Would it be possible to take the Ministerial amendment first?
In Committee on Finance. - Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill, 1933—From the Seanad.
What is the advantage of that?
To make progress. I am prepared to agree to Seanad amendment No. 3 and to move the amendment which appears on the Order Paper, which is designed to meet the principal point made by the Seanad in amendment No. 2. I am not prepared to agree to amendment No. 1 or the consequential amendment, No. 4.
As regards the amendment on the Order Paper, it will first be necessary to move disagreement to the amendment inserted in the Seanad.
I will ask the Committee, therefore, to disagree with amendment 2 and to accept the amendment which appears on the Order Paper.
What is the explanation about not taking the amendments in their order?
Why not take the amendments in the ordinary way?
Yes, if the House desires it. It would be the more orderly procedure.
Amendment 1:—
Section 6, sub-section (1). Subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) deleted.
I move that the Dáil disagrees with the Seanad in this amendment.
In my view the Dáil should accept the Seanad amendment. This amendment exempts Civic Guards from this particular cut. In my opinion they should be so exempted. I am not going to repeat the speech which I made here on the Second Reading as far as it dealt with this particular amendment, nor am I going to deal with the speeches which I made in Committee or again repeat the speeches or the subject matter of the speeches which I made on the Final Stage upon this particular amendment. But there is one matter with which I feel myself constrained to deal and that is owing to the action which has been taken by the Minister for Finance in this House and more especially in another place.
When the Minister for Finance was dealing with this particular amendment or the subject matter of it in this House here, he declared that there had been a firm decision taken by the last Executive Council that the pay of the Guards should be cut. I informed the Minister in this House upon that occasion that he was completely wrong, that no such decision had been come to and that however loosely or carelessly or otherwise the letter from the Department of Finance might have been worded that that did not represent the view of the Executive Council at the time. I should have thought that that statement should have been sufficient for the Minister. I likewise told the Minister for Finance that I had made that matter clear well over a year ago and that again I think should have been sufficient for the Minister for Finance. But those statements of mine were taken by the Minister for Finance as being misstatements, as being untrue statements, and I discovered that the very statement which I had stigmatised in this House, at any rate, as being inaccurate is the very same statement that the Minister for Finance did make elsewhere.
In order that even the Minister for Finance may not make statements of this kind and class again, I will just refer to certain matters which were absolutely public, which were known to everybody in the State and which ought to have been known to the Minister for Finance at the time, and I dare say were. But the Minister for Finance seems to suffer from as much defective a memory as from a fertile imagination. I find reading from a report contained in the Irish Independent of January the 29th, 1932, the following passage:—
"The actual discussion continued for nearly one and a half hours afterwards and Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney, the Minister for Justice, told me (that is, of course, the Independent reporter) when leaving that the whole position from the point of view of the Government's proposals appear to have been very much misunderstood. He hoped, he said, to make a statement on the subject during the week-end.”
This statement that there was a firm decision taken by the Executice Council had been circulated at the time and I took that opportunity of contradicting it. I stated that I hoped to make a statement on the subject during the week-end. I find that at a meeting held by me in Kilmaine, in Mayo, and reported in the Irish Times on February 1st, 1932, I made the following statement:—
"Referring to the proposed 5 per cent. cut in the pay of the Civic Guards, the Minister for Justice stated that Deputy Lemass was now championing the Guards, although he had always maligned them in the Dáil and tried to run down their reputation on every possible occasion. He is objecting, said the Minister (that is myself), to the proposed reduction in their pay of 5 per cent. That was not a definite reduction, because no definite conclusion had been come to by the Executive Council. Before the Executive can arrive at any conclusion, it is necessary to consult with the Representative Body of the Guards. Although that Body has refused to put forward its views, or to make any representations or suggestions, no definite decision regarding the cut in pay has been reached."
That is a definite statement made by me and reported in the Irish Times on February 1st, 1932. That is a definitely clear, unambiguous statement made at the time. Yet in the teeth of that statement which was our attitude then, is our attitude now and always must be our attitude, and must be the attitude of anybody who in any way has regard for the existing law, we have the Minister repeating what is manifestly untrue. No decision can be come to to cut the Guards' pay until the necessary statutory formalities have been gone through, and until the Guards' Representative Body has been consulted. No decision could have been arrived at and no decision was arrived at by the then Executive Council. Any decision which was arrived at could have been nothing more and was nothing more than a decision to put those proposals before the Guards. Those are the statements.
That same letter which the Minister read out had been misunderstood at the time at which it was written and I took that opportunity of explaining that no decision had been taken. So much I found later on in other papers that that is entirely recognised. I find a report in the Irish Times of February 3rd, 1932, to show how the matter was recognised, and how the true position was recognised in February, 1932, the position which the Minister cannot recognise to-day.
The following passage occurs in an interview with General O'Duffy, the then Commissioner of the Gárda: "The Representative Body may, of course, put up alternative proposals or amendments and these will be considered by the Government." That is what the Representative Body is for. Any recommendations that they put forward had to be considered by the Executive Council and, of course, would have been considered by the Executive Council prior to the Executive having any legal justification for making a cut in the Gárda pay. The question of making a 5 per cent. reduction in the pay of the Guards, together with the pay of other persons at the time was proposed as a matter to be placed before the Representative Body. At the time it was recognised that some economy would have to take place in the administration of the Guards unless taxation was going to be increased, because we were not the reckless Executive Council that the present Executive Council are, willing to scatter money right, left and centre, to save 3d. here and 6d. there, and to fling away pound after pound in reckless expenditure for which they can get no return and are getting no return. Whatever defence the Minister may put forward, or whatever suggestions he may make as to why this amendment should not be accepted, in the teeth of these contemporary statements—the only statements made by any member of the Executive Council upon the matter; statements which are uncontradicted at least by any other member of the then Executive Council —I do not suppose that even the Minister for Finance will again repeat what he stated here and what he repeated in the Seanad a short time ago. I said a few moments ago that I was not going to go now into the merits of this amendment very fully because I have placed my views already before the House and because there was nothing that I could add to the arguments that I have already put forward to the House. I do not think there is any particular advantage, even with the present Executive Council, in endeavouring to get them to understand the folly of the course they are adopting. I do not think there is any hope. I do not think that any arguments of mine, be they ever so cogent, let them carry as much conviction as possible to the ordinary unprejudiced minds, could possibly have any effect upon the Executive Council who now obviously have made up their minds. But, for my part, I intend to vote for the retention of this amendment inserted in the Bill by the Seanad.
I do not intend to delay the House in coming into a decision upon the issue raised in the Seanad and upon the amendment suggested by the Seanad, which the Minister says he proposes to oppose. I think Deputy Norton in speaking on the Committee Stage and on the Report Stage of this Bill proved from documentary evidence to the satisfaction of everybody anxious to hear a fair statement of the case that President de Valera in the famous Rathmines speech in 1932 undoubtedly pledged himself at that time that he would not reduce the salaries of public servants who were in receipt of anything between £300 and £400 per year. The Minister for Finance may quibble in any way he likes in regard to this matter, but I think that documents were produced in the House to prove that that statement was intended to apply to all public servants. The members of this Party believe that it is bad Governmental policy to reduce the salaries of public servants or wage-earners, especially when these reductions are applied to individuals in receipt of salaries or wages below the amounts named. It is very difficult to understand the most extraordinary attitude which the Minister now takes up when he has here on the Order Paper an amendment proposing to exclude from the operation of this Bill certain individuals, I suppose a small number of individuals, who are in receipt of anything between £1,000 and £2,000 per year. Of course, we have not heard from the Minister, up to the present, the reasons which induced him to state that he was prepared to accept this amendment and to recommend its acceptance to this House.
The reduction in the pay of the Civic Guards, which is included in this Temporary Economies Bill will, as far as I can ascertain, bring the pay of the Civic Guards to a level which cannot be justified and which will place the Civic Guards in the position of being the lowest paid police force in the English-speaking world. I do not think such a policy can be justified for political reasons. I have read, as far as was possible for me to read, in the Official Debates, the speeches of the individuals supporting the Government in this policy, especially the speeches in this House that I did not hear and the speeches in the other House. The one thing that strikes anybody who followed the debates on this Bill very closely, is that while the Minister claimed that the proposals contained in this Bill were only of a temporary nature, most, if not all, the speeches made by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, both in the Seanad and in the Dáil, gave anybody who read them the clear impression that it was meant to be a permanent measure.
