Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 1945

Vol. 96 No. 14

Local Authorities (Cost of Living) (Amendment) Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is very simple. The Oireachtas as, I suppose, most of its members are aware, in July of 1940, enacted a measure providing that officers and employees of local authorities any part of whose remuneration was paid as a bonus regulated by the cost-of-living index figure would, after the passing of the Bill, that is from the 1st day of July, 1940, have that bonus calculated by reference to a cost-of-living index figure of 185. That Act, accordingly, has controlled and stabilised the salaries of the officers falling within the category to which I have referred, that is officers part of whose remuneration consisted of a bonus based upon a basic figure and regulated by the cost-of-living index figure. Their salaries, as I said, have been stabilised since 1st July, 1940, at the amount at which they stood at that date.

Recently the Government decided that as the standstill policy in regard to remuneration in general had not become effective until the cost-of-living index figure had risen to a point equivalent to 210, the Civil Service, whose remuneration, as the House is aware, carries with it a cost-of-living bonus, should have their cost-of-living bonus computed by reference to a cost-of-living index figure of 210.

In view of that fact, and in view of the decision of the Government, it is felt that it is only equitable that officers of local authorities, whose remuneration was determined in the same way, should be placed on the same basis henceforward as the officers of the State are, and accordingly this Bill proposes that where a cost-of-living bonus forms any part of the remuneration of an officer of a local authority, it will be computed by reference to a figure of 210; that is to say, by reference to a figure 25 points higher than that which prevailed after the date upon which the Principal Act was passed in July, 1940. This principle will also extend to officers of local authorities whose superannuation has been calculated by a reference to the cost-of-living index figure.

General Mulcahy

Could the Minister give us figures to show how the change will operate in a particular sample case or two?

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid not. I could not give the Deputy the figures, because the measure has been drafted not with reference to any particular case but with reference to the generality of cases—all the cases which were covered by the previous Act of 1940.

General Mulcahy

What the Minister says would rather suggest that he is dealing now with the officers of local authorities in exactly the same way as the Civil Service has been dealt with.

Mr. MacEntee

No, no.

General Mulcahy

I think the Minister ought not to leave the House under that impression, because he is dealing with a matter which still leaves a very large and important section of local officials completely as they were before the enormous increase in the cost of living started since the beginning of the war. Whatever the position may be elsewhere, in Dublin there is a situation in which officials who were above the £400 a year rate of income have been completely left untouched by any arrangement to give any increase related to the enormous increase in the cost of living which has taken place since the war.

The position is that officers whose salary normally reached £400 a year and above that, and who were entitled to a cost-of-living bonus prior to 1922, at some particular time after that year had their salaries stabilised on the assumption that the cost-of-living figure would range at about 150. They were somewhat disappointed with the way in which things developed with regard to the cost of living after their salaries were stabilised in that way. But, whatever disappointments they suffered before that, they were in the position when this emergency began—I quote from the Irish Trade Journal of September 17th, page 133—that the cost-of-living index figure for August, 1939, was 173. Therefore, the position was that officials of the Dublin Corporation who were on the £400 mark, which had been stabilised on the assumption that the cost of living would remain at about 150, were already in September, 1939, suffering as a result of that stabilisation. But the cost-of-living figure which affected them adversely then at a rate of 173 has risen to 296. Actually, last year the cost-of-living figure in February was 296; in May, 292; and in August, 296. I do not know what it was in November, but the figure published for mid-February was 295. So that you have a situation that everybody with £400 a year or above that in the employment of the Dublin Corporation at the present time is suffering from severe hardship as a result of the enormous increase in the cost of living that has gone on since the war began.

I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that representations have been made to him by the Dublin Corporation, or, at any rate, by the city manager, on whom the responsibility for dealing adequately with staff problems is now placed. I suggest that the Minister has had formal representations made to him as to the very great hardship that is being suffered by officials of that kind and their families. I submit to him that the House would like to know what examination he has caused to be made into that situation, and what he proposes to do in the matter. It does suggest to anybody who knows how difficult it is to maintain a family with the enormous increase in the cost of living to-day, as disclosed by the figures, and to anyone who has any experience of the normal cost of living in respect of those matters which are not able to reflect themselves in the cost-of-living index, what is being suffered by the families and by the officials themselves. They see their families squeezed by the present emergency circumstances. I would ask the Minister whether he has gone into that matter, and whether he proposes to do anything to apply the same type of relief to the officers of local authorities over the £400 level as is applied to officers on similar scales of salary in the Civil Service.

