to see the situation and put themselves right. I consider that there is nothing wrong with Deputy Heffernan's proposition, and I think that the Government should avail of it. If it did nothing else it would clear the air.
Should it deal with policy?
No, I do not think it should deal with policy, but it should show where economies could be effected. I think that it should be sufficient for the elected representatives of the people to deal with the policy of the country, and that it should not be for anybody else. It has been said: "We could do without the Shannon scheme, we could do without beet-growing, and we could do without the Barrow drainage." I pay as much in rates as anybody here and perhaps more than most—over £100, besides national taxation—and I have no hesitation in saying that I approve whole-heartedly of the Shannon scheme and of the rest of the schemes for putting our balance sheet right. It may not be the best time for them, but when the position is desperate it is the time to put the ship right, and I appeal to the Government to put the position right.
We have heard a good deal of talk in connection with civil servants, and as an ex-civil servant, as the official of a Civil Service organisation, and as one who can speak on behalf of civil servants, I think I should say a few words in connection with some of the things that have been mentioned to-day, particularly by Deputies on the Farmers' Benches. Deputy Heffernan wanted a committee of experts set up to inquire into departmental expenditure and organisation. He has been supported in that by Deputy Baxter and Deputy Gorey, and their speeches, particularly the speech of Deputy Baxter, would lead one to believe that it would only be necessary to set up this committee, with authority to go into Government Departments for it to find in these Government Departments civil servants as thick as daisies in the summer. I want to assure Deputy Baxter and the Farmers' Party generally that if any such committee were set up, it would find no redundancy of civil servants, but in many cases a shortage of civil servants, as is proved by the fact that in many cases overtime is being worked, due to shortage of staff. I think it a pity that the Minister for Finance did not accede to the request of the Farmers' Party, and I am quite sure that if he could take Deputy Baxter, Deputy Heffernan and Deputy Gorey into Government Departments and give them an idea of the work done there by civil servants, we would have less of this thoughtless criticism of civil servants. In one particular office of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, I know that until recently—and it may be so at the moment—as many as 700 and 800 hours overtime were being worked in the week, due to shortage of staff, and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, if he makes inquiry into the matter, will be able to confirm what I say. That goes to show that, far from there being a redundancy of staff, there is in a great many cases a shortage of staff, and I know of no case—and I have a knowledge of the Civil Service generally—where there is a redundancy of staff.
There is another side of the Civil Service besides that which pays officers £500 a year and over, and that is, the Post Office side. Lest Deputies might imagine that every person employed in the Civil Service is a well-to-do official I want to call the attention of the Farmer Deputies to the fact that in the Post Office there are 2,500 auxiliary postmen who work not more than thirty-five hours per week and who, in many cases, because of the fact that their Post Office hours of employment are during the day, cannot get outside work to supplement the meagre pittance that they receive from the Post Office. In addition to those, there are 1,100 people in the employment of the Post Office who work not more than eighteen hours per week. In many cases their work amounts only to six, eight, ten, twelve, fourteen and sixteen hours a week, and they receive as an average—in fact I might say as a maximum—10d. per hour. An auxiliary postman, who has in many cases twenty years' service, is paid no more than 1/2 per hour. Twenty-four years' service might be spent by a man in the Post Office without any hope of appointment to the permanent class, deprived, by reason of his hours of work, from any opportunity of supplementing his Post Office income. In the face of that we have had here a general suggestion that everybody in State employment is a well-to-do, comfortable employee. I would like Farmer Deputies, when talking about the Civil Service in future, to remember that branch of it. Deputy Baxter told us that taxation was very heavy, and that he thought it should be reduced, but although he had a copy of the Estimates before him and spoke for quite a considerable time, he did not tell us what particular item of expense should be reduced and in respect of what matters a reduction should be made in the Estimates.
I will tell the Deputy that another day when we come to it.