I assume that the Minister will admit that Senator Comyn can rightly claim to be regarded as the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in the Seanad. If anybody wants to read a speech from any supporter of this measure which will clearly convince him that the measure was intended to be a permanent one instead of a temporary one, the speech made by Senator Comyn in the Seanad is the best one he can pick out. The Senator stated that the Government were being pressed by the farmers, who are undoubtedly in a very precarious position, to bring in a measure of this kind and he made no apology whatever for suggesting to the Seanad that this was intended to be, as far as he was concerned, at any rate, a permanent measure. The amendment, which is on the Order Paper, and which proposes to exclude from the operations of this Bill certain privileged people——
The House is considering amendment No. 1.
I think it has a bearing on the argument that I am endeavouring to make. That amendment proposes to exclude from the operation of the Bill certain privileged people in receipt of fairly high salaries and suggests that they should be excluded from it because they were invited by this Government or a previous Government to relinquish a position in some other country and to come over here and take certain risks. I do not think anybody who came over here in 1922 or subsequently took any risks when he came here. As far as my information goes, and I hope the Minister will contradict me if I am wrong, anybody who came here on the invitation of the Government of the Saorstát since 1922 came over here with considerable advantages, especially from the point of view of the additional salary which he received, and from the point of view of security of employment compared with the prospects which he had in the service of the Government from which he came. I suppose it is useless to use any kind of argument in favour of the acceptance of the Seanad amendment, because I presume the absent members of the Fianna Fáil Party will, when the division bell rings, come in and register their votes in the usual penny-in-the-slot-machine way in favour of a measure a discussion on which they have hardly ever listened to in this House.
We were pledged to economy.
While the Deputy made very plausible promises when seeking election, he showed himself a sufficiently good politician not to suggest, when speaking on public platforms, that he would vote for a measure of this kind.
We went out for economy.
The Deputy has shown great economy of speech-making so far as this House is concerned, but he was one of the most eloquent speakers on public platforms that I heard during the general election. Now he is strangely silent when a measure of this kind comes before the House. I have been waiting and hoping that he would have the courage to make a speech here some day instead of making unintelligent interruptions on matters of this kind. I venture to remind him that when he was speaking in Leix and Offaly, he did not tell the teachers who accompanied him that he was going to cut their salaries when his Government came into office, and that that was part of the compensation they would get for helping to secure him to be returned as a Deputy.
There is nothing about the deductions in teachers' salaries in this amendment.
I assume that we are entitled to discuss these things.
The Deputy's assumption is quite wrong.
The members of our Party for good reasons already given here intend to support the acceptance of this amendment. I do not think it is any use prolonging the discussion, because no matter what arguments are put forward, or what speeches may be quoted against the Minister on this matter, he is apparently not prepared to listen to reason. He realises, as his predecessor did, that he has a majority at his disposal ready to walk into the lobby and vote against this amendment.
Before the Minister speaks, as I gather he is going to do so now, I want to inquire will it be open to other Deputies to speak afterwards. I would prefer to reserve my remarks until after I heard what the Minister has said.
The House is in Committee.
I was rather anxious to reserve my remarks until Deputy-Fitzgerald-Kenney had returned to the House because what I have to say has a particular relation to some statements which he made in the course of this debate. I see the Deputy has come back, and is now in his place, I am very glad of it because I would like to have from him a statement as to what he really meant by what he said on another occasion. In the debates in this House originally on this matter, and in those that have since taken place in the Seanad, I made a statement which I repeat again that our predecessors, the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, when in office, had decided to reduce the pay of the Gárda Síochána——
I definitely say that statement is not accurate.
I base that statement upon official documents.
Not upon your own speeches.
Upon official documents. The first of these is a letter from the Department of Finance to the Department of Justice dated 5th January in which this sentence occurs: "As a contribution towards the solution of the problem confronting the Exchequer the Government have decided that an all-round reduction of about 5 per cent. should be made in the remuneration of the Gárda Síochána." I stress the words "the Government have decided."
Would the Minister allow me to interrupt him for one moment? This point has been discussed already at prodigous length. I suggest to the Minister that for argumentative purposes it makes not the slightest difference whether the Government decided to reduce the pay of the Gárda Síochána or whether they wanted to reduce the pay. It is perfectly plain that they wanted to do it and it is pure waste of time to argue the matter further.
I agree with the remarks of Deputy MacDermot but I regret he was not here to give expression to them when Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was dealing with this matter. This letter of 5th January was based, as the Deputy knows well, upon an official minute communicating the decision of the Cabinet to the Department of Finance. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has said that there was a very carelessly worded letter from the Department of Finance but that nevertheless the Government had not decided to cut the pay of the Gárda Síochána. If the letter from the Department of Finance was carelessly worded, what description or epithet would the Deputy apply to a letter from his own Department issued by himself to the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána dated 7th January, 1932 to the following effect: "I am directed by the Minister for Justice to transmit for your information the attached copy of a minute received from the Department of Finance intimating that the Government had decided that a reduction of 5 per cent. should be made in the remuneration of the Gárda Síochána." Are we to assume that that letter issued under Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney's direction was carelessly worded?
Finish the letter.
I ask is that letter carelessly worded? There, once more, we have a repetition of the statement that the Government had decided that the remuneration of the Gárda Síochána should be cut. That was in the first week of January.
With great respect, the Minister has read a portion of the letter and then stopped. Is he not, under the rules of the House, compelled to read the whole of the letter?
I have read an extract from the debates in the Seanad.
I call for the whole letter to be read.
It will be found in the Parliamentary records.
I want the letter read now.
If the Minister quotes from the report of the debates in another House I cannot compel him to give more than occurred in the debate. If the Minister quotes from an official document or letter he should quote in full, since an extract might convey a partial interpretation.
I am quoting from Volume 18 of the Parliamentary Debates of the Seanad, Column 633.
I do not care what the Minister said in the Seanad. If the Minister quotes a letter here, he must give the whole letter when called on to do so.
Does the Deputy deny that the letter was written in which these terms occurred?
The Minister has read only portion of the letter.
He has read enough to prove that the Fianna Fáil Government is as bad as the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was.
It is of little difference to me what Deputy Davin says.
Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney has again requested that the letter be read in full. The Minister quoted from the debates of the Seanad, and I have no power to compel him to go outside those debates.
With great respect, I submit he read a garbled extract from the letter. He read portion of the letter without reading the latter portion of the letter.
Not a garbled extract.
I am not going to swop words with Deputy MacDermot. The Minister read portion of a letter which gave a false impression of the contents of the whole letter.
Did you not state definitely that you were going to cut the Civic Guards?
And the Government are doing it.
Those letters were written on 5th and 7th January. They did create a certain amount of anxiety in the ranks of the Gárda Síochána. The decision had apparently been conveyed unofficially to members of the Gárda Síochána. In consequence, a certain agitation arose in the ranks of the Gárda Síochána, and throughout the country. Possibly the Government reconsidered its attitude. We do not know. We only know that towards the end of January the then Minister for Justice made a statement to a newspaper reporter. The point would immediately arise as to which of these communications issued by the Minister for Justice, the initial letter written by his Department under his direction on 7th January to the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, or this statement made by the Minister, I think late at night, to a newspaper reporter, was the more authoritative. Which of them might be taken as conveying more correctly the actual position in the matter? The Minister has told this House that when his Department wrote that the Government had decided to cut the pay of the Gárda Síochána it was an incorrect statement; that in fact they had not come to such a decision; that the letter did not mean what it said. What position does that put us in when we have to consider the statement issued on 29th January, in which the Minister informed a newspaper reporter that the Government had decided not to cut the pay of the Gárda Síochána? Might he not, when he made that statement, have meant what he said just as little as he did when he directed the responsible head of his Department to write the letter to the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána on 7th January, stating that his Government had decided to cut the pay of the Gárda Síochána? The one thing which emerges from the speech made here to-day by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney is that the Deputy does not know when he means what he says, and that, therefore, any statement he may make as to what actually did happen, on 5th or 7th January, 1932, has to be discounted in the light of his own admissions that his letters cannot bear the interpretation which any plain man, understanding plain English, would put upon them. I leave it at that. I do not think the point is worth pursuing further.
What is the difference between the two of you?
One made the proposal, and the other carried it out.
The difference between the two of us is that since this Government came into office there has been a considerable extension of the social services in this country.
At what cost?
At considerable cost.
It is worth every halfpenny of it.
In order to provide those social services there has been a considerable increase in taxation in this country. Those services must be maintained. Those social services particularly must be maintained.
Especially during an economic war!
Especially during an economic war. Certainly. Does Deputy MacDermot contend that when times are difficult the poor should be made to suffer most?
