Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 Jan 1934

Vol. 50 No. 6

In Committee on Finance. - Local Services (Temporary Economies) (No. 2) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

I beg to move that the Bill be read a Second Time. The Bill proposes to effect temporary economies in local administration by the reduction of salaries of local officers on the same lines as the economies effected in the public services under the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933, but its provisions will operate from the 1st January, 1934, to the 31st December, 1934, instead of in the current local financial year ending on the 31st March next. The Bill is introduced in response to demands for economies in the local services voiced by several local bodies. The necessity for the Bill also arises on account of the provisions of Section 11 of the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933, which lays it down that deductions shall be made from grants payable to local bodies in the year 1933-34, such deductions to be proportionate to the extent to which monies paid by way of grant are ordinarily applied towards the payment of salaries. There is a further provision that no such deductions shall be made from local government grants where the local body itself makes deductions from salaries to the satisfaction of the Minister. The "minimum" deductions set out in the Bill are proposed as the deductions which shall be made to meet the requirements of the Act of 1933, and owing to the change in the period of operation of the Bill from that originally contemplated some slight amendments are made in the wording of Section 11 (2) of the Act of 1933.

A large proportion of the expenditure on local government services and on vocational education and agricultural instruction is met out of Government Funds and the present Bill in effecting reductions in local salaries will secure some economies to the State in connection with the recoupment from Central Funds of the cost of certain local salaries. The terms of appointment and the conditions of service of local officials vary considerably and while the provisions of the Bill define the expression "Officer" as meaning any person in the employment of a local authority, the Bill contains different provisions to meet the cases of different classes of officers having due regard to the nature of the remuneration and tenure of offices peculiar to such classes. Local officers to whom the provisions of the Bill will apply might be classified as:—

(a) Whole-time officers occupying pensionable positions.

(b) Part-time officers occupying pensionable posts such as dispensary doctors.

(c) Permanent part-time officers holding non-pensionable posts.

(d) Officers employed in a temporary capacity for considerable limited periods.

(e) Persons employed to discharge occasional services.

The salaries payable to local officers may be classified under the following headings:—

(1) Scale salaries with cost-of-living bonus varying half-yearly in accordance with variations in the cost of living.

(2) Inclusive fixed salaries in many cases determined a number of years ago when the cost of living was much higher than at present and fixed at the time with due regard to the then cost of living. Such salaries may sometimes include a temporary allowance generally regarded as a bonus, but not varying and, as a rule, much less than a bonus calculated with reference to increase in cost of living. As such allowances are not subject to variation, they will be regarded under the Bill as part of the fixed salaries.

(3) In some cases officers, with either salaries carrying cost-of-living bonus or inclusive salaries also enjoy other allowances or benefits given otherwise than in money.

It is, therefore, proposed to fix two scales of reductions in salary, one for officers with salary carrying bonus which has varied regularly in accordance with the cost of living, and another for officers on inclusive salaries. In the case of officers with salaries and bonus varying in accordance with the cost of living, the scale of reduction will be the same as that applicable to civil servants under the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1933. For local officers with inclusive salaries, the reductions will be on the scale laid down in Part II of the Schedule to the Bill. In these cases the amount of salary exempted from special reductions will be fixed at a lower figure than that fixed for officers whose emoluments have varied with the fall in the cost-of-living bonus, so as to secure a reduction that would correspond approximately with the reductions in salary caused by the fall in bonus, and by the special reduction in emoluments proposed in Part I of the Schedule.

Special provision is made to meet the cases of officers with remuneration made up partly of a salary carrying a variable bonus or allowance, and partly of a fixed salary. In such cases that part of the remuneration which is variable, together with the salary upon which the variable amount is calculated, is subject to the lower rate of reduction set out in Part I of the Schedule, while the fixed portion of the salary which has hitherto suffered no reduction will be subject to the higher rate of reduction provided for in Part II of the Schedule. In the case of persons employed to discharge occasional services, such as engineers or architects employed for particular works, the scale of reduction is fixed at 5 per cent. Fees received by a local officer from whatever source are to be reckoned as salary, and for this purpose each local officer will be required to submit an estimate showing his total emoluments from all public sources, and where such emoluments consist partly of fees, an estimate of the probable amount of such fees or other remuneration received during the financial year. Where emoluments are payable by two or more local bodies the total ascertained deduction will be shared in proportion to amounts payable by each body. Any cases of dispute will be determined by the appropriate Minister, whose decision will be final and binding.

In the case of dispensary doctors, a special provision is included in the Bill to the effect that £50 of their annual salary shall not be taken into account in the calculation of the deductions. The scales of deductions which I have now reviewed are set out in the Bill as the minimum deductions required to be made in the present year, but the Bill gives further power to the local authorities to make such deductions additional to the minimum deductions as they may in each case think proper, provided that any additional deduction so made shall be subject to the sanction of the Minister.

May I ask the Minister one or two questions before we enter on the debate? The first is, can he indicate what proportion of the moneys that he expects to be saved by this Bill will go in relief of rates and what proportion will go in relief of the Treasury? Another question is: am I correct in understanding from what he said that if this Bill were not passed, certain deductions would be made from the grants to local bodies under the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act that has already been passed and that consequently local bodies would have to find further moneys from the rates to take the place of those deductions and pay the extra salaries that would continue to exist if this Bill were not passed? Thirdly, it would interest me to hear what local authorities there are who have, as the Minister has said, put in a demand for a Bill of this character.

Let me answer the last question first. I cannot give you the list of them. I read in the newspapers over the last 12 months quite a number of resolutions.

By county councils?

By councils.

By county councils?

I am sure it is not, moment say county councils; by local authorities. I am sure I could include county councils in that. I cannot particularise further at the moment. I have read a good number of resolutions— perhaps copies could be obtained— passed by local authorities. In some cases the local authorities have actually proceeded to make deductions. In some cases the deductions they made were, in my opinion, too severe, and not fair to the officials concerned. That is one question. On the second question, the Exchequer pays quite a considerable sum of the expenses of local authorities under certain Acts. It provides a considerable amount of the salaries of officials under public health and other Acts. If this Bill were not passed and the local authority had to suffer the reduction that will be made under the Act passed last year, what proportion of that would fall on the local rates or on the Exchequer, I cannot tell you.

That is not the question, sir, which I put. The Minister has put two of my questions together. The question I put was with regard to the savings expected to be made under this Act, if we pass it. What proportion of those savings would go to the relief of the ratepayers and what proportion to the relief of the Central Exchequer?