Deputy Baxter talked in generalities, but he did not tell us, perhaps because it might be unpopular to do so, in respect of which particular item a reduction should be made. After painting a very doleful picture of what would happen if taxation was not reduced, he wound up with the admonition that there must be a radical change in taxation. I suggest to Deputy Baxter, even at the risk of Deputy Gorey's displeasure, that there is need for a radical alteration in something besides taxation, and I suggest to the Farmers' Party that there is need for a radical alteration in farming methods in this country. I suggest to Farmer Deputies that they might well take a leaf out of the book of their competitors, and if they did that and looked after agriculture as their competitors do, they would have a little less time for thoughtless criticism of the Civil Service. Complaints have been made that the Vote is too high, but my complaint is that there is practically no provision in it for relieving the burning problem of unemployment as it exists to-day. Judging by the Vote, unemployment is to continue in the deplorable condition in which it has existed during the past few years, and the unemployed, if we are to take the Estimates as a criterion, need hope for no improvement in their plight during the forthcoming year. As far as I am concerned with this question of taxation. I am prepared to stand over and openly to advocate an increased Estimate and heavier taxation if it would go towards saving the hungry men and women and the helpless children from the poverty, misery and destitution which they have endured for the past few years and which apparently is to confront them for another twelve months.
I do not think at the moment that it is necessary to go very much into this question that was touched on by Deputy Cooper, and, I think, Deputy Heffernan, of the precise amount of the real reduction shown this year, because it would involve a very close discussion of the amount that might be put to capital expenditure and the amount which would have to be found out of taxation.
There is, however, an actual reduction because against the automatic decreases, decreases which do not involve any effort on the part of the Government but yet which represent a proportion of the decreases, there are also new forms of expenditure. There are new items, or greatly increased items which are clearly and definitely capital items. Deputy Cooper questioned whether it was wise to undertake the amount of capital expenditure that we were undertaking. I feel that when we have regard to the situation in the country and to the fact that we have taken steps in regard to unemployment insurance that have not been taken in adjacent countries, steps which we have had some difficulty in deciding were justifiable, it would not be right to refrain from undertaking capital expenditure somewhat in advance of the time that we might undertake it, but capital expenditure which is useful and justifiable in itself. On the other hand, there are people who say that a great loan should be raised for national reconstruction, as it is called. I have no objection to the raising of a loan for any national purpose. I have no doubt that for any reproductive or good purpose we could get very substantial sums of money, but I see no purpose in raising a loan in advance of the preparation of schemes. Some people said, immediately the Shannon scheme was mooted, that we should go looking for money. That would be unnecessary and would have been wrong from a business point of view. It would simply have meant that we would be paying out, say, 5¼ per cent. for the money that we borrowed. We would have it lying in the Exchequer getting the maximum of, say, 3 per cent. from the banks for it. No matter what arrangement we might make to deal with the money we could not get as much for it as we were paying. There is another point as regards raising money in advance of schemes, or greatly in advance of the time when it must be expended. So far as this matter of capital expenditure and of the present relief of unemployment is concerned, it was really a matter of the elaboration of suitable schemes of expenditure. The Government had never been blind to the necessity for giving employment as far as it could be done in the circumstances of the country.
Deputy Cooper, as the Minister for Agriculture said, did make what I thought was the type of speech that ought to be made by Deputies when criticising expenditure, and calling for a reduction of expenditure. The Deputy's speech was in striking contrast to the speeches made by Deputy Baxter and Deputy Heffernan. To my mind, the gist of their speeches was: "Put no responsibility on me; let some other fellow take the responsibility and let some other fellow do the thinking, but do not ask me to do anything about it. I will cry, in general, for economy, but put the responsibility on somebody else." There was reason in Deputy Cooper's demand for a Geddes Committee, because he made that part of his proposals. He was prepared to suggest economies and along with that to suggest a method of reviewing administrative expenditure. There is some reason in that, but there is no reason in the attitude of Deputy Heffernan. Deputy Heffernan said that the first time he spoke in the Dáil in November, 1923, he advocated such a committee, and was still advocating it. Apparently he is a man of one idea. Perhaps the fact that he has no other idea explains his frequent lapses into futility that we are aware of. There could really be nothing more futile than to refuse to express an opinion on proposed economies, to be afraid to express an opinion on proposed economies and to suggest that outsiders and persons not representing the people should have the responsibility thrust on them. The danger and harm I would see in a committee such as that would be that it would simply act as an agent for postponing consideration of those questions by Deputies who feel that they should be considered.