No.
Very well then. What was the purpose of the Deputy's interjection?
The purpose of my interjection was to show that while you may take credit for extending social services, which I admit was necessary in the circumstances of the time, it must not be forgotten that your policy was largely responsible for the need of that extension.
Before this so-called economic war began——
He must not have any cattle for sale.
I do not see why it should be described as a war. After all, tariff disputes and financial disputes have arisen between other countries.
The Chair does not see why it should be described at all.
Except for this point, sir, that the extension of the social services in this country was determined upon and given effect to before the dispute with Great Britain in regard to the land annuities occurred at all.
Why not make the super-tax payer pay for it?
I am not so sure that it is desirable that he should. In fact, I may say that if the Dáil decided to accept this amendment, and the Bill had to be withdrawn, I am not so sure that we would be able—no matter how desirous we might be to do so—to restrict the increased taxation to that very small and select class in this country who are referred to as super-tax payers.
To the super-tax payers in the Seanad?
How many are there in the Seanad?
I am merely pointing out to the House, since the matter has been raised at this stage, what the effects of rejecting this amendment would be. It must mean either that we cut the social services or increase taxation. I am pointing out to the Deputy that an investigation of the position has gone far to convince me that if we have to increase taxation the burden would be distributed much wider and much further than I at one time contemplated. I did at one time think it might be confined to those who were regarded as the wealthier class of the community, but I am not certain that I should be able to confine it to them. If we have to withdraw this Bill because the Dáil accepts the Seanad amendment the consequences are not going to be confined to any small group or section in this country. The consequent taxation will have to be widely distributed. The workers will have to pay just as heavily as the employers or the wealthier people in this country, and the farmers would have to pay too.
Would it apply to the 24/- a week men?
It would not apply to the farmers, for they have nothing to pay. The last "bob" has been taken from them by the Government, instead of relieving them to the extent of £2,000,000.
Deputy Belton in this House parades either his poverty or his wealth.
There is not much wealth left after you have done with it.
Not if the Deputy looks for mandamus orders frequently.
County Dublin will give you your mandamus order the next time you go before it. Do not forget that.
Does the Deputy forget that County Dublin rejected him when it elected me?
Will the Minister resign and I will contest it with him?
In June, 1927, the Deputy, in that vain-glorious mood which is his habitual one in this House, boasted that he carried me in on his back.
Sure.
In September, 1927, three months afterwards, he went out and I remained.
Because you went out and paid the agents to whom you owed money and paid them in advance again. You paid your way in. The Minister, after saying he would jump into the Liffey before he came into the Dáil, came in a fortnight after. See the Independent of the 26th July, 1927. Deputy MacEntee would cut off his right arm before he would take that terrible oath, but he took it and he would take a million of them to come in and smile.
Is it fair that Deputy Belton should disclose Party secrets?
There is nothing secret about that.
I do not see that Deputy Belton ever was——
The Chair has had enough of political history on this amendment from both sides of the House.
I am sorry. I was merely pointing out the consequences—
The Minister will not resign? I will hand in my resignation to the Ceann Comhairle now if he does.
It might be worth it.
We shall miss the Deputy.
I will be back again but he will not.
Order!
If I might go back, I was pointing out to the House the consequences of this amendment. I should like to stress once more that the Government has no alternative between asking the Dáil to reject this amendment, which has been inserted by the Seanad, and increasing the burden of taxation on the people. We have been told that times are hard and that trade is bad. We have listened to accounts of the difficulties of the farmers. I ask any person who purports to speak for the farmers, and who represents them in this House, seriously to consider whether, in all the circumstances, and bearing in mind the conditions on which the Gárda Síochána scales of pay were laid down in the first instance, bearing in mind the decision taken in January, 1932, to reduce by 5 per cent. the pay of the Gárda Síochána, and bearing in mind the present necessities of the Exchequer, he would be justified in all these circumstances in accepting this amendment from the Seanad, and, as I have said already, increasing the burden of taxation on the people.
I might have been a little bit astonished if anybody else in the Fianna Fáil Party had made the speech which the Minister has just made but, frankly, the Minister for Finance stands so low in the reputation of almost all persons in the House that I fancy nobody can be surprised at anything which he says at present. I think we must all have got over the possibility of being filled with contempt by the Minister's attitude He most unquestionably on this particular occasion shows he does not know the meaning of words, because we get a most astonishing thing. The Minister for Finance gets up, the spendthrift Minister, the wasteful Minister, the man who has spent millions of public money and got no return for it, and talks of a policy of economy, a Fianna Fáil policy of economy. Was anything more absurd ever mentioned than a Fianna Fáil policy of economy? Taxes put up by the million, and that is economy! Money flung right, left and centre without any return for it, and that is economy! The Minister may apply any other epithet under Heaven to himself and the Fianna Fáil Party, but to mention Fianna Fáil and economy in the same breath is the act of an absolute lunatic for the time being at any rate.
Might I ask if we are discussing Fianna Fáil policy or discussing this particular amendment?
The Chair wants to hear the Deputy's argument. He has not even rounded off a paragraph yet.
I say that for the Minister to have called this Bill or anything else the Fianna Fáil Party put forward, an example of a policy of economy is the most ludicrous thing possible. I say that nobody responsible for his words, no responsible individual, nobody who knows the use of language, could use the words "policy of economy" in connection with the Fianna Fáil Party. There is an obvious way by which this £250,000 or whatever it may be, and a good deal more, could be saved. How much is going in bounties that would never have to be paid if it were not for the idiotic policy that has been adopted? To talk about a policy of economy with reference to this Bill or anything else certainly shows that the Minister has not the slightest knowledge of the plain meaning of words.
To get back to the letter. The Minister only read a certain portion because the Minister well knew that the latter portion of that letter would make its meaning perfectly clear. I never saw the letter but the Minister suggests of course to this House that every letter from a Department which begins: "I am directed by the Minister for so-and-so to state" has been scrutinised and its wording directed by the Minister. That is what he suggests to the House but the Minister knows perfectly well that probably not one single letter leaves a Government Department which does not begin: "I am directed by the Minister". To say that because the words "I am directed by the Minister" are at the beginning of a letter, the Minister has directed the wording of that letter, is a statement which the Minister himself knows to be inaccurate. The Minister knows that letters leave the Department of Finance for instance, in which it is said: "I am directed by the Minister" and which the Minister has never seen. He knows that but he conveyed the opposite impression to the House. That is what I would expect from him, but what I would expect from no other Deputy.
It is a very important letter.
The letter states: "I am directed by the Minister to forward a copy of a minute," and a copy of the minute and nothing else but a copy of the minute is enclosed. There is no fresh wording. It is not an important letter because it is the ordinary form of sending on a document to the Commissioner of the Guards requesting the Commissioner of the Guards to call together the Representative Body in order that representations from the Representative Body may be collected. I am perfectly certain that is the form which the letter took, though I personally did not scrutinise the letter. It was the mere formal sending on of a document and nothing more. There was no fresh wording. It is simply a transaction of forwarding a minute, which however unfortunately worded, emanated from the Department of Finance. I am perfectly certain that it contained nothing further than a request that the Representative Body were to be called together to consider the matter, and it is as clear as daylight that no decision could have been come to. The Minister of course is endeavouring to frighten the House by threats but he has given no reason why this particular amendment should not be accepted or why that should necessitate the dropping of the rest of the Bill. Personally, I do not care whether the rest of the Bill is or is not dropped. What I do care is that this particular amendment should be kept in the Bill.
My Party voted against this amendment or against an identical amendment when it was put forward in this House. We had an amendment of our own down which was confined to the non-commissioned ranks of the Civic Guards but we considered that this amendment went unnecessarily far. On the present occasion, I do not propose to vote against this amendment. On the other hand, I do not propose to vote for it for reasons which I will give. I believe that the decision to cut down the pay of the Civic Guards is very unfortunate and, particularly, that of the rank and file. I do not think it is at all satisfactory that our police force should be worse paid than the neighbouring police force across the Border. Moreover, some of the arguments which might reconcile us to cuts in other directions do not apply in this direction. For example, one of the things that influenced me very strongly was that it was desirable that all classes of electors should feel the results of the present economic conditions and that, thereby, there would be spread throughout the community an impatience with the insane economic policy of the Government. That, however, does not apply to the Civic Guards, because they are not electors. They are outside the community in that respect and have no voice in the formation of Government policy.
I do not feel disposed to vote for this amendment. It would be very easy to vote for it because, owing to the absence of members on holiday occasions, there is no danger of the Government being defeated. They have a comfortable majority, and one could vote easily for the amendment without any danger of upsetting the Bill.