The major portion—I cannot give you the fraction—would go to the relief of the rates. On a rough calculation which I have made to-day the amount that the Exchequer will gain will not be very considerable.

Anything between £30,000 and £40,000.

And how much to the rates?

I have not got that figure.

But you think it will be more?

And the other question that I asked I understood the Minister to reply to by a nod—that if we fail to pass this Bill the county councils would have to find from some source other than the Central Fund certain moneys which up to the present they have been getting from the Central Fund owing to the operation of the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Act which we passed last year?

That is so. If we fail there will be certain deductions made under last year's Act. My belief is that in most of the cases the local authorities will save themselves from putting any further additional tax on the ratepayers by cutting, probably to a greater extent than proposed by this Bill, the salaries of the officials.

Will the Minister say the total amount of the economy to be effected?

I have not got that figure. On a rough calculation what we estimate will be saved to the Exchequer will amount to £30,000 or £40,000.

And you think it will be more to the local authorities?

Am I to understand from the Minister—perhaps he will excuse the procedure of cross-questioning because this matter is dealt with by an amendment to a section that is standing in the 1933 Act—that the economy accruing to the Exchequer will be £40,000?

And that that deduction having been made it will be open to the local authority to make deductions from salaries exactly the same as that sum, amounting just to £40,000, or a sum in excess of that, if they care to go further? But if they have made minimum deductions here the Treasury will get the whole thing? It is only if they go beyond the minimum that any further economy will accrue?

So that if the minimum percentages mentioned in this Bill are enforced the entire economy will go to the Central Fund?

The Minister will, perhaps, excuse us when we say it is extremely difficult to understand what the exact operation will be. I should like to put a concrete question to the Minister, which, perhaps, he will be able to answer. Take a dispensary doctor who is a medical officer in a town in County Meath, with a total emolument from the public authority of £450 per annum. If the local authority takes £50 a year off that medical officer by way of economy under this Bill, how much of that £50 will go back to the Exchequer through one fund or another, and how much of that £50 will be applied to a reduction of the rates in County Meath?

First of all it is not proposed to take anything like £50 off the salary of a medical officer.

No, but I took a round figure.

I should have to see what proportion of the salary of the medical officer comes out of the Central Fund. I think round about 50 per cent. of his salary comes from the Central Exchequer, but I cannot give you the exact figure at present. The amount of recoupment granted to a local authority under the various Acts differs. The percentage that would be saved to the Exchequer would be small in the case of a salary where 50 per cent. is paid by the Central Exchequer and 50 per cent. by the local authority. If the Deputy likes to leave the question over, I will get two or three examples; taking medical officers and any other officers whose salaries are paid partly by the Central Exchequer and partly by the local authority, I will get a few examples.

So it will be about 50 per cent? For every £10 deducted £5 would go to the Exchequer and £5 to the relief of rates? In the case of agricultural committees and technical education committees, are we to understand that any reductions made in the salaries of officers are going back to the Exchequer in toto under Section 11 of the 1933 Act?

In no case does it go back in toto to the Exchequer.

Not even in the case of technical instruction committees?

In every case approximately the same percentage applies.

When the Minister told me just now that he expected, say, £35,000 to be saved to the Exchequer, and more to the local authorities, say £45,000—that was on the basis of the minimum deductions only?

On the basis of the deductions provided for in the Bill.

Compulsory deductions?

I understand that the Minister sent out a circular some time ago to the technical committees that they were to increase the salaries of teachers by £30 a year.

I did not understand the first part of the Deputy's question.

I think I can say it better in Irish—Muinteori Taistail.

The Local Government Department does not control the Muinteori Taistail now. They have been, since the passing of the Vocational Education Act, under the Department of Education.

Would the Minister explain sub-section (4) of Section 4?

I think, with all respect, the debate will take its ordinary course, and no questions will be answered before the end of the debate.

That question arises from the answer which the Minister has just given.

It will be answered at the end of the debate.

I should like to utter a word of protest against the general features of this Bill and against some of the features that are most striking in it as compared with a somewhat similar Act that was carried last year. It seems to me that the House ought to consider very carefully the matter before it adopts any measure which tends to interfere with the security of public servants under local authorities. Anything which interferes with their security is bound to interfere with the efficiency of the service which we demand from these highly important officials. Next to the administration of the Civil Service, there is nothing more important to the public services of the country than the work of the officers of local bodies. The Minister will admit that one of the greatest attractions in the local service is the security which candidates obtain by entering that service. If there is anything interfering with that security it is likely to interfere with the efficiency of the service administered by the officials.

It seems to me that the Bill now before the Dáil has certain vicious points in it which make it a more dangerous measure from the public point of view than the Act which was carried last year. I merely wish to refer briefly to this now. No doubt there will be opportunities for a fuller discussion at a later stage of the Bill. In the first instance the maximum deduction is to be compulsory. The local authority must make a deduction of a certain amount plus any further deduction that they may think fit to vote subject only to the sanction of the Minister. In last year's Act certain scales were laid down and those affected by it knew at once what would be the amount of the deduction. But under the present Bill those affected will have no knowledge of how much they will have deducted from them by the local authority. They will not know it until the Minister and the local authority have made their deduction.

Again not only is the maximum to be at the discretion of the local authority but the local authority is to deal with each individual case separately. There is no uniformity in dealing with the officials of the same class. The local authority may have an opportunity of picking out an unpopular official and penalising him specially, subject only to the sanction of the Minister. It is quite impossible for the Minister to be aware in every particular case of the considerations which weigh with the local authority. While one admits that the sanction of the Minister affords a certain control and while many officials would be quite satisfied with the sanction of the present Minister it is putting into the hands of an officer out of immediate touch with the officials concerned an immense power to make alterations in the conditions of service. This seems to me a vicious point in the Minister's Bill and I think it right to enter a protest against it at the first opportunity. I think it right to mention that the Minister has made special concessions to dispensary medical officers. We are grateful for that concession and I hope that when the Bill comes before us the Minister will go a little further. These are the classes in which I am particularly interested. I hope he will see his way to give some consideration to the equally deserving classes—the whole time medical officers.

In reading this Bill and taking it in association with the recent legislation and the activities of the Government, the very first question that occurs to my mind is what is the idea or the intention behind it? It is called an Economies Bill and the House is called on to support it in the interests of economy. Now if there is any characteristic lamentably lacking in every Act of the present Government it is the absence of an honest or genuine attempt to economise. If this Bill were introduced as a sub-section or as portion of a genuine economy campaign I would be inclined in spite of its injustice to appreciate the actions of the Government that was genuinely standing for economy and in order to show that appreciation to support a Bill of this kind. But this Bill is merely so much humbug. It is merely participating in a big piece of hypocrisy for anybody to support this Bill as an economy measure and as any indication of a desire for economy on the part of the present Government.