The Government has given consideration to these matters and is dealing with them in its own way. That may not satisfy Deputies. If it does not, they ought really to do some little thinking and some little research on their own behalf, and should not simply ask that somebody else be appointed to do what is their business. Of course, there is a great division of opinion as to what sort of a committee should be set up. Some people want a committee to examine the question of administration, some want a committee that will report on policy, some want a committee not consisting of members of the Dáil, while some want a committee consisting of members of the Dáil. The real fact is that in general this demand for a committee of inquiry is a parrot cry and it is not worthy of members of the Dáil to come here and repeat it. It is all right for a leader writer on a newspaper to throw out any sort of suggestion that can be written brightly about, that would interest the readers of his paper and improve its circulation. It is all right for him to do that. He has no responsibility to the people, but it is up to Deputies of the Dáil to face the thing in a more serious way and to search about in their own minds and see what they want.
A great deal of attention has been given by the Government to the question of economy. We have at no time neglected it. If we had not given constant attention to the question of economy, the costs of expenditure would be a great deal higher than they are. I wish to say this, that if there continues to be in the country and in the Dáil a demand for new services that we have had experience of in the past, no Government can keep down expenditure, and expenditure will not be kept down. We must be prepared to deny ourselves to some extent of new services if we want expenditure to be kept down. If we want it to be reduced we will have to face up to considerable cuttings-off in services. It may quite truthfully be said, and said in no cynical way, that every country is always overtaxed. Every country would benefit by a reduction in taxation, but it could only get that reduction in taxation by sacrificing certain things, and it will always be a question of weighing whether it is better to lose services or get the reduction in taxation. That question arises on such a thing, say, as expenditure on agricultural education. In fact, it arises all along the line.
I might mention certain things that will indicate that we have not been unmindful of the need for economy. We have not fallen into the error of thinking that we should live on the British scale. Of course, the whole system here was based on the British system. We had a great number of British civil servants transferred to us—some 15,000 or 17,000. We have actually in the Service at the moment 15,886 transferred British civil servants, with Treaty rights. There were others who have since left the Service. We have these people with their scales of salaries and with their assured rights which cannot be touched. Deputy Gorey, who has just gone out, talked about a ten per cent. cut all round. Such a ten per cent. cut would be the most reckless extravagance that we could indulge in, because, no doubt, enormous numbers of civil servants who have their Treaty rights would leave the Service if we attempted to apply a ten per cent. cut. They would think that other cuts would follow, and we certainly should have a tremendous inflation of our pension bill. I repeat that there could be no more reckless extravagance suggested than that of an all-round cut on the salaries of civil servants. Our civil servants, certainly our higher civil servants, are not paid unduly high salaries.