A Deputy
Chance it!
There might be in such circumstances a temptation to vote for it, so that one could have the honour and glory of saying that one was standing by the Civic Guards. But the amendment goes further than we thought it wise to go. In the second place, I am not prepared to cast a vote that might be interpreted as indicating that, in any circumstances, we would be willing to see this Bill dropped. We would not. We are as emphatically in favour of this Bill to-day as we were when it was first introduced. Deputy Davin has suggested that these cuts are going to be permanent. I do not know whether they are going to be permanent or not, or whether this cut in the pay of the Civic Guards is going to be permanent or not; but I do very much hope that, whether this cut or any other cut is going to be permanent, the policy, at any rate, will be permanent. I hope that the policy of economy will be permanent and that, while these cuts may be re-adjusted, economies will be made, and on an increased scale, next year. I am just as satisfied as ever I was that our present scale of expenditure is absolutely ruinous. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney said that it is ludicrous for this Government to do anything in the nature of economy: that it is contrary to the whole trend of their policy. No doubt it is contrary to the trend of their policy. They have been tremendously extravagant, but I do not see that that is a logical reason for rejecting any little bit of economy they do offer to us. They may be the prodigal son, but that does not say that we should not kill the fatted calf for them on any occasions they deserve it. I am afraid that this Bill only merits a very lean calf.
There is another point that carries a great deal of weight with me, and that is that I, frankly, resent any action by the Seanad which tends to reverse economies decided upon by this House. Constitutionally, the situation is that they are entitled to do it, but I do not think it is right or proper or sound that they should do it. The idea of the Constitution is that the Seanad are to be excluded from matters of finance and, in point of fact, they cannot stir a finger to prevent extravagance; but, when it comes to economies, the fantastic situation is that they are able to intervene and prevent us from economising. The mere fact that this amendment comes from the Seanad, and that it is interfering with the decision of this House to economise in a certain way, is enough to stop me from voting for it, even though I cannot see my way to vote against it.
I am a little bit puzzled by the attitude of Deputy MacDermot.
A Deputy
Who is not?
But I am far more puzzled by the attitude of the Minister for Finance. Perhaps I am incorrect in using the word "puzzled," in this regard, because we are getting accustomed to the acrobatic feats of the Minister for Finance. When he was introducing this Bill in the Seanad his whole attitude was to shake his fist in the face of the Seanad and to indulge in wordy phrases as to the alternative, which was either additional taxation or to place the income he expected to derive from this economy on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. There he stood, shaking his fist, and left us guessing as to whose shoulders in this country are best able to bear increased taxation. I would suggest to him that the shoulders in this country best able to bear increased taxation are the shoulders of those who are bearing none at the present moment. It is easy enough for Ministers, with their four-figure salaries, their exemption from cuts and their exemption from income tax, to sneer at those who complain of the weight of taxation and at those who complain of the drastic nature of the cuts. Yet, we have a policy in this country preached by those who put a frame around the word "economy" that taxation must be increased year after year, that income must be reduced year after year; but taxation will not be borne nor the income reduced by those who put a frame around the word "economy." I admit that the Ministers are doing their job at a lower rate than their predecessors, but I suggest that you will always get third-rate men to work at third-rate figures, and I do not think it is sound national economy to apply a third-rate figure to third-rate men.
When the Minister came in here to defend his policy, what was his attitude? It was entirely different to his attitude in the Seanad. It was the same old game—the cowardly game—of sheltering behind the back of another; the old gag that this was the Cumann na nGaedheal policy in 1931. Why do they not stand for it as a Fianna Fáil policy? Why do you want Cumann na nGaedheal to be your stalking-horse and to be blazing the trail for you to walk in ease? Why does not this Government stand—if only for this once—on their own legs and say that it is their own policy? We had many things to do—many hard things to do— but we never sheltered behind the back of an Opposition or of anybody else. If we had hard things to do, we did them, and we did not shelter behind anyone else's back. The Government should stand over their own policy and say it is their own policy. People will respect the men who have two legs of their own and who stand on them, but for the wobblers with no legs or feet of their own on which to stand, and who try to put the blame for their policy on the economic war—for which they blame outsiders—on the one hand, and a previous Government on the other hand, there can be nothing but contempt. There can be nothing but contempt for such a Government and for that type of policy being advocated by such a Minister. And all those reductions in the pay of an Irish police force, an under-paid and over-worked police force as it is, are introduced in the sacred name of economy. What does economy mean in business, in the domestic household or in any sphere or walk of life? To everyone of us, whether we sit on this or that side of the House, economy means spending less. It never meant spending more. Here we have this particular Bill introduced, and this particular amendment objected to in the name of economy by a Government that cannot say "no" to certain elements in the country, by a Government that is on the run before certain elements in the country and by a jelly fish Government that cannot spell economy. You have done injustices to others, and what is before the Dáil this evening is whether we are to continue doing those injustices so that a weak, spendthrift Government can have more money to spend at the demand of those who are the masters of the Government.
A Government that cannot say "no". Has Deputy O'Higgins ever known of another Government that could not say "no?" Has Deputy O'Higgins ever known of a person who was a member of this Dáil and a medical officer of health for the County Meath, a member of the army reserve who retired with a gratuity of some thousands of pounds and a pension of, I think, of £250 a year with an added salary of £360 a year, and then took a subvention of £500 from an outside source, and of another Government that could not say "no?"
Indulging in personalities contributes nothing helpful to debate.
Then you ought to have stopped Deputy O'Higgins.
That is a matter of which the Chair is the judge.
On a point of order. Is the Minister for Finance entitled to speak to the Chair in the fashion in which he has spoken to it, and having regard to the dignity of the House is he in order when he gets up and says that you should have done so-and-so?
The Minister for Finance is in a very interesting mood to-day, but there is one thing that he cannot take out of his archives, and it is proof that I have got a pension although I have earned it for 20 years. He tries to excuse the cut in the salaries of the Guards because he brings in to this Chamber documents alleged to have been written by his predecessor. I doubt if it is good taste to bring the confidential correspondence of a Department into this House and read from it. If there is not some point at which that will be stopped, the time will arrive when there will not be one confidential document in this country, no matter how serious that document may be for individuals concerned. Ministers write confidential documents of a character that we can imagine. They leave them there when they go out of office, perhaps to be taken up and brought in here by an opponent to be read for this House, and in that way scattered over the country by the Press, with the result that an ex-Minister's life might be in danger when he walked abroad. I think, a Chinn Comhairle, there should be some limit to the introduction of confidential correspondence which either the Ministers of to-day or of yesterday carried out in good faith. The Minister has now been in office for a year and a half, and must have some idea with regard to the practice of writing letters in Government Departments. He must know that the Minister who is the head of a Department signs very few letters, though every letter that goes out from the Department, and every letter received, is acknowledged in the name of the head of the Department. There is no use in labouring that because every messenger in the hall knows it, and the Minister for Finance ought to know it and not be trying to make a debating point of it here.
The Minister persists in having the salaries of the Civic Guards cut. His only excuse is that his predecessors in office did the same. Of course, that is not really his excuse, but he uses it in the vain hope that it will not do him or his Party much political harm. That is a political gesture, but even if all that were true, there is this aspect of it not true: that the party or parties in Opposition did not go to the country at that particular time and say that if returned to power they would not cut the salaries of the Civic Guards, and then when returned to power start to cut them, and justify the cuts because their predecessors in office proposed to cut. The Party that formed the Government a couple of years ago did not promise the country that they would not cut the salaries of the Civic Guards. The Party in power now did promise the country that they would not cut these salaries if returned to power, and now when they are proceeding to cut them they say that what their predecessors in office did is a good enough justification for what they are proposing to do.
Deputy O'Higgins took the right course when he said that a Government should be courageous enough to stand on its own two legs, and to do a thing or not to do it because, in their judgment it was a good thing to do or not to do so, as the case might be. The Minister for Finance looked over towards the Labour Party and said that since the Government came into office social services have been extended. He threatened the Labour Party that if the Government were to accept the proposal to exempt the Civic Guards from this Bill then social services would have to be curtailed or new taxation imposed. Will the Minister try to justify that? Will the Minister deny that he took as his theme on the hustings in his constituency, that while the universal depression was being borne by the Irish people, the cost of the Free State government from 1922 to 1926 averaged £30,000,000, although the cost of British government for all Ireland, during the war years, 1914 to 1918, was only £19,800,000? In leaded type in one document it was stated: "Fianna Fáil will end the reckless waste and extravagance of the Free State Government, and the economic depression which is the fruit of it." I do not know if I could call it an honour or a privilege to have stood on the same platform as the Minister, and to hear him deliver a speech with that as the theme, but I have never seen the Minister become so excited as or more eloquent than when he was slating the Free State Government for reckless extravagance, and comparing it with the record of the British Government in 1914-1918, when the country was being run for less than £20,000,000. The Minister is now in harness. I do not know if it was the Minister or some of his Party who, on one occassion, gave this quotation from the Scripture: "By their acts I shall judge them, not by their promises."