While hardworking and not overpaid officials throughout the country are being victimised by this Bill we have a Government inflated in every Department. We have a Government starting new services—a political army, a political police force are being built up throughout the country and no breath or suggestion or one word about economy. There is no suggestion that the money is not there and is not there in plenty. With this rapid expansion of all the services of the State with political armies and political police——

Will the Deputy mention political county medical officers of health?

If it pleases the Minister. The Minister has made some such appointments? Is that what he is saying?

No. The Minister does not make any such point.

The Minister ought to behave himself.

If the Minister will allow me I am referring to the orgy of extravagance that has characterised this Government since it took over office as evidenced by the increased burden of taxation and the greatly swollen administration in their anxiety to please people throughout the country. That may be all very well and that may be very commendable but it does not show either a desire or an interest for economy.

Now we are asked to throw the cheap and tawdry mantle of economy over a Government whose main feature is extravagance. We are asked to do it by supporting a Bill such as this, and in a half-hearted fractional manner, the bribe is held out to the public that it is going to assist the local rates. If the Minister or his Government were the least bit concerned about the local rates they would not have filched £22,000 from each county council in this country. We know that the relief given by the agricultural grant was filched from the local bodies. That is ample evidence that the Government is not in the slightest extent concerned with the rights of the ratepayers. It is the other fraction the other half of this economy with which we are concerned. Officials are to be victimised right throughout the country in order to provide more funds for the central services, in order to swell the pool available for the inflation of services and for the creation of new services. This fund is to be contributed to by the local officials, by dispensary doctors and by the rate collectors throughout the country. It is to be made up by deductions from officials of county councils or boards of health. Before anybody supports a Bill of this kind they must support it as a just measure in its application to the individuals concerned. I admit that since the change of Government every action has been taken calculated to break and burst and bankrupt beyond any hope of recovery the farming community in this country.

Admitting all that I do not think there is any farmer in the whole country who in effect is as hard hit as the dispensary doctor practising in the rural area. His main source of income from private patients, mostly farmers, is totally removed on account of the financial pressure which is hitting the farmers themselves. His income from his private practice has disappeared and now we are cutting the only thing that remains to him—his salary.

If you take the individual rural doctor though his usual source of income has gone, that does not mean that he will have to travel a mile less. There is not one of them who has not by his action and practice over the last 18 months shown that the man with the softest heart and the most human make-up in the countryside is the doctor. The farmers are broken and none of them in a position to pay a fee. Still there is no case throughout the whole length and breadth of the country of the farmer or of his wife and children left unattended because they have no money to pay the doctor at the end of his journey. By every private patient that the unfortunate doctor gets to-day he is losing money. Yet men in this Assembly, knowing the circumstances and knowing in their hearts that what I say is true, are asked to attack the last source of living that these men have, and to lop it further, and to take the last ounce of blood from those individuals up and down the country, and for what? In order to keep a Fianna Fáil administration in this country; in order to throw the cloak of economy over a Government which has been reckless and extravagant in regard to the expenditure of public money. When sacrifices were demanded two years ago, when there were better times, the sacrifice was demanded for all. If sacrifices have to be made now let us at least consider the proper distribution and incidence of the sacrifices. There are big salaries, there are medium salaries and there are small salaries. There are people who lost more than the maximum amount of which they could be deprived under this Bill already. Normally the country doctor's source of income was about one-third salary and two-thirds practice. Two-thirds of his income has therefore gone already. Now he is to be cut as though his whole source of income came from his salary and he is asked to make his contribution. Deputies know there is no country doctor in Ireland who could afford to allow his salary to be cut by five shillings a year as things are. We have this allowance exemption of £50. These men if they have motor cars have to run them all over the place for the benefit of the poor. Fifty pounds spread over motor licence and compulsory insurance increased by 25 per cent. You find £34 is gone by way of taxes and insurance before the car goes out on the 1st January. Making allowances for depreciation that particular offer is either a tragedy or a joke. The least that should be done under this Bill is to exempt his class from every one of these.

Then you have the position of the rate collector. His was a comparatively easy job when people were prosperous, and when no more than one visit was required to get the rates from each individual. But with the depression all over the country now, and, particularly the depression amongst the farming community, the rate collector has to call and call again on certain individuals before he can collect a fraction of his rate. Every one of his journeys cost him time and money. His income is reduced by virtue of the very expenses he has to incur by more work and more travel. His income is reduced by a quarter on the loss of poundage because less rates are coming in. Now under this Bill the amount of poundage will be further reduced. Even political medical officers of health that the Ministers called attention to have to pay their contribution to the Fianna Fáil Government under what is called the economic war. Medical officers of health are not exempt from income tax and from cuts and whatever contributions they make or are called upon to make. They are not calling for sacrifices at the other fellow's expense. Whatever economy is required in the national struggle will be contributed to as cheerfully by them as any other classes of the community, and more generously than any sacrifice that has ever been made by members of the Front Bench opposite. It is rather cheap for anyone carrying on a war from an armchair in Merrion Street to twit those in the trenches, or those who are casualties in the trenches. I accept that form of twitting from anybody who has made his contribution to what is called the national effort, and the national economic war, but it comes badly from people who are by legislation exempt from making any contribution to throw these things in the teeth of anybody else.

Ministers in this Government made the first contribution to economy in public affairs.

People cannot sacrifice what they never had. If the Minister argues along that line there are secretaries to county councils in this country whose predecessors had £1,500 a year and who have gone into these jobs at £500 or £600 a year. According to the Minister's argument they could claim that they have already made sacrifices of £1,000 a year. Ministers opposite draw salaries less than their predecessors, but they are not sacrificing what they have not got.

There are some Ministers in this House who drew as much before they took office as those on the other side of the House when they were Ministers.

Almost as much as any man on these benches.

Or as any two of them together.

They must have kept it very quiet. I make the Minister a present of that.

It was not I who began this matter but I am not going to allow the Deputy to get away with misrepresentations of that kind.

The Minister is mixing up public criticism with private matters.

We have had public criticism of Ministers who sit on these benches here.

Yes, but the Minister is introducing personal matters. I will accept his statement as to the income of some of those gentlemen who sit opposite, when I see the facts.

I know what I am talking about. They made their incomes themselves and did not acquire them from anybody.