Mr. Norton

There is one aspect of this problem that I do not think is touched by the Bill, but which is a very closely related problem. This Bill seems to concern itself with the case of certain persons whose bonus agreement was stabilised by the 1940 Act, but there is the case of other persons who are affected by what flowed out of the 1940 Act, and flowed from the Government's stabilisation policy. I refer to the case of the ordinary employees of the Dublin Corporation. In February, 1940, following a dispute between the Union representing those employees and the city manager, an effort was made to devise a basis of regulating the wages of what might be described as the general workers employed by the Corporation. It was then suggested to the Union concerned that they should consent to an arrangement by which the wages of the manipulative staff would be regulated by reference to a cost-of-living index figure which was to be ascertained periodically by the Department of Industry and Commerce.

In order to avoid any friction then or at a future date as to the regulation of wage scales and in order to have the matter put on some satisfactory basis, the union, speaking for the employees concerned, consented to this arrangement. In other words, they accepted the principle of regulation of wages by reference to a cost-of-living index figure. However, when they asked the corporation to indicate to what extent wages would move having regard to the movement in the index figure, the corporation offered certain proposals which the union viewed as unreasonable, as the index figure would have to rise pretty substantially before they received anything like reasonable compensation for the rise in prices. A deadlock then occurred between the union on the one hand and the city manager on the other hand.

While they were endeavouring to overcome the difficulties which had been created and were trying to get some kind of agreement with the corporation as to the rate at which their wages would change in future in relation to the index figure, the Government announced its general stabilisation policy. It implemented that policy in Emergency Powers Order No. 83, the effect of which was to prevent any employee securing an increase in wages at that stage. Subsequently, that Order was modified and certain increases were permitted. Those increases have now reached a permitted maximum of 11/- a week. The employees of the Dublin Corporation concerned, that is, the manipulative staff, have always felt that they got a rather raw deal. They were endeavouring to put their wages on a cost-of-living bonus basis and have them regulated according to a rise or fall in the index figure, but, whilst the negotiations were in progress, Emergency Powers Order No. 83 clamped down on the general level of wages and prohibited any increase in the wages paid on the 5th May, 1941.

If the Government had not implemented the Order at that time, it is quite likely that some solution of this difficulty would have been found and then the corporation staff would have their wages regulated to-day, not on the 1941 rates plus the emergency bonus amounting to a maximum of 11/- but rather to the rise and fall in the index figure. That would ensure them much better compensation for the rise in the cost of living than they are receiving by reason of the meagre maximum allowance of 11/- per week. This Bill deals only with the amendment of the 1940 Act and, perhaps, cannot be applied to cover a case of that kind, but I would ask the Minister to examine the merits of the issue and give sympathetic consideration to the recommendations which may have been made to him, or certainly will be made to him, by the union concerned.

There is at least a case for sympathetic consideration of the claim and, if the Minister would examine it, he may find it equitable to permit the manipulative staff to receive a higher rate of remuneration than that which they are receiving at present by reason of the fact that their wages were clamped down by the operation of the Emergency Powers Order. The Minister may be familiar with the issues involved and, if so, perhaps he would say now whether he has examined the matter and will hold out any hope of permitting an increase in that case because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the collapse of the negotiations which were on foot when Order No. 83 was introduced.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

I am sorry I had not the benefit of hearing the Minister's opening statement. Some members may wonder as to the necessity for this Bill and why its application is confined to the officials of the Dublin Corporation. The history behind it is that in 1919 the staff of the corporation went on strike and, as a result, they were conceded a cost-of-living bonus as then applying to the Civil Service. Strange to say, however, there was no provision made for any further fluctuation, so that in 1920 and to the end of 1921 the position was that corporation officials had a higher cost-of-living bonus than civil servants actually had at that period. The Government of the day intervened and suggested to the corporation that the matter should be put on a uniform basis. As a result of that request, the whole question of salaries and scales was examined and a number of new grades and scales were introduced. On that point I would like to support the plea put forward by Deputy Mulcahy in regard to certain officials of the corporation.

They decided then, on what was deemed to be good advice, that it would be better to have certain scales on a stabilised basis, on the understanding that the cost of living steadied itself at about 50 over the 1914 figure. Actually, that position did not materialise and it adversely affected the staff on stabilised salaries up to 1933, so that they lost considerably. At that stage, the cost of living fell, but the international situation round about 1934 and 1935 began to have influences here and the staff were subsequently hit still more as a result. Since 1939, the position has been aggravated. The Minister will appreciate that there are certain anomalies arising out of these grades and scales introduced at that time. I am making this plea because those grades were hitched on to a cost-of-living bonus and were switched over on account of the circumstances which I have related.