He is going to curtail social services, but he did not enumerate what services. He was wise not to do so, because he would find that it was not the Central Government was providing social services, but local councils. Undoubtedly, that was the reason the Minister and his Party went back on their promises regarding de-rating. Since he came into office the Minister got a number of windfalls that were not in existence when he was denouncing the extravagance of the previous Government. The Minister had taxes imposed in 1931 that would produce about £1,200,000. I refer to taxes to produce money for the relief of agricultural rates.
The House is discussing an amendment which has been sent down from the Seanad. The House is in Committee on such a discussion, and nothing but the amendment and its bearing on the Bill may be discussed. It is certainly very wide of this discussion to speak of the extravagance of the Government several years ago, of promises made at the election in 1927, taxes imposed in 1931, or windfalls.
In dealing with this matter, the Minister said that if the Government cannot get the money in the way suggested, by cutting the salaries of certain classes of public servants, it will have to be found some other way. I am afraid I had not developed the point I wished to make sufficiently, that since the Minister came into office there has been an added revenue, compared with what his predecessor had. In that way I am referring to the taxes imposed in 1931; taxes which would produce £1,200,000, but which were ear-marked only to the extent of £750,000, giving the Minister £450,000 or £500,000 when operating for the full year, as they operated last year. These taxes are still operating, and the Minister has taken from the produce of them £500,000 and diverted it from its original destination, into the Exchequer. The Minister should explain to the House what added service he has given for that £500,000.
The Minister will not be allowed to explain to the House on this amendment what has become of that money. The Deputy has been speaking for 10½ minutes and he has not yet referred to the matter before the House.
I bow to the ruling of the Chair. I understand that the matter before the House is an amendment that the Civic Guards should be exempt from cuts in salaries. The case made by the Minister is that if he does not get the money from that source he will have to curtail social services. The point I was endeavouring to make was that if there are increased social services, the Minister has increased revenue to meet them. He has an increased revenue, as compared to what his predecessor had, which will more than meet any social services that are a direct charge on the Exchequer. The rest will go into the Exchequer in the form of the land tax of 50 per cent. of the old annuities that is being imposed in legislation now passing through the Oireachtas. That will more than meet the deficiency that would be caused by not passing this Bill in its original form. I cannot see where the Minister has made a case for adhering to the Bill as it originally stood.
As Deputy O'Higgins put it, a reduction in salaries means less money in circulation. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He tried to justify an uneconomic proposition a few days ago, because it would put a lot of money into circulation. He is now going to take money out of circulation, and is going to cut the salaries of a large body of public servants, to whose efficiency and loyalty tribute has been paid by the present Government on many occasions. The country has been assured that in their hands adequate protection will be provided, and that there is no need for any "blue-shirts." While the Minister can place such reliance on the Civic Guards, who are not overpaid, he proposes to adhere to the Bill as it originally stood and to cut their salaries. I am not going to suggest that that will interfere with their loyalty or their allegiance, yet the tendency must be not to make them more loyal. This proposal will reduce the standard of living, and the standard of wages. It is natural to expect that the Labour Party is supporting the amendment. Of course, the Labour Party must be prepared for a skelp of the rod with which to beat themselves. We did not vote for war, and did not vote for supplies. The Labour Party voted for war.
We never voted for war.
It seems to me that the case for this amendment has yet to be stated. There have been several speeches, but there has been no attempt to show where the Minister could otherwise get this money.
Out of the £2,000,000.
There has been no attempt to show on what Estimate he could save the amount involved in this amendment. So far as I remember, when the Estimates were going through there was no proposal to reduce the amounts proposed in relation to the different Departments. Now such responsible Deputies as Deputy MacDermot and Deputy O'Higgins talk about the Government's extravagance. Deputy O'Higgins thinks it is a joke to call this Bill an Economies Bill or for the Government to attempt to do anything in the name of economy. That is not sufficient unless the same Deputies or some other Deputies attempt to show where the extravagance lies. I have listened with average carefulness and attention to the debates on the Estimates, and I have not heard one proposal as to where the money could otherwise be saved. In face of that, what is one to do who wants to make up his mind as to the rights and wrongs of this amendment? He gets no help from the Opposition except the statement that the Government is extravagant.
No one likes to vote for the reduction of anyone's salary or wages. It is a very unpleasant duty, particularly when the amount in question is not much more than what would be required for the ordinary necessities of life. No one voted light-heartedly for any clause of the Economies Bill, and we will not vote light-heartedly against this amendment, but until the Opposition are able to show how the Government can otherwise get the money—get it in a fairer manner than is proposed in the Bill—then I think we will have to agree that the Bill is necessary.
Why not raid the Sweepstakes?
Deputy Moore wants to know where the money is to come from. That is the Government's job. They promised to reduce taxation by £2,000,000. They now ask the Opposition to show where the money is to be found. That is only playing with the position.
The Deputy's colleagues have said that there is extravagance. I have not heard one instance of extravagance.
The economic war.
Extravagance? Why, you are pouring money up and down the country. You do not seem to realise that, but people who have been in touch with local authorities for the last 30 years know very well what the situation is. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and others, before the election, said they would not reduce the Guards' allowances but they would reduce the number of the Guards. Now they ask the House to support them in reducing the Guards' salaries. I am not prepared to reduce them. I represent the farmers just as much as Deputy MacDermot does and I am going to vote against the cuts.
May I suggest to Deputy Moore that all through the year we have been dealing with the Government's extravagance? This is not the place to do it. We know from the ruling of the Chair that it would not be in order to deal with the matter here. We have voted against Government legislation that meant the expenditure of more money; we challenged divisions on that matter during the year. The onus is altogether on the Government to justify this method of raising money. They have not attempted in other cases to do so. This is one of the few occasions on which they made a slight attempt. When the Bill was before the House some time ago the Minister for Agriculture, if my memory serves me correctly, did suggest that on the merits there was a case here. He singled the Guards out for special dishonourable mention, if I may use that phrase. He suggested there was justification for a cut here on the merits. Nowhere else did he try to justify a cut on the merits. Although he did single them out he was never able to prove that there was a case for cutting. The onus rests on the Government, because they are taking the step.
The charge of extravagance has been made and there has been no attempt to prove it.
On every appropriate occasion we have called attention to the extravagance of the Government. Anybody need only examine the situation to see that saving money is not the purpose of this Bill. The idea that the whole Bill must fall if one exception is made shows that saving money is not the purpose. It is not on account of the comparatively paltry sum involved in connection with this particular cut—that is not the reason this amendment is being rejected by the Government. It is not a question of money, because that in itself is not sufficient to upset the Budget. It is because it is a portion of a general policy to cut down salaries and wages. That is why this amendment is being rejected. I wonder do Deputy Moore and other Deputies believe that this measure will run only for one year, that the cut in the pay of the Guards will operate only for one year? The Guards year after year since their inception have had new duties thrown upon them. Their numbers have been reduced, not increased, and new duties have been thrown upon them by various Government measures. Instead of increasing their pay in consequence of the new duties they have to perform, it is now proposed to diminish their pay.
It is idle for Deputy Davin to call attention to the promises of the Government. We have had confessions practically from the Front Bench that these promises are not to be taken seriously—I mean so far as giving effect to them is concerned; that they were merely there for the purpose which they served—of taking in the people. Therefore, it is late in the day now to throw in the teeth of the Government their violation of their promises. If the Government did not intend to pay any attention to their promises of not reducing the salaries of people under a certain scale, they could do so. But they are proposing to reduce those salaries. The onus is on the Government to justify this particular measure they are taking. It is they who are taking these steps. The House is trying to prevent them from taking it. Anybody who has followed the financial measures of the Ministers could not agree to allow them to evade their promises.