I am trying to confine myself to facts. I do not know anything about private incomes. It is a fact that under this Bill and its predecessors every person paid a salary over a certain figure is cut by the income tax he pays upon that salary. Every person paid a salary over a certain figure in this State has got to have his salary cut either under this Bill or the other Bill, with the exception of the 12 apostles of the Fianna Fáil Party.

There are only ten. That shows how unreliable the Deputy is in his figures.

You have forgotten the Parliamentary Secretary.

If the Minister takes pencil and paper and tots up the Ministers and Secretaries he will probably find——

You are correcting it now. You should try to be accurate when making a statement.

Are Parliamentary Secretaries exempt?

I understood we were dealing with local services.

This Bill harps back in Section 20 to the previous Bill. If this Bill is introduced with a genuine desire to help local councils, the more manly way, the fairer and more reasonable way would be to restore the grant that has been withheld from these councils. If this Bill is introduced purely to cut the salaries of certain individuals, then we should satisfy ourselves that by cutting those salaries there is some return to the State commensurate with the suffering which we inflict on those individuals. This Bill will bring in to an ordinary county council possibly £1,000 per year, probably very much less. There will be some 30 or 40 individuals very harshly treated in order to secure that amount. Some 30 or 40 individuals will find it impossible to look their baker, their butcher, or any one else in the face if they are subjected to the economies required in this Bill. Some 30 or 40 individuals in different counties will have to take little children away from boarding schools.

There are individuals in every county who will have to reduce the provision they have made for posterity, who will have to cash in or reduce their insurance premiums. A salaried man more than any other individual in any community has to make provision for posterity through the medium of life insurance. His salary comes with regularity. It is laid out with regularity; so much for school fees, so much for household expenses, so much for life insurance. When an unexpected bolt like this is hurled at him in one of those directions economy has got to be practised, and if it is not practised in one of those set directions a headline is taken from this type of Bill and economy is practised by going down to the kitchen and reducing the meagre wages of a servant girl; dismissing a servant lad who is merely pottering round the grounds; or doing with two servants instead of three, or one instead of two, or none instead of one.

Remember that through this Bill we are heavily victimising, in the main, the dispensary doctors. If you remove the dispensary doctors from this Bill in any county what is left is not worth the paper the Bill is printed on. You are hitting every one of those doctors, and you have to justify your action in private before those individuals. There are none of them rogues. Any single one of them will show the way that his income has declined, will show you that he is hardly able to keep his motor on the road as it is. If that motor goes off the road it is not the dispensary doctor who will lose the most; it is the unfortunate poor people in that area. If the dispensary doctor takes his headline from this Bill and passes on the economy, it is some little maid or some young lad, with the great wave of financial depression that is rolling over the country, that is going to be docked or dismissed. And all this for the sake of £40,000 a year divided as between the central revenues of this State and 26 county councils and boards of health. It is an insult to the name of economy to bring in a Bill of that particular kind. It is an insult to the very name of war to pick out as your victims the most helpless and most defenceless people in the community. I sincerely hope that from all sides of the House there will be such a volume of disapproval of this Bill that the Minister will see the point in withdrawing it, and that instead of economy by way of victimization, by way of cuts, we shall have an attempt at or a plan for economy by means of retrenchment. When all is said and done, that is the only real economy possible in Government administration.

I had occasion to criticise Fianna Fáil economics recently. I thought it was one of those qualified blessings of having a man who is admittedly a distinguished mathematician as President of the Executive Council that in the land annuity dispute we undertook the rather tricky task of subtracting £8,000,000 from £3,000,000. We are told that we kept at home here £3,000,000 per annum in respect of the land annuities. A conservative estimate of the cost of that operation to the people of this country would be £8,000,000. The answer to the sum of subtracting £8,000,000 from £3,000,000 is Fianna Fáil prosperity. To-day we are introduced to Fianna Fáil economy. I do not mind admitting openly that in 1932 I was fooled, like many another respectable citizen of the State, by Fianna Fáil orators going round the country declaring that the Cumann na nGaedheal Government were bleeding the farmers dry, and that they would reduce expenditure in this country, without interfering with the social services or the salaries of any men, by £2,000,000 per year without the slightest difficulty. In fact, the plan to do it had been all made out, and it was only necessary to give them a chance and they would produce the plan and economies would ensue. Instead of that we discovered that national expenditure rose by £6,000,000.

Now we find what calculation has to be made in order to arrive at what Fianna Fáil conceives to be economy. We can devote ourselves for the rest of the evening to the task of subtracting £6,000,000 from £40,000. Politicians who embark upon a task of that kind remind me of the gentleman that the Deputy for West Cork once spoke of who was quite sincere in the belief that he was the square root of minus one. A Government that tries to fool the people into believing that they are seriously engaged in the work of economy, when they increase national expenditure by £6,000,000 and dock the salaries of dispensary doctors and local officials to the tune of £40,000, are fit for the place which is at present inhabited by the gentleman who sincerely believes that he is the square root of minus one. The people of this country can be fooled, and it is something in their favour that they can be fooled once, but that there is a limit. When they have studied the figures of Fianna Fáil economy for a while they will come to realise that of all the hypocritical gestures that have been made since Fianna Fáil came into office, this Economy Bill is the most hypocritical of them all. There was a time, I believe, when, struggling with adversity, Fianna Fáil was doing its best at the same time to redeem some of its promises. Is there any honest man in this country who believes that the purpose of this Bill is economy? Is there any honest man who does not know that the tide of feeling in this country is rising, and that no Fianna Fáil Deputy can appear in his constituency without being upbraided——

That is absolutely wrong.

Without being upbraided as regards the extravagance in which his Party is indulging? Is not this Bill introduced largely for the purpose of giving Fianna Fáil Deputies some cloak to cover their nakedness, some rag to cover them round?

Other than a blueshirt.

The faces of the members of Fianna Fáil are growing bluer and bluer every day.

Sez you!

And as the crowds around them don their blue shirts, the members of Fianna Fáil will become more ghostly with the passage of every week till they vanish entirely out of this country—and the sooner they go the better for us all.

If the Civic Guard protection was taken off you, we know where you would be.