The salaries paid are lower than the Northern Ireland salaries. For instance, the Secretary to the Department of Finance here, has a salary of £1,500. The salary for that Department in Northern Ireland, which deals with much smaller area and with smaller sums of money and where there is a Government with a limited jurisdiction, begins with £1,500 and goes up to £1,750. For the general body of our heads of Departments a salary of £1,200 a year is fixed. Corresponding people in Northern Ireland have salaries which begin at £1,200 and run up to £1,500. The salaries in operation when we took over were on a higher scale than at present. For instance, the Secretary to the Department of Agriculture is at the present time paid £1,200 a year. He replaced a secretary who, under the British regime, had £1,800. The Secretary to the Department of Local Government has £1,200. He replaced a man who held under the British regime and had £1,800 a year. The head of the Prisons' Board has £1,000 a year, replacing a man who had £1,200. Then when we come to the police we had here for an all-Ireland area an Inspector-General at a salary of from £1,800 to £2,200; a Deputy Inspector-General at from £1,300 to £1,500; two assistant Inspector-Generals, £1,000 to £1,200. The Chief Commissioner of the D.M.P., whose district embraced only the Dublin Metropolitan area, was on a salary scale of from £1,300 to £1,700; the Assistant Commissioner of the D.M.P. had a salary of from £900 to £1,000. The Commissioner of the Civic Guard has a salary of £1,300; the Deputy Commisioners £1,000, and two Assistant Deputy Commissioners, £900. The Commissioner of the Civic Guard has charge of the whole Saorstát area at a salary of £1,300. The Commissioner of the D.M.P., whose district only embraced the Dublin Metropolitan area, was on a salary scale of from £1,300 to £1,700. Then take Education. The Secretary to the Department of Education has £1,200. In the old days we had in charge of primary education a resident Commissioner at a salary of £1,500. We have one Assistant Commissioner dealing with Secondary Education at a salary of £1,000. We had two Commissioners in the old days at a salary of £1,000 each.
I think the Minister for Agriculture has referred to the Land Commission. In the Land Commission there were three Commissioners at a salary of £2,000 a year each, and two assistant Commissioners at £1,200 each. Our Commissioners' salaries are now £1,300 to £1,500. The numbers and the salaries are very substantially reduced. We have an Attorney-General who does all the legal work of the State at a salary of £2,500. Under the British regime there was an Attorney-General at a salary of £5,000 and a Solicitor-General at a salary of £2,000. I could give very many more instances such as these.
I want just to explain to Deputies, when a suggestion is made that we have paid no attention at all to economy, that on the contrary there has been a most consistent attempt to get down rates. In our new appointments we have reduced the rate very substantially. I will give the mean of the various scales; that is, taking the entire salary a man on a particular scale would get during his years' service and dividing that by the number of years. In the junior administrative grade for a man, the British mean of the scale was £350; ours would be £325. Of the women's scale, the mean under the British would be £300, ours £250. In the case of the higher Executive officers, the British mean is £450; ours is £425. Women, £350; ours, £315. Junior Executive, men, the British mean is £250; ours £220. Women, the British, £200; ours, £170. There is a similar reduction in the case of the clerical grades. For men, the mean of the British scale for the clerical grades is £154; in our new appointments it is £129. Women, £122 the British, and with us £107. In the same way, as regards the second line of administrative officers, for an Assistant Secretary under the British in Dublin the normal scale was £1,000 to £1,200. Our scale is £850 to £1,000. In Great Britain the highest salary for the Civil Service is £3,500. In Northern Ireland it is £1,750. In Dublin, at the change of Government, it was £1,800 plus bonus. We have now £1,500 plus bonus as a maximum scale. In addition to this reduction of the rates of salaries, we have made other changes. We have increased the daily attendance of all civil servants by half an hour. That was the most we could do, having regard to Treaty conditions, and perhaps it was as much as would have produced an increase of output.