I must congratulate the Minster for Finance on having brought about the conversion of Deputy MacDermot. When the Minister made the threat that if the Bill were defeated, or if the amendments from the Seanad were carried, the people whom Deputy MacDermot represents in the country would have to bear additional taxes, we had the spectacle of Deputy MacDermot giving a promise and an assurance to the Minister that he would abstain from voting. In the course of his speech Deputy MacDermot was in sympathy with the Gárda but he is blowing hot and cold. He got cold feet when the Minister used the threat of further taxes on the people whom the Deputy represents. The Government want to know how, if this cut is not enforced, the money is to be raised. They want to know in what way, or by what means, the Government are to raise the £25,000 that would be represented by this cut in the Guards' pay. Is it not a fact that the Representative Body of the Gárda have put up a suggestion to the Minister by which this money could be saved. One was by reducing the bi-monthly inspections. In that one way alone a sum of £10,000 would be saved. In a number of other ways savings of more than £15,000 would be effected. Another threat by the Government was that if this money were not saved social services would be interfered with. The first threat to the Labour Party was that if they were to withdraw this Bill the social services would have to be reduced. What social services can be reduced? The labourers at present are paying more than their cost of the economic war. The burden will have to be placed upon the larger number of the people. There is no section of the community at the present time paying more for the economic war than the rural worker. I am aware of where men, who, previous to the fight with England, were getting £78 a year, have had to sacrifice 5/- a week or £13 a year of that money to their employers. The labourers are told "that is what you get by voting for the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil". But these men are prepared to make even further sacrifices. The people whom Deputy MacDermot represents——
He represents no one.
The farming community have received various benefits from the present Government. They have got half their land annuities, and in addition they have got the agricultural grant. While these benefits have been extended to the agricultural community, the workers in the rural areas have received no benefits whatever from the Government. These people are making the sacrifices. For every tax that is put on, the agricultural workers have to pay in the shape of reduced wages. I hold that the Minister can find ways and means without interfering with the pay of the Guards. In this matter I stand in a unique position in this House. I am the one man here who was batoned by the R.I.C. and I was also batoned by the Guards. I found no difference between the baton of the R.I.C. and the baton of the Guards. The Guards were influenced to baton by their officers and by certain employers. That is why I wish now to see the Guards independent, and to see them in such a way that they will not worry about employers or T.D.'s, but that they will carry out their duties independently. If the Minister were to accept this amendment from the Seanad he would do a good day's work for the country. Deputy MacDermot is out against the Seanad. When the Fianna Fáil Government brings in a Bill dealing with the Seanad, will Deputy MacDermot take the same stand he has now taken and support the Fianna Fáil Government against the Seanad? What he probably will do is that he will take similar action to what he has taken now. He will go out and tell the people outside: "I made a speech against the Government's Bill, but I am not going to vote on either side."
The Minister knows very well the means by which he can find the money without interfering with the salaries of the Guards. I have no ill will against the Guards. They are a fine body of Irishmen and we are proud of them. That is why I have got up to appeal to the Minister to change his attitude on this Bill, even now at the eleventh hour. I would ask him to reconsider the matter, not because the Seanad has put forward this amendment, but to show that he has the good sense and that the Government had the good grace to recognise that the Guards are a highly efficient body of men, and that their pay should not be interfered with. In the absence of the Centre Party from the Division Lobby, the Minister knows he has a majority in favour of the cut in the cost of the Guards. That is one of the reasons why I ask him to accept the Seanad amendment and in this way show his feeling towards a good body of Irishmen and not to reduce a body that are already underpaid.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 54; Níl, 42.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Davitt, Robert Emmet.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Everett, James.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and Corish.
Question declared carried.
I move:—That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment 2:—
Section 7, sub-section (2). A new sub-section inserted before the sub-section as follows:—
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction shall be made from the salary of any person in the Civil Service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann—
(a) who was appointed with a special agreement as to the amount of his remuneration and who satisfies the Minister that, for the purpose of accepting such appointment, he gave up any profession or occupation from which he derived an income not less than the remuneration which he agreed to accept in respect of such appointment:
(b) who was appointed subsequent to the 6th December, 1922, with a special agreement as to his remuneration and who for the purpose of accepting such appointment gave up an appointment in the service of any other country.
Shall we have a decision on that first, before I move to substitute the other amendment?
Yes.
Can we not discuss the two amendments at the one time and save time?
Very well, the two can be discussed together.
If the Committee accepts the motion to disagree with this amendment, it is proposed to substitute the amendment on the Order Paper. The necessity for that arises in this way: After the institution of the Free State and the setting up of the new Government and, particularly, the new branches of administration here, it was found necessary to secure the services of a number of experienced individuals who had previously held positions in another country. These men came back here. They are not entitled to the benefit of Article X of the Treaty. Some of them sought assurances, first of all, that the positions would be permanent; secondly, that their salaries and the appropriate bonus would be maintained; thirdly, that superannuation rights would be secured to them.
In the case of a few of them, not a considerable number, these assurances were given in writing and in terms more or less as follows: that the then Minister for Finance felt that they were entitled to be assured as to their future in the Saorstát service and that on all the points in respect to which assurances were required he was prepared to give them in the fullest measure. The State recognised that these men surrendered their posts under another Government and gave their services to this State and it would be a serious step to contemplate that the assurances then given them would not be carried out. I have documentary evidence showing that these assurances were given. I feel, in view of the explicit form in which they were given, that these assurances must be honoured by me, and by my successors and, accordingly, I am suggesting that instead of the amendment made in the Seanad this one, which will enable the Minister to consider each case, and to determine each upon its merits, should be accepted by the Dáil.
I have some qualms of conscience about one official whom I interviewed personally late in 1922, or possibly in the beginning of 1923. He was not in the service of another country; he had service in this country and relinquished his service in this country by reason of some of the national happenings of the period. He was in a very good position in London. He now occupies a more important position in the State. He made no representations to me, good, bad or indifferent, either directly or indirectly, but if I was asked in respect to this position whether there was responsibility upon this State to give him the rights and privileges of Article X or any one of those mentioned, or intended in this connection, I would have said "certainly". The best possible terms should be accorded to him. Although any communications I had with him were purely verbal, I believe I would be bound as a matter of public honour to keep the undertaking with that official. The Minister possibly knows who this official is.
I would not dare to suggest to any Minister for Finance, or to any Minister in any Government, that he should deliberately break an agreement, especially a written agreement, honourably entered into with an individual or a nation. But I think a good deal more information is required from the Minister for Finance before he can justify a proposal of this kind. Especially is that so in view of the fact that the President has told us again and again that this Bill calls for sacrifices from all. Surely if the office cleaner in Leinster House and the lowest paid servants in the State have to suffer as a result of the cuts, there is a case for asking for some sacrifice from gentlemen, no matter what their nationality, who are in receipt of salaries between £1,000 and £2,000 a year. Give us the number of the individuals concerned in this proposal and the salaries they got when they were invited to take up positions under this State, and the salaries now paid to them by the Government in office. Then we may be able to come to some fair conclusion as to what we should do in regard to a proposal of this kind. Will the Minister say that any of the gentlemen who are likely to benefit as a result of the exclusion proposal, are not to-day receiving salaries much greater than those they had when they came from the service of another Government in another country? I feel fairly certain that some of the privileged people, who are to benefit under the terms of this proposal, if the House is silly enough to accept it after the speech of the Minister, have salaries in excess, and some of them 50 per cent. in excess, of what they received under the British Government.
I realise it is a good thing for a Government, or even for any business undertaking, if you like, to procure a man who has special experience in a particular line of business. I agree that they would be well advised to pay a fairly decent salary in such a case, because such persons are supposed to be experts as a result of their long experience. But I see no reason in a Bill of this kind, where sacrifices are called for, to exclude certain privileged people whose salaries are greater now than they would have been had they remained in their previous employment. This proposal really comes from Deputy Costello. It is the one thing under cover of which he made a very plausible speech in this House and which the Minister for Finance undertook to consider. It was the only proposal he undertook to consider sympathetically when this Bill was going through its Committee Stage. The House and the country are entitled to more information than the Minister has given. The gentlemen who will benefit under the terms of this proposal are the very men responsible for the drafting of this "Cuts" Bill, and now they come along at the last moment, when the Bill is going to be put into operation, with this plausible appeal for themselves.
May I say there is absolutely no foundation for that statement—none whatsoever.
For what part of the statement?
That the gentlemen responsible for drafting this Bill are the gentleman responsible for drafting this amendment. On the contrary they opposed it as strongly as they could.