The ratepayers are to be saved £40,000. Fianna Fáil, in the fulness of its heart, has decided that the contribution of about 1/6 a ratepayer per annum is to be made towards the relief of the farmers of this country. This economy will result in the saving to the individual ratepayers of about 1/6 per annum. This is from the Government that is exercising its benevolent attention on the trade of this country. The average ratepayer, the average man who is engaged in a small way in the agricultural industry is the type of man who is concerned with our everyday trade. He is going to be saved 1/6 per annum. As against this he can pick up the trade returns since Fianna Fáil came into office—they were published to-day. I am going to read them for the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party. When Fianna Fáil came into office our total trade was £87,000,000 and the adverse trade balance was £13,386,000. After 12 months of Fianna Fáil blessings trade had declined to £69,000,000 and the adverse trade balance had risen to £15,633,000. After another 12 months Fianna Fáil was determined to be consistent in one thing, in any case. Our trade had fallen to £55,000,000 and the adverse trade balance was still rising. To-day we have reached the splendid position in which the adverse trade balance is coming within measurable distance of the total sum of our exports. If we have another 12 months of Fianna Fáil Government the adverse trade balance will be greater than the total sum of Irish exports to foreign markets.

The Government that is doing that is the Government that has the effrontery to come forward here and say that in the interests of economy and of the people they propose to reduce the salaries of the servants of public authorities by such a sum as will bring in approximately £40,000. There was a time when economies were called for on a different ground than that of the general principle of economy. Everyone was called upon to bear a share of the burdens until the economic war was over. A few of us were fooled by that plea. Not many members of the Fianna Fáil Party bore any share of the burden. Not many of the gentlemen who are concerned to-day to reduce the salaries of public servants bore much of the burden. But a great many people in the country, some willingly, some unwillingly, did bear their share of the burden in the belief that the economic war was going to be settled. What was their astonishment when they were told by President de Valera that he thanked God he had got rid of the British market? What was their astonishment to discover that what President de Valera was up to apparently was to get rid of the British market and he was glad it was gone? What was their further astonishment to hear from the Minister for Justice, speaking in the West of Ireland, that he did not want to end the economic war? Having persuaded large sections of the community to make material sacrifices in order to facilitate the Government to bring the economic war to an end, having fought an election campaign in 1932 on the cry "Give us a clear majority and we will soon settle the economic war," we now discover the President of the Executive Council is glad to get rid of the British market and the Minister for Justice does not want to end the economic war. He wants to see it go on to the finish regardless of the effect it is having on the very people whom the Minister for Local Government says he is so solicitous about in connection with this Bill.

Was there ever a more flagrant act of hypocrisy in the history of the public life of this country? You rob the people of everything they have got, you wreck their trade and deprive them of their means of livelihood, you reduce them to a condition in which many of them are unable to pay rates at all, and you come along with your beggarly 1/6 and offer that to them as compensation for the damage you have done. The Irish people are a patient people, and they are a humorous people. I trust to God their humour will overcome them before their patience gives out. I sincerely trust they will resort to the expedient of laughing Fianna Fáil Deputies out of their constituencies before their tempers encourage them to chase them out.

We were told that Fianna Fáil was to usher in a time of peace and plenty. All Fianna Fáil has offered us, so far, is a growing certainty of bankruptcy, the promise of black bread, the promise of light beer, the promise of low wages. As the weeks roll by the prospect grows of the bread becoming blacker, the beer lighter and the wages lower. The prospect grows of our people being driven down to a lower and lower standard of living by the present Government. At the same time, the Government puts up the hypocritical defence that they are doing everything they can do in the cause of economy. The fact is that this Government is squandering the resources of the people in the prosecution of an imbecile campaign against Great Britain, not in the interests of Ireland, but for the glory of certain distinguished politicians. It is an insult to the people, under those circumstances, to introduce a Bill of this character which merely accentuates the rapidity with which our people are being driven down to a lower standard of living.

If I am any judge of the Irish people, they will recognise it for what it is. They will realise that it is merely a fraudulent attempt on the part of the Fianna Fáil Government to cover up its true character, as the most extravagant Government that ever appeared in this country and they will endorse our action in doing what we can to prevent the passage of this Bill. Let me say that I agree with Deputy Dr. O'Higgins that if this Bill were part of a studied and honest scheme for the enforcement of economy throughout the public services, this Bill would deserve serious consideration. It would be a Bill which I believe might be modified and improved to become a useful instrument. I believe in economy in public administration. I believe in reasonably fair wages for a fair day's work. I believe it is the duty of any Government to conserve the resources of the State with even far greater care than they would conserve their own resources, but it is because I recognise that this Bill is nothing but an attempt to persuade the people that a Government is an economical Government which is in fact a wildly extravagant Government, which is in fact a Government that has absolutely no regard for the best interests of the people, that I am opposed to it. In my opinion, therefore, to support this Bill would be to help the Government to throw dust in the eyes of the people. I think the people should be shown that this is no more than hypocrisy and fraud and, as such, should be rejected by this House.

I am rather amazed at some of the statements I have listened to for the last 20 minutes, coming from professional gentlemen. We are charged in this House with not knowing the conditions in the country. The people who make that charge have very short memories or think that we have very short memories if they expect us to forget the challenge that was issued by Deputy Dr. Ward to their leader within the past week or so, which they "funked," and which they dare not accept. Listening to their speeches, it strikes me that they think more about the six months old calf than they do about a six months old child. It may be right that we cannot export cattle, but neither can we export children. They should seriously consider what we are doing for the country in trying to get people, who are at present unemployed, absorbed in employment. I heard Deputy Dillon deploring the cutting down of salaries, because public servants will not be able to use the luxurious motor cars to which they have been accustomed in the past. That was really what his speech amounted to. That is just in keeping with the ridicule I heard thrown on an Irish industry, the industry of turf production, in the interests of English coal. We are told that this will only mean a small saving to the country and that the people did not desire it. I, for one, at the General Election of 1932, and also at the last General Election, stated that the salaries that were being paid to local officials were more than the people could afford to pay, and I say I am here to-day to support the Bill just as I am prepared to support other pledges that I gave on that occasion. I say I have been attending meetings all over the country, and the only feeling that I could discover was that the people thought that the Government were not going fast enough. I say that we are palliating and conciliating our opponents more than we should. We should take our courage in our hands in dealing with such exhibitions of temper and such exhibitions of statesmanship as they offered us here to-day. I say that the Government should proceed with their programme in the interests of the people and refuse to tolerate in future any such scenes in the House or outside it.