Take, for example, the grade of minor staff officer in the Dublin Corporation. You have a glaring anomaly there at present. There is a very valuable official who got promotion in the Housing Department some time ago, from minor staff officer to staff officer, and his position, as a result of the operation of this bonus, will be that his promotion will mean a loss of £42 a year. A very good case, therefore, can be made, considering all the circumstances of the period when the stabilisation of these salaries took place. Having regard to the serious amount the officials have lost by reason of the arrangement made in 1922, consideration should be given to this matter along the lines of the Civil Service as a whole, where the bonus applies from the position of messenger to that of secretary. I think a very good case can be made, on sympathetic grounds, even at this stage, so far as these officers are concerned.

I will join with Deputy Norton in asking the Minister to give us some indication with regard to other grades in the service. Naturally, the wage-earning sections will find themselves in an invidious position if they are excluded from the operation of any advantages that will accrue from a change in this cost-of-living figure. I understand the unions have made representations and I should like to hear the Minister's view on the matter.

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to point out to the Minister that in 1919, when these salaries were arranged, there was a man in the Department of Local Government who was at that time attempting to break, and who eventually succeeded in breaking, the British rule in this country. From that until 1922, or even later, was a rather troubled period, with the result that, whatever arrangements were arrived at then to meet the situation, they were not regarded as permanent and these officials should have come in under the stabilised salary category. They are in the position that at the moment the increase which Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned does not apply to them. Some of them have been promoted and they are in a worse position as a result of the promotion than before they were promoted.

I will ask the Minister to consider this matter sympathetically. While I appreciate that asking for an increase for one section swells an already large bill, nevertheless, I would like him to investigate the circumstances under which these officials were originally established and their salaries fixed. Perhaps he will also consider the peculiar circumstances and particularly the effect which the stabilisation at a certain time and at a certain rate has on the present cost of living, and if possible, accede to the request which the city manager made in the circular forwarded to the Department as far back as last December.

Mr. Keyes

I wonder if the Lord Mayor of Dublin, Deputy O'Sullivan, is correct in suggesting that this Bill is applicable only to the Dublin Corporation? I feel that was a narrow interpretation of it, and I have reason to believe that it embraces at least one man in Limerick. I would like to join with Deputy Norton and Deputy O'Sullivan in asking the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to those who are excluded from these provisions. I think the case that has been made for the workers in Dublin would apply with equal force to the workers of other corporations. I should say that they would apply equally to the workers in Cork or Galway. I do not think that this matter should be approached completely from the metropolitan angle. The workers were denied any increase between 1939 and 1943 when many others got increases. Then somewhat belatedly they did get an increase, but we must remember that there was a big gap when prices were mounting strenuously and steeply. That period must be borne in mind. I think there is a good case for a commensurate increase, and it ought to be considered seriously by the Minister, as regards the workers who are not covered by this Bill.

With regard to the officers whose remuneration is not fixed on a basic rate, plus cost of living, I would like to point out that, while there is only one man in the public service in Limerick who will benefit by this, when their salaries were fixed in the old days they had strict relation to the then cost of living and I suggest the 11/- emergency bonus given to these officials since then is in no way comparable to the sufferings they have undergone, and they are carrying out the same important duties. I have known cases where the basic salary, plus the cost-of-living bonus, in the old days would have been higher than the fixed salary of the officials excluded from the provisions of this measure. There is one case that deserves very sympathetic consideration, and that is the case for an advance to the men who are excluded, workers in Limerick, Cork and Galway.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid that a big part of the discussion which we had on this Bill is rather beside the point. This is an Act to amend the Local Authorities (Cost of Living) Act, 1940, and, naturally, the discussion must fall within the Long Title of that Act, which reads as follows:—

"An Act to restrict the upward variation of remuneration and superannuation allowances payable by local authorities which are variable, in whole or in part, by reference to the cost of living."

I tried to make it clear, when I was introducing this Bill, that it applied, and was intended to apply, only to a section of the officers or servants of local authorities, that it applies to the officers or servants of local authorities, without any territorial limitation, who come within the ambit of the original Act, that is to say, officers or servants, any part of whose remuneration is calculated by reference to the cost-of-living figure. Accordingly, it does not apply to the officers or servants of public authorities in general, and it does not apply to any section of officers who, their remuneration having been formerly regulated by reference to the cost-of-living figure, decided, for reasons which I am sure at the time seemed good and sufficient to themselves, to abandon that system of payment and to accept instead a consolidated figure or a stabilised figure.