Will the Minister deny any knowledge of a meeting held in Jury's Hotel at which some of the most prominent civil servants in the State were present? Did he hear anything about that? I think he is not as ignorant of these matters as he pretends when he puts forward a proposal of this kind without any explanation of his action. If the postal officials called a meeting for a purpose of this kind, they would be sent to Mountjoy, or some such place, under cover of some Public Safety Act; but gentlemen lucky enough to be in receipt of £1,000 or £1,500 a year can hold their meetings in Jury's Hotel without molestation. They can make representations — backdoor representations if you like—to the Minister, and "pull his leg" to the extent to which it has been pulled in this case. The Minister pretended when he was speaking that he read from a document. Will the Minister produce any one document to show that in any one case there has been a written agreement with any individual who is likely to benefit under the terms of this proposal? Deputy Cosgrave has been very silent. I am sure he could say a good deal on that. I know Deputy Cosgrave is responsible for inviting—and the late General Collins was responsible in one or two cases— certain Irishmen to come over here, and take up service in this State, when it was first established. I know some of them. They held fairly important positions in Whitehall. Give us the salaries that they were in receipt of then, and the salaries they now enjoy, and let us have the justification for this exemption proposal. Produce a written agreement with any one of the individuals likely to benefit, and I certainly will look at the matter, so far as that one individual is concerned, in a different light, because I should not like to be a party to suggesting to any Minister that he should break any agreement entered into with a servant of the State.
The Minister talked about superannuation rights. The superannuation rights of civil servants who are going to suffer as a result of this cut are not going to be in any way interfered with. There is a clause in the Bill protecting their pension rights. That clause will give the same protection to the transferred officers likely to benefit under the terms of this proposal as it will give to the persons who will suffer reduction, whether they are clerical officers or cleaners in the Government offices. I think this is the most indefensible proposal ever brought before this House, especially as it is brought before it by a Minister who purports to call for "sacrifices from all"—sacrifices from the fellows who do the donkey work, and exemption for those who enjoy fat salaries, some of whom would never have enjoyed such salaries if they had remained in the service of the British Government. We are entitled to the information I am asking for as to what is the total number of people likely to benefit as a result of the proposal.
If the Deputy believes a word of what he has just said, he has all the information on the matter and I have none. He told me I have been hoodwinked.
The Minister suggests that he is infallible. He would like me to believe that. I listened very attentively to Deputy Norton pushing some of that stuff down his throat by documentary evidence during the Committee Stage of this Bill. The Minister, in fathering a proposal of this kind, should be compelled to give the House and the country some information as to the number of people affected, the salaries of the, I suppose, small number who are likely to benefit, when they were in the service of the British or any other Government, and the salaries they enjoy to-day. We are entitled to ask for that information, and I think the Minister who is responsible for fathering this preposterous proposal should give that information to the House and to the country.
There was one remark made by Deputy Davin which might be construed as having reference to the Parliamentary draftsman. The Parliamentary draftsman is not affected by this proposal, good, bad or indifferent.
I must confess that I felt somewhat flattered by Deputy Davin's observation that the Minister has accepted this amendment owing to the plausible speech made by me. I am not aware that that is the reason. I did introduce on the Committee Stage an amendment bearing some remote relation to the present proposal before the House, and the Minister was good enough to say he would consider it.
It was only one he said he would consider—those poor people!
Whether it was as a result of my plausible speech or for some other reason this amendment has been accepted by the Government I do not know. I do know that this amendment was only one of a series moved by me on the Committee Stage. The basis of every one of those amendments was the principle that agreements should be honourably kept. I do not know who is affected by this amendment at all. I cannot tell what individuals are affected. No individual approached me directly or indirectly in connection with this amendment. I have no idea whether the people affected are men with £1,500 a year or 1,500 pence. I have not the remotest idea who the individuals are. I based that amendment on one basic principle, and that is that public servants are bound to the State by an agreement which should be honourably kept both by the individual public servants and by the State.
All public servants.
All public servants, great and small, whether they are office-cleaners, charwomen or anything else. I based my opposition to this Bill on the broad principle that it was a breach of contract to cut the salaries of public servants, no matter who they were. I based my opposition to the Bill in respect of every single servant of the State, whether humble or great. I make no apology for having fathered this particular amendment, even if it is accepted by the Minister as a result of a plausible speech of mine, because that plausible speech of mine was based on the broad principle that agreements had been made with certain individuals for valuable consideration. I am speaking from recollection, but I think that was the phrase I used.
An agreement?
An agreement was made for valuable consideration. They gave up something they had on a definite undertaking by Ministers of this country, and that agreement should be honoured. There was no difference between that amendment and every other amendment I moved. They were all based on the broad principle that agreements with public servants, even though those agreements are not enforceable in court, should be honoured. This agreement was made with some set of public servants, the number or identity of whom I do not know. Because of that principle I fathered that amendment, and I am very glad that the Minister has accepted it. I only regret that he has not widened his generosity and broadened his acceptance of that great principle of honouring agreements entered into.
I pointed out again and again during the discussion on the "Cuts" Bill that private individuals are bound to honour their contracts, and if they do not honour them they can be brought into court. I saw no reason and still see no reason why the State, which is supposed to be a model employer, should not keep its promises to its humblest servant. I do think that the prerogative which is at the disposal of the State should not be used against any individual servant of the State.
Might I ask the Minister one question, and I hope he will reply to it—whether the cuts which are already in operation have been applied in the case of the individuals now proposed to be exempted, and, if this amendment is accepted by the House, whether he will have to refund to the gentlemen concerned the sums already illegally deducted from them?
I do not understand Deputy Davin's heat. Quite obviously some person has misinformed him as to the genesis of this amendment. This amendment was not inspired by any person in the Department of Finance. It was a matter which had been agitating my mind for a considerable time, an agitation which was brought to a focus during a debate which took place here on Deputy Costello's amendment. I had to come to a decision as to whether, on the general principles which were put up to me by my advisers in the Department, I should not exempt those people who had entered into special agreements with the State, or whether I should exempt them, as I felt I ought to, in view of at least one specific agreement which was brought to my notice.
I decided that I was bound, beyond any possibility of alteration or recall, by the signature of my predecessor, in regard to at least one man. Whether there are others I do not know. My acceptance of the principle has been based upon one case which was brought to my notice. It was the case of a person who, long after 1923, was in the service of another Government. He had rendered very special services here, services of such a sort that it was felt he ought to be continued in this position, because there was nobody else who could be got to carry out the duties of that office. In those particular circumstances, when he was asked to retire from the service of another country to take up service here, he specifically raised three points; first of all, as to his permanency; secondly, as to the salary that would be paid to him; and thirdly, as to his superannuation rights.
Let me quote the words of the then Minister for Finance:
"In the event of your accepting the offer of appointment, I feel that you are entitled to be assured as to your future in the service, and on all the above points I am prepared to give you the fullest assurances. In doing so, I have recognised that a surrender of your post under the British Government at this stage of your service is a serious step for you to contemplate."
The position was this, that this particular individual was quite clearly demarcated from every individual in the public service of the Saorstát, because when they joined the public service or, when they elected to continue in the service of this Government under Article X, they elected to endure with us all the vicissitudes that might befall this State and the people of this State. If economic conditions improved here they would secure the benefit of them. If economic conditions disimproved, they would have to endure the consequences of that disimprovement, but this person, by agreement with my predecessor, was put in this position, that he would continue to enjoy, no matter what the circumstances, the security and the emoluments which he had in another service. He was given that assurance because it was felt his special experience was essential.
I am placed in regard to that man in this situation, that it is possible that this Government may be looking for the service of experts and may, possibly, have to take them from the service of other Governments. I cannot allow it to go forth that any undertaking which I give in regard to permanency, salary, or any other conditions or service, is one which would not be honoured by my successor. Accordingly, no matter what Deputy Davin may say, I have felt bound to come to the Dáil in a very difficult situation and ask them to accept that position with me also. The position might have been easier if I were able to say to the individual concerned: "Well, if you remained in the service of the other Government, your emoluments would be reduced by so much." But that condition does not obtain. If he had remained in the service of the other Government, his position would be as good and not any worse than it is to-day with us.
As to the point raised by Deputy Cosgrave about another high officer of State, I say his position is rather different. He left a private occupation to enter the service of Saorstát Eireann for the first time. If he had remained pursuing his occupation as a private individual, he would have been subject to the ups and downs which attend private individuals in their occupations. He would not have the same security in regard to salary and remuneration. Accordingly, I think his case was very different from the case of the person who would have remained in a sheltered occupation on the other side. He would have that security and those assurances which normally are not enjoyed by people who have to earn their living as ordinary private citizens. Apart altogether from that, I am happy to say that that gentleman and every other person whom I have consulted in regard to the first part of the Seanad amendment, has strongly advised me not to accept it. In accordance with that advice, the new form of amendment, the amendment which I now put to the House, has been drafted so as to exclude the particular kind of case which Deputy Cosgrave has in mind and the particular individual to whom he referred.