If this Bill were an honest attempt to economise, one might be tempted to support it, but, in reality, this Bill is an attempt to substitute a penny for the "bob" of which the Government has robbed the farmers and ratepayers in this country. It is an attempt to hoodwink the farmer into the belief that you are giving him something by reducing salaries throughout the State by £40,000, whereas, on the other hand, the Government did not shed a tear or show the slightest regret when they robbed the farmer of the £450,000 odd which they deducted from the agricultural grant last spring. I understand that they propose to do the same in the coming Budget. I do not believe that the people of this State will be hoodwinked by this sort of make-believe economy. Side by side with the introduction of this measure we had the exhibition the other day of the provisions of new jobs-lay commissioners at £1,500 or £1,600, together with new jobs for customs officials, untrained men, at £300 and £400 each. There are other jobs in the new services that the Ministry have created. There is no talk of economy in these cases. Because, forsooth, you propose to give the ratepayer a ½d. or a ¼d. reduction in rates, these economies in the salaries of local officers must take place.

If one might say a word in favour of one particular type of servant, it is the country doctor. Not even the most ardent Fianna Fáil supporter will deny that the country doctor does his duty, or that the country doctor's income has fallen by 50 or 60 per cent. owing to the contraction of his private practice as a result of the legislation carried by the Party opposite. The country doctor's salary will scarce suffice to provide the method of transport which the Deputy who has just spoken derides. A motor car for a doctor! A doctor needs a motor car in these days of rapid transport, and their miserable salaries would not go very far with them if they had not some private practice to supplement them. That private practice is now strictly limited. If there was a general all-round attempt at economy, and if all sections of the people were asked to make a sacrifice, as the farmers and others are doing, something might be said for this measure. But in the guise of a temporary economy by this wildly extravagant Government there can be no argument for the Bill.

A Government which has ruthlessly spent eight or ten million pounds of the taxpayers' money more than was spent in normal times, comes along now with a paltry Economy Bill to save £40,000. The farmers of the country are not going to be hoodwinked by such bluff as this. There are means by which this Government can economise. The methods of economy have been pointed out to them time after time, but it has fallen on deaf cars. There might be a restoration to the farmer of his market. If there was, the farmer would not need this 2½d. economy the Minister is proposing now. He would not grudge these salaries to the officials, or even increased salaries if his position were left as it was in 1932, not to speak of any improvement in it. I think that the real motive for the introduction of this measure, as other speakers have said, is to try and persuade the people of the country that this Government is at last getting a glimmer of sense, and that they are beginning to embark on a period of economy. If one were satisfied that that were so one might speak more kindly of this Bill, but there is no evidence that this extravagant Government is determined to embark on a new line. Rather is there evidence every day, in their speeches and elsewhere, that they are tending to the line of increased expenditure in every Department rather than to reduction. To come at such a time as this and ask the people of this House to vote for such a measure is an insult to the intelligence of Deputies in this House.

The Bill is logically and inevitably connected with the Public Services (Temporary Economies) Bill which we dealt with in this House last year, and which I supported. I have no regrets about having supported that Bill, but the moral position of the Government, alike in introducing that Bill and this Bill, is extremely weak, for various reasons. The principal reason is that they have been, and continue to be, wildly extravagant, and it is very hard to expect any public servants to reconcile themselves to cuts of the character that are being imposed when they see the Government so extravagant in other directions. The second weakness in the Government's position is that they have failed to treat the members of the Oireachtas, and even—I would say in spite of what the Minister for Local Government said a few moments ago—the members of the Government themselves along the same lines as they were treating public servants.

I do not intend to waste much time upon this particular aspect of the matter, but I should just like to say this. We heard a great deal of the sacrifices that the Ministers made in regard to the reduction of their remuneration, but a great deal of the impressiveness of their gesture in accepting that reduction disappears when you consider that they had pledged themselves to it in the course of their various election campaigns; that it was part of the means by which they got into power; that they had no way of escaping from doing something to carry out their pledges in that regard, and that in point of fact they did not go nearly as far in reducing the salaries of Ministers as might have been expected from a good deal of their propaganda, in which they asserted that no man was worth more to the country than £1,000 a year. Apart from the Ministers, I am not in favour, on the merits, of reducing the remuneration of the members of this House, but I did and I do say that the members of this House are in no position to start reducing the salaries of public servants with decency unless they suffer a proportionate reduction simultaneously themselves. The two things should have gone together. It was, therefore, with a very unfavourable background that the Government approached these economy measures. In addition to that, as Deputy Dillon has pointed out, they were destroying the trade of the country and causing unnecessary poverty everywhere by a perfectly ridiculous policy.

Those objections apply to the Economy Bill that we passed last year, and I none the less supported that Bill. I supported it because I felt that any attempt at economy, however trivial, however paltry, however hypocritical— even if we are to take that view of it; it has been put forward by Deputy O'Higgins that the word hypocritical was not too strong to apply—even assuming the worst in regard to the motives of the Government, I felt that for a Government to bring in an Economy Bill at all is so rare that they ought to be supported in it if one could possibly justify one's conscience in supporting them. Therefore, I did support that Bill, and I would do it again under the same circumstances. As regards this Bill, it follows logically from the previous Bill, and was, in fact, foreshadowed by one of the sections of the previous Bill. How much is going to be saved by this Bill appears to be in dispute, because we have heard a figure of £40,000 mentioned by some of the speakers, whereas if I understood the Minister aright he anticipates saving altogether something in the neighbourhood of £80,000, part of which would go in relief of the rates and part of which would go to the relief of the Exchequer.

Whether it be £40,000 or £80,000 it must be admitted to be an utterly paltry matter in comparison with the vast expenditures in which the Government have been indulging. There have been expenditures in particular in the last few months that are very hard to stomach for anybody who is considering whether to give them support upon this particular Bill. I wonder how much money they have wasted to the State by their foolish and unjust use of the Public Safety Act in an attempt to crush out their political opponents. I wonder how much money they have wasted in supplying the golden rain that has descended upon members of the I.R.A. in the hope of buying them off from any activities that might be inconvenient to the Government. I wonder how much they are going to spend on the Minister for Defence's new force, which so far as I can see is again going to serve no useful purpose except to buy off a certain number of people who might be otherwise troublesome to the Government. There have been a great many events in recent months that make it an almost intolerable burden to put upon anybody that they should be asked to support the Government in such a measure as this which is now before us. I believe that certain officials of county councils are overpaid in relation to the poverty of the country. Some of them are; others are not. There are portions of this Bill, when we come to discuss it in Committee, that I shall probably feel myself compelled to oppose outright. On the Second Reading after thinking very carefully what I felt was the proper thing to do about it, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot oppose it. On the other hand, in view of the general policy of the Government and the extravagance to which I have referred and especially the recent very unbecoming and improper extravagances of the past few months, I cannot now bring myself to support them. I shall therefore stand out of the picture.