The annual leave in the case of higher officers has been reduced by 25 per cent. Subsistence allowances on travelling have been reduced to practically pre-war scale. We always have to have regard to the fact that for, at any rate, all the higher ranks in our Civil Service we want first-class material and no advantage will be gained by cutting salaries in such a way that people of ability will not enter. If we fail to get boys and girls of that standard the country will certainly pay very dearly for it later on. We are close up against England and our people have the right of sitting for British Civil Service examinations and can enter, without any obstacle, the British Civil Service, and while we can, and ought to, pay lower salaries here, having regard to existing conditions, and while we will get good people at lower salaries, they can only be lowered to a certain extent. If we do decrease them too much we are going to have a Civil Service that will not be of the right material and will not have the right morale or the right spirit. Really the successful administration and government of the country depends very largely on the quality of your Civil Service. No Government that can possibly be appointed, if it has not an efficient and zealous Civil Service at its hand, can make any good of the country. We have a very good Civil Service. We have certainly in all the higher ranks of the Civil Service that I have come in contact with, men of great ability, great zeal, great public spirit and great independence. I certainly do think that we have a Civil Service to which the country may be grateful for the extraordinary work that has been done in very difficult times. The idea that it is an outrageous thing for a civil servant to have £1,000 a year is simply the idea that comes from the talk of all the disgruntled through the country, the fellow who could not get the job for which he tried, the fellow who could not pass the examination for which he sat. They are always the people who are loudest about the outrageous salaries. We have to have regard to salaries offered in competing occupations, if we want good people, people of ability and ambition, to enter our Civil Service. We must have regard to what will be earned by the doctor, the commercial man, the solicitor, or what will be earned in other walks of life outside.
We have had people complaining about the bonus and saying that it should be cut away. It is quite obvious in regard to all the lower grades of the Civil Service, in regard to, say, the Post Office grades, that you could not cut the bonus away. You might as well say the agricultural labourer should be brought back to pre-war rates of pay.
DEPUTIES
He is back to it.
He is not. There is really no use in saying that.
He was paid ten shillings before the war.
He is low down, but to say that he is back to pre-war is to say a ridiculous thing. Even in the grades higher up, the person who now has a bonus has nothing like the amount that corresponds to the increase in the cost of living. The person who had £500 without bonus in pre-war days was immensely better off than the man who has £500 plus bonus at the present time. As a matter of fact, these grades have actually been cut; they have been cut by the fact that the bonus is cut substantially on the higher salaries. If you take into question the income tax, which the civil servant cannot escape and which all sorts of other people do frequently manage, to some extent, to escape, sometimes legally, the civil servant who had a salary of £500 pre-war had actually £487 5s. cash to spend. The same civil servant now, with £500 plus bonus, after deduction of income tax, has £641. That means that while the cost of living has gone up about 90 per cent., the salary of that particular individual has gone up 31 per cent. There is nothing really to be said for the proposal that the bonus should come off to any extent further than it has already come off.
If we come to Ministers' salaries, which have been referred to, and compare them with Northern Ireland, we find that the Prime Minister in Northern Ireland has a salary of £3,200; the President here has a salary of £2,500. A Minister here has £1,700; a Minister in Northern Ireland has £2,000, and that is an area that is very much smaller. In South Africa the Prime Minister has £3,500, and other Ministers have £2,500.
Will the Minister give us the salaries paid to Ministers in New Zealand, Denmark and Belgium? Will he make these comparisons?
I have not them before me.
And no intention of getting them.
Mr. O'CONNELL
That is your job.
You can produce them, but, as a matter of fact, you cannot compare this country except with countries organised as we are. For instance, there was no comparison in Deputy O'Mara's mention of the salary of the Secretary of Commerce in America with the position here. In America they have a different system of Government, a system which would certainly not be suitable here. I think it is a well-known thing that no one of the people holding that sort of position in America could at all live on the salary paid here. I know a secretary in America who said his offical salary did not pay the rent of his flat. It might be a good thing to have only the wealthy and the people who are interested in commercial organisations and concerns in Ministerial office; it might be a good thing to fix your salary so as to confine Ministerial offices to those people. I do not think it is a good thing, and I know, even with the salaries we have here, that on two occasions members of this Dáil refused to accept Ministerial offices, because they said it meant so much of a loss to them, or involved such a loss to them by taking them away from their business, that they could not do it. As Deputy Johnson once said very aptly, you have in this talk about Ministers' salaries a manifestation of the slave mind. You have all this sort of jealousy and envy in the country. As far as it goes, it is simply a question of jealousy and envy. I do not think that it merits any other consideration. The suggestion that no economy should be proposed by Ministers without proposing a reduction in their own salaries at the same time, is equally ridiculous. That is only put forward by people who do not want anything to be done. If they were serious and had any thought—I do not accuse Deputy Heffernan of having any thought— they would not put it forward. It has often been suggested that we drove out——
You would not accuse the Minister of being a gentleman anyhow.