Might I ask the Minister to give the House any reason why he is turning down the first part of the Seanad amendment, paragraph (a)? I should like to know if he can give the House some general reasons for so doing. I know I am not allowed to make a second speech but I wish to make this one point. There are in the service of the State, to my own personal knowledge, individuals who gave up their occupations not for the purpose of getting permanent employment in the State service but in order to give patriotic service to this State. They actually sacrificed their income and their prospects in order to take up particular jobs in the public service. I suggest that the Minister might consider that class of case because I am perfectly certain that in the case of the present Government it will have, if it has not done so already, to call on specific individuals to make sacrifices and to come into the public service as a patriotic duty and not as a matter of getting jobs for themselves.
The principle contained in this proposal is very objectionable to the members of this Party. Apart from the number of people who may benefit—and I do not know the individuals who are likely to benefit—as the result of the acceptance of this proposal, I wish to ask the Minister a straight question. He is basing his case for this proposal on the peculiar circumstances of one individual. I do not know from Adam who he is and I care less but I want to know from the Minister what was the salary of the individual concerned when he was invited to take up office in this State, what is his salary to-day and whether —this is a very important point—the cuts already put into operation in the case of all public servants covered by this Bill, have been applied in the case of the gentleman concerned?
On the question of the salary I am not able to give the Deputy the information he wants because I do not think it touches the principle. The principle is that whatever salary he was appointed at, he enjoys to-day, and he was guaranteed that salary so long as he remained in the service of the State.
The Minister does not know the salary?
I do not.
And there is only one concerned?
There is one case. It was not decided on the question of salary. It was decided on the evidence before me that there was this class of agreement in existence. There might be one or two but there is not a considerable number.
How can the Minister remember the salaries of the other people affected by the Bill and he cannot remember the salary of this gentleman?
On the question which Deputy Costello raised, personal difficulties have prevented me accepting the proposal in paragraph (a) in the first place. In addition to that, I am not able to accept the principle that a person who entered the service some years ago and who derived from his then occupation an income not less than he agreed to accept in respect of such appointment, can be altogether set free from the obligation to accept with the general body of the nation the consequences of a decline in economic conditions here. If he had remained in that private occupation it is possible his income might have declined very much more than it will as a result of this Bill.
I know particular individuals who would have doubled their present salaries if they had remained in their previous occupations.
That is a speculation, a conjecture.
The Minister's statement is a speculation too.
Precisely. I will admit that, but I would say that it is much more likely that the general income of the community would decline or that the income of any particular individual would decline.
Oh, no.
I say that is the greater probability.
No.
Oh, well, of course, there we part company.
That is a pity. Probably you will join in the Division Lobby on this.
As I was saying, it is at any rate, proper that when the general income declines the income of a private individual will decline with it. That is the position in which, I think, those who would be affected by paragraph (a) of the amendment are placed. Their position, since their advent to the service, even under this Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill would not be any worse, comparatively speaking, than it would have been in private life. Accordingly, I am not able, for that reason, to accept it because I think that would be directly contrary to the general principle of the Bill.
The particular case under discussion at the moment is a case in which a man was earning, approximately, £2,000 a year and could have increased that for many years afterwards and would be able to earn that much outside. He came in here. His salary was not fixed at the time. He was not one who agreed with the national movement, but his patriotism was beyond doubt. He gave up what was a very remunerative occupation outside to do what he believed was his duty and which I do not believe anybody else outside could do. For a long period his salary was not fixed. He did not mind that. He gave his services to the State and could have left it much to his own advantage and, if he had left the service of this State, he would now have, I suppose, around about twice the amount he was getting from the State during the last ten years. This is a peculiar case and one which, I suppose, Deputy Davin would never understand. It must be understood that some of those men had to be bid for. For some of them, I suppose, we did not bid high enough. There was one of them whom we lost. He is now in one of the highest positions in Great Britain and I am not sure that there have not been efforts made to get him back. When you succeed in getting one of these men into your service, there is a considerable—I will not say condescension but rather a desire to come here. Quite a number of them, possibly, would be prepared to take a much less sum than they could earn outside to come here. I do not think any of them have had an increase of salary from the time they were bid for. I think these men should get the same consideration as the man who could have earned twice as much and the other man I mentioned about whom the Minister said that he is properly dealt with. That man is not working for money purely and simply. He did not enter into the national movement for money and his intention in coming here was to do something for the country. In the future, when we require such men, anyone of their advisers would say: "Do you know about this particular ‘Cuts' Bill?" It may hinder this State from getting useful services from such men who might render wonderful value to the State. They are not huge salaries and there is a field for that class of person in the British Civil Service which is theirs almost for the asking. The top line is almost always a much thinner line than those beneath and if you want to get tip-top men they are worth paying.
The Minister for Finance proposed a sort of guiding principle which seems to me to be basically inaccurate. He talked about people who came here on certain terms having given up service outside and, at a given moment, he arbitrarily comes along and says that, as people's incomes outside have shown a marked drop—since his Government have come into power, if I might say so—he is justified in saying that these men's income would have shown the same drop and that, therefore, he is justified in cutting their salaries. If a man accepted service in the State at a given figure and came along to the Minister and proved to the Minister that, if he had remained in his own business, he would now be getting four times as much as he got before, the Minister would say: "You came in here and agreed to certain terms; you might have done better outside, but you have got to abide by the decision you made then." The Minister, however, will not accept that for himself. In effect, he says that if the man can prove that he must get no more, but if it is conceivable that the man might have got less, then the Minister is justified in cutting his salary. I will not say that that is as immoral a proposition as the one that was propounded by Deputy Davin which, I may say, is typical of Deputy Davin. According to Deputy Davin's proposition, if the person is sufficiently cute to get you to put the agreement in writing you will have to abide by it, but if you can persuade him to accept your word of honour then says Deputy Davin: "Here is a splendid opportunity of ‘bilking' this man; he cannot produce anything in writing, and we have got him and now can swindle him." The Minister's proposal is not quite as bad as that, but it is certainly basically unsound. A man enters into a contract which is more or less equivalent to circumstances outside at the time. If the outside circumstances improve, well and good, and if they disimprove, the Minister is not bound. As I say, it is not so scandalously immoral as Deputy Davin's proposition.
The word "immoral" has a peculiar meaning in your mind. I should like to know from the Minister whether the salary of this man has been cut in the same way as that of all the other people without the authority of the Oireachtas.
Deputy Cosgrave referred to the case of a man who came over here from the British and accepted certain terms here. A member of the Fianna Fáil Party waged a diabolical campaign against him, and he went back, and is in a much better position now. According to Deputy Davin, if that man had stayed here, any improvement in his salary would be quite inequitable.
I said no such thing. I said they should make the same amount of sacrifice for the public service as anybody else. I ask the Minister has that gentleman's salary been cut the same as other members of the public service?
The salary of that gentleman has been cut.
And, therefore, you will have to make a refund?
I do not think so. I am certain that that gentleman will make a voluntary surrender.
Question—"That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2 from the Seanad"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Bennett and O'Leary.
Motion declared carried.
I move:—
At the end of Section 3 to insert, in lieu of the proposed new sub-section inserted by the Seanad in Section 7, a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) Where a person, from whose salary a deduction is required by Part II of this Act to be made, satisfies the Minister that he accepted an appointment in a civil capacity in the public service of Saorstát Eireann on an invitation made to him by or on behalf of the Government of Saorstát Eireann after the 6th day of December, 1922, and that for the purpose of accepting such appointment he relinquished an appointment in the public service of another country then, and in any such case, if having regard to the terms on which such person accepted such first - mentioned appointment the Minister considers that it is fair and reasonable that the remuneration or some portion of the remuneration of such person should not be treated as salary for the purposes of this Act, the Minister shall determine that (as the case may be) no part or a specified part only of the remuneration of such person shall be deemed to be salary for the purposes of this Act.
Amendment agreed to.
No.
Is the Deputy demanding a division?
Yes.
Will the Deputies who are demanding a division please stand in their places?
Deputies Davin, Keyes, Corish and Pattison rose.
The names of the Deputies who are dissenting from the amendment will be recorded.
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3.
Section 9, sub-section (2). The word "shall" deleted in line 2 and the word "may" substituted therefor.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That the Committee disagree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4.
Schedule. Part II deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
Report of Committee agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.