But I wish, while saying that, to emphasise the fact that I realised from the beginning on coming into public life that there is no more unpopular thing to do than to support any individual economy. It always gets you cheers to get up on a platform and talk about economy in general, but, when it comes to any individual economy whatever, you are always told that this is false economy and that this is imposing unreasonable hardship on individuals, and that you ought not to do it. In every Parliament in the world there has been the greatest difficulty in getting private members into the lobby to vote for individual economies. Consequently, I made up my mind that that was a particular form of weakness I would not be guilty of, whatever other form of weakness I might be guilty of. It is therefore not because of any danger of unpopularity, but because of the Government's recent behaviour that I am not going to give this Bill active support. On the other hand, as I have said, I am not prepared to oppose it. I can only wish that there were some little ground for hazarding the hope that the views and ambitions which the Government desire us to attribute to them in the direction of economy, which the Government desires us to regard as crystallised in this Bill, might develop on a larger scale and in a more useful direction.

I think the House will sympathise with the Minister in the loss of a very gallant ally this evening. Stripped of the veneer with which Deputy MacDermot spoke, I can only say that he has occupied the time of the House in order to explain to the Deputies why he is now going to face in an entirely different direction to the direction in which he was facing in this House last year in favour of the Economies Bill. On that occasion the Deputy was bubbling over in his support of the Economies Bill. He was endeavouring to support the Government in the "cuts" which were imposed under the economies axe. On that occasion the Deputy regretted that the Bill did not go further and that more savage "cuts" were not inflicted. Here, this evening, instead of lining up with the Government, as he did on the last occasion, he spends 15 minutes in telling us why he has changed his mind. The Deputy has changed his Party since, and that is the reason why he has changed his mind. I have scarcely ever heard in this House a more illogical speech than the speech delivered by Deputy MacDermot just now. When the Deputy sat on these benches he was keen on economy. Now that he has left these benches and has gone into the Cumann na nGaedheal Party re-christened, the Deputy has changed his mind on the matter of economies.

He says he has not changed his mind, but on the last occasion he supported the Government in imposing "cuts." Now he thinks that is not a change in attitude or outlook. Let the Deputy explain what it is. The Deputy says, in the course of his speech, that this is a logical corollary to the last "Cuts" Bill. On the last occasion the Deputy supported the "Cuts" Bill. On this occasion he is not prepared to support the "Cuts" Bill. On that occasion I took the view that this "Cuts" Bill was unjustifiable. There is no justification for specially cutting the people with whom this Bill deals. I said on the last occasion it was unfair because it involves imposing a special tax upon a special section of the community. It involves a further endorsement by this House that the salvation of this country lies in reducing the purchasing power of a section of the people.

I do not think I can make myself anything richer by making my debtors anything poorer. It is because I believe that this is a wrong way to solve our financial difficulties that I am opposed to this Bill. This Bill, no matter what case can be made for it, involves a special tax upon a special section of the community. I think that is unfair. So far as it reduces the purchasing power of the people it will make no contribution whatever to the financial difficulties with which the country is faced. The Minister mentioned that £40,000 will accrue to the Exchequer as a result of this Bill. What is £40,000 in a Budget of £26,000,000? It is quite negligible.

If our financial difficulties are to be measured by this saving then the State is in no financial difficulty whatever. This Bill has been brought in by the Government, who are asking us to save £40,000 for the State by its passing. If that gets rid of our financial difficulties then we are in no financial difficulties. I am opposed to this Bill. It is an unfair Bill, and will serve no useful purpose in the way of solving the difficulties that confront the nation. I think the Ministry might have refrained from introducing a Bill of this kind. It is unfair, it is unjustifiable, and it is penalising a section of the community. If local government services are costing too much let us face up to that problem and see if we can get a more efficient service cheaper. But so long as we are leaving them there it means that we are merely content to lop off a slice of salary here and there. We think this Bill is not making any contribution whatever either in reducing the cost of local government or giving us a more efficient local service.

The first thing I would like to correct is the mistake I made in answering a question put by Deputy MacDermot before the discussion on the Bill started. I read the figures as given to me that there would be a saving of a sum of £35,000 to the Exchequer by this Bill. That is not so. A sum of £35,000 is the maximum sum that will be saved altogether. Part of it is going to the Exchequer and part of it to the local authority. As I started with that explanation to the House, perhaps I might say of Deputy MacDermot's contribution to the debate that it was a very unworthy contribution, bearing in mind his action on the measure introduced last year. As Deputy Norton said, he then sat on different benches. Evidently the change of place made a great change also in the views the Deputy has on the matter of economy.

He was then, as we all know, the leader of what is called the Farmers' Party. Why it was called the Farmers' Party I do not know, but that is what it was called.

No; that was not its title.

Familiarly called the Farmers' Party in the House.

Masquerading as the Farmers' Party.

And, being a Farmers' Party, they are out, as far as local authorities are concerned, to pay the lowest wage possible. A certain type of farmer, anyway the type the Deputy is supposed to represent, is out for the payment of the lowest wage possible, both by the private individual and by the bodies in charge of the public purse. But in his new company, mixed as it is, he has had to have a change of heart and mind and outlook upon these matters. The Deputy has made great attempts to walk the tight rope; but I never saw a more unsuccessful effort in this House, and there have been many made. When some of his colleagues of the Front Bench charged this Government with hypocrisy, I think they would find a better example in their own consciousness, especially in regard to the Economy Bill now before the House.

Deputy O'Higgins's speech was largely a type of speech that one might expect from a Blue Shirt platform at the crossroads rather than what one would expect from a man who rightly occupies a Front Bench position. That was where he spoke from. He made very little attempt, during his appeal for dispensary doctors, to deal with the Bill at all. In the course of his speech he made personal attacks upon our Front Bench here but his attacks had no reason in them. He said members of the Front Bench ought to set a good example and ought to feel the pinch before they start economising at the expense of public officials. I said, and I repeat, that members of the Front Bench made a sacrifice at the start and gave good example to the country by cutting down salaries appropriate to their positions here. That was not a five or a ten or a fifteen per cent. cut. In some cases it amounted to considerably more. That kind of talk and these personal attacks come very badly from Deputy O'Higgins. There is no man in this House that has his hand more deeply in the public purse for his personal benefit than Deputy O'Higgins has had.

Might I suggest to the Minister that this statement might be reserved for an occasion when Deputy O'Higgins is present?