You need not. It has been suggested that a large number of civil servants were forced into retirement by the Government and that if that had not been done a great deal of money would have been saved. There have been retirements under the Treaty to the number of 1,502. Those retirements were not due to any action of the Government. We could not prevent the retirements. There was a time when such a debate as this would probably cause considerable thought, because people were afraid that their position would be prejudiced if they did not go, and they went. Some of them, of course, genuinely did not want to serve under an Irish Government because of political prejudice, but others simply went. At any rate, 1,502 went. Discharges numbered 349. Of those, 34 were Resident Magistrates; 13 were members of the Marlborough Street College staff; one was an Under-Secretary in Dublin Castle; two were Dublin Metropolitan Magistrates; nine were Local Government Inspectors and Auditors. As a matter of fact, I had to do with the discharge of most of these when I was Minister for Local Government. There were some of them whose discharge I did not regret; there were others whose discharge I did regret. But it was necessary at the time not to get the local authorities up against the Government. Owing to the part that the Local Government Board had played in the political struggle before the Treaty, it was impossible at that time to retain them. There were two Dublin Metropolitan Commissioners; 276 Petty Sessions Clerks and 12 other officials over the service. That really disposes of the suggestion that the Government has discharged people and wantonly thrown great charges on the State by dealing improperly with officials.
I can deal in the same way with the appointments. Deputy Baxter asked for certain returns which I will give him, but they will take some time to prepare. They will show that there is no more truth in the allegation that we filled the Civil Service with our friends and swelled the staffs, than there is in the suggestion that we swelled the superannuation list by useless and unnecessary discharges. We have as I say, consistently had economy in view. All along the line we have looked to economy. We have done many things. We have had also at the same time to undertake new services. Those new services have been less than the new services demanded of us. If economy is wanted, the Dáil will have to face up to the question of services, and there is no use in them following a "will-o'-the-wisp" and thinking they are going to effect big savings by reduction in staffs or chopping off staffs. Certain economies are being effected; more will be effected, but nothing that is going to do anything towards relieving the parlous conditions of agriculture can come from that.
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.
In that case, I will resume to-morrow.
The Minister for Finance then moves to report progress.
Has not the Minister finished his speech? Has he the right therefore to resume?
The Minister for Finance concluded his speech. I take it, by the way he looked at the clock, on the understanding that a division was going to be taken. The Minister is making a very important statement, and if he desires to continue it I take it the Dáil will allow him. It will not prejudice Deputy Connor Hogan in speaking after him.
I am willing to allow the Minister to continue to-morrow and will give him the precedence.
I understood Deputy Hogan was going to resume the debate to-morrow, having regard to the motion he was moving. I should like to know exactly where we are. This is an important Vote. I presume that the Dáil generally is of opinion that it ought to be disposed of this week and I have to give notice that we will sit later to-morrow night in order to deal with it: and also that we will take it on Friday and possibly come back on one day next week to finish it. I do not want to take Deputies by surprise. I wanted to have a late sitting on Tuesday, having this in view. I understood the debate would finish to-night with the Minister for Finance's speech. That apparently is not the intention. We are prepared to sit it out, but we must get through with the business.
I believe this debate will conclude early to-morrow. I do not think there is any reason for the President to think it will go on until Friday.
Can we have a division now?
Deputy Hogan wishes to speak to-morrow, and in my opinion the indications are that the debate will finish within an hour. This debate is really in Committee and I should like to know if I have the right to reply to speeches made.
This debate is technically in Committee, but the rules are not being observed—that is to say, Deputies are allowed to speak for much more than ten minutes. As a general rule, Deputies in those circumstances only speak once on the same topic, but Deputy Heffernan may certainly speak again as far as I am concerned.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.