I do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of the case. I do not wish to enter into any controversy with Deputies who have raised the matter here, but I would like to say this, because it has an important bearing on the matter, that as regards an arrangement which has persisted for over 20 years, an arrangement on the basis of which people who were not in the service of local authorities at the time it was made, have since entered into contracts of service, we could not depart from that unless the Government intended to alter its policy in regard to remuneration, salaries and wages in general.

General Mulcahy

But the cost of living has risen by 70 per cent.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy had better stop these petty political points.

General Mulcahy

It is not a petty point.

Mr. MacEntee

It is, and it is no use trying to argue the thing in that way. We all know that the cost of living has risen, but the Government, for reasons which were good, reasons which were upheld in this House and which have been justified by the people at two general elections, decided that, in the interest of the nation as a whole, a certain policy should be pursued in regard to remuneration, salaries and wages. It has been pursued, and I do not think it would be relevant to start a discussion of it on this Bill.

General Mulcahy

The Government actually departed from it, in the face of facts, in respect of certain classes. Why should they refuse to depart from it in the case of local officials?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to conclude.

Mr. MacEntee

I listened with great patience to the Deputy, and I hope he will try to be as patient with me. I was saying that it was quite obvious that one could not, in relation to a general class of public servants, such as those Deputy Mulcahy has in mind, depart from the general policy of the Government in relation to this matter of remuneration and wages without abandoning the policy as a whole, and therefore it would be quite unworthy and very reprehensible on my part if I were to say at this stage that there is any great hope that the general body of officers and servants of the local authorities will be given the benefit of the provisions of this Bill. The Bill does not apply only to the officers of the Dublin Corporation. It applies to that section of the officers and servants of local authorities in general whose remuneration, prior to the passing of the Act of 1940, was calculated by reference to a cost-of-living figure.

Mr. Norton

Has the Minister received any representations in respect of the wage-earning classes in the corporation?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, but they stand or fall with the rest.

General Mulcahy

I do not want to make any difficulty for the Minister, but——

Mr. MacEntee

Surely this is the Second Stage of the Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may ask a question of the Minister.

General Mulcahy

I want to ask the Minister roughly what percentage of the employees of local bodies have been precluded, since the outbreak of war, from getting an increase of any kind because of the rise in the cost of living?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not propose to answer that question. It is the sort of question which, if it were put on the Order Paper, could be answered in the ordinary way. It does not affect the principle of the Bill.

General Mulcahy

Simply because the principle of the Bill is so restricted as to be almost invidious when one considers it in relation to local employees as a whole.

Mr. MacEntee

The Act of 1940 was restricted, too.

General Mulcahy

There is a very considerable number of local employees who are suffering because the cost of living has risen by 70 per cent. since the outbreak of war. There is a large number of wage earners who, although the Government stabilised wages, have been given relief following examination of their cases by tribunals and the issue of emergency Orders to enable them to get increases, but local employees, whose payment was not calculated on the basis of a cost-of-living bonus, have been completely precluded, from the beginning of the emergency, from getting any increase.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Second Stage has been concluded.

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister clarify his reply to my question? He said that the position of the wage-earning classes was that they stood or fell with the lot. With what lot?

Mr. MacEntee

With the others— with all those other employees who are paid a consolidated wage.

Mr. Norton

Is the Minister familiar with what happened to interrupt the negotiations which would probably have been brought to fruition were it not for the stabilisation of wages Order No. 83?

Mr. MacEntee

I am well aware of the course of conduct into which the men were led by their trade union leaders on that occasion and the consequences to the men.

Mr. Norton

I do not propose to go into that now, but if the Minister gets bold this evening, I shall have to ask the Tánaiste to come in and administer a rebuke.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Second Stage has been concluded.

Mr. Norton

I can get it in on the Fifth Stage, but I want to clarify the position now. Has the Minister had any representations on that matter and will he tell me, for my information, whether he proposes to give consideration to the points made?

Mr. MacEntee

I have already answered the Deputy comprehensively. I have said that all these officers who are paid a consolidated rate will be in exactly the same position as all other wage-earners and employees; that is to say, they are governed by Emergency Powers Order, and I do not propose to depart from that.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, March 22nd.