It is not my fault that he is not here. I made similar statements before about Deputy O'Higgins. I must wind up this debate as nobody else got up to talk. Deputy MacDermot and his friends on the opposite side of the House can send for Deputy O'Higgins if they wish to bring him in. I say that it comes very badly from Deputy O'Higgins, with his gratuities and his pensions, and, also, with what is probably not known to many, his Marconi directorship. Along with his position as county medical officer of health he was also appointed by the late Government a director of the Marconi Company representing this country, and that for that alone he is paid the sum of £500 a year. He is a man who is paid heavily out of the public purse and yet he makes these low, mean and improper attacks upon the Government here. I certainly will not allow an attack of that kind to pass no matter by whom it is made. It is unworthy and unjust and is not well founded. At any rate, the man who stands up to make an attack upon others in a matter of this kind ought not to be a man who lives in a glass house.

Deputy O'Higgins has got as much and more out of the public purse as any man, some would say for services rendered. He got a gratuity of several thousand pounds when he left the Free State Army. He got an Army pension of £180 approximately. He got a directorship of the Marconi Company and he has been made a County Medical Officer of Health. He ought to remember these things when he attacks people on this side for not making sacrifices. He talks about a political army and political police, and other political bodies recently brought into being. Anything done in that way was done for the purpose of keeping peace and order in this country; anything that was done was necessary. Again I would say to the gentlemen opposite—Deputy MacDermot was not in this—they filled every post they possibly could, numbering thousands of positions in the Free State, with their own friends, to the definite exclusion of every man who was a political opponent. They drafted a declaration deliberately for the purpose of keeping every man and woman out of positions who were their political opponents. People who talk about political armies and police had better bear that in mind. If anything of that kind was done to-day they set a very good example in their time. Not only did they do these things but they sent notices to every contractor employed by local authority warning them that preference must be given to the political supporters of the late Government. The Labour Party used to be found in the Lobbies most frequently with the late Government but even these Labour men were not given a fair opportunity for getting employment for people on these contracts. It was only those who were the political backers and subscribers to the late Government who were able to get employment for their friends. Charges of this kind come very badly from Deputies like Deputy O'Higgins and those sitting in his quarter of the House.

Deputy Dillon cannot talk about anything except upon how successfully this Government fooled the people in 1932. If we did that we had a year in which to show them our policy in operation. People knew what we were doing. They knew what we were doing, that which Deputy O'Higgins describes as disastrous. But then we went before the country again, and we came back in increased numbers and with enhanced credit and I am quite sure that if we repeated the operation this year we would do the same.

Why do you not try?

The Deputy would not be so delighted if we did go before the country again. He has had experience of being defeated before now, and, perhaps, he will have the same again. Deputy Dillon, of course, like Deputy MacDermot, believes in economy in public affairs. They were the apostles of economy a few years ago. They wanted this House to be ardent economists. As Deputy MacDermot said, it is strange how you can get general support in the country for economy, but when it comes to a particular case that suggests a definite economy you often find that people fail to back you up for some particular reason. They are not prepared to adopt it because it might hit some of their friends, or for political reasons of one kind or another. They find it more convenient not to economise in particular although they declare in public that they are always out for economy, still when it comes to a question of private economy they will not support it. There is a Bill here to enable public authorities to make economies. There is a minimum amount specified. For my part, I would not like to see some of the economies that farmer members of county councils and boards of health propose. I would not like to see them, because I think if they were carried out they would be unjust and unfair. If they came to me as Minister to sanction the exorbitant decreases in salaries which they have proposed, I should refuse them, because I think that public officials, whether officials of local authorities or civil servants, are entitled to an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. It may be that some of these farmers are feeling the pinch very hard, and that they want to pass on the pinch to somebody else, but in some cases which I have seen reported in the Press they have made exorbitant demands for decreases in salaries of some public officials that I would not stand for. Deputies on the Front Bench opposite tell us that the country is suffering, that the farming community are in a calamitous state. I do not believe they are in a calamitous state. Deputies opposite know how the farmers look. How calamitous they look in their own persons! They never looked more prosperous than they do now.

It is not a matter for joking.

I am sure it is not. Deputies have to wear that funereal countenance and talk in the sepulchral tones which Deputy Dillon adopts. The tone in which they talk about the farmers would make a fortune for an undertaker. Deputy Dillon talking about the farmers is enough even to make an undertaker laugh. There is not as much money in the country as there was a few years ago, but the rate of decrease in the revenue and in trade was just as great for the two years before we came into office as it has been for the two years we have been in office. Deputies know that the fall in the price of all sorts of commodities that the farmers produce was just as rapid for the two years before we came into office as it has been for the two years we are in office. Of course, it did not pay them to wear the funereal face or talk in sepulchral tones. The opposition to this Bill is purely political. It is not that the Bill is not out for economy; it is on the face of it. It does make a minimum of economy. The local authorities may make more. What amount they will make remains to be seen and we shall have to decide that on the cases put up to us by the local authorities.

I believe there is a case for economies. I believe that local officials should bear their share as well as the other officials who have already been asked to bear their share for the public good. I should like to repeat that I do not think that share ought to be too heavy or too great and the Minister is given power in the Bill to see that nothing of an exorbitant nature, that would be unfair to the officials as well as to the country, should be imposed. If we imposed unfair cuts I feel that, loyal as the officials are in, I am sure, practically every case in the cause of the country and its work, there would be a discontent that would have a very ill effect on the services of the country as a whole. For that reason, I think it is wise to leave in the hands of the Minister the power of discretion to see where extravagant proposals are made that they are brought within reasonable limits.

Might I have your indulgence, sir, to put this proposition to the Minister? In order to justify us and to give us a proper moral position in relation to those officials whose salaries he is proposing to cut, will the Minister consider suppressing the special police force, doing away with the project of creating the defence force, and withdrawing the Public Safety Act? If he does, not only will I actively support the Bill——

Surely this does not arise?

That is not an honest question.

I think a very grave misunderstanding might arise if the Minister does not explain what he meant by saying that when the last Government was in office local authorities were circularised to see that jobs went to the political supporters of the last Government.

As chairman of a county council there is nobody in the country who knows better.

It never happened. If the Minister means that the last Government did prescribe that ex-National Army men should get a preference he ought to be honest enough to say that. The other qualification— that they were political supporters— was never mentioned or inquired into.

It was always asked.

Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Dáil divided, Tá, 67; Níl, 49.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kent, William Rice.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Doherty, Joseph.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Donnelly, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Belton, Patrick.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Broderick, William Joseph.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Davitt, Robert Emmet.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James Edward.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Traynor; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Bill read a Second Time. Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 14th February.
Barr
Roinn