Taking one small aspect of the Government's record in relation to lower-paid workers employed by them and their failure over the years to make any real attempt to improve what they may now declare to be fringe benefits for the purposes of this debate, we find that fairly substantial fringe benefits have been enjoyed by the higher-paid members of Government staffs. This approach of the Government has been taken as a headline.
You will recollect that just before the recess there was the most embarrassing situation that employees of the Office of Public Works, whose ultimate boss is the Minister for Finance, had to resort to industrial action and Deputies attending Dáil Éireann had to do so on a number of occasions in certain conditions. I am not concerned with the problems of Deputies but with the approach of the Government, through the Minister for Finance, through the Parliamentary Secretary, an approach that has not been adopted by progressive employers up to this point in time.
It was hoped when the new Government came into office that there would be a change in the approach of the Office of Public Works to staff matters but the old position has prevailed that these matters go on the long finger. That is one small aspect which indicates how the Government approach the matters raised in this Report.
In the case of every report and recommendation made by the National Industrial Economic Council and the principles set down therein, eventually it will be a Government that must implement them. The record of the Government in these matters and their relationship with their own staffs and their views and their history in relation to workers generally must be taken into account when examining the situation.
Deputy Lyons has repeated an incorrect statement which has been made on many occasions. I had hoped that by now his colleagues in the Fine Gael Party would have advised him as to the truth of the situation. The Deputy referred to 12 per cent given by the Government. What is the position? Towards the end of 1963, there was a clash between the Federated Union of Employers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as to the form in which agreement for a wage increase might be arrived at, having regard to the circumstances existing at that time, the increased cost of living, increased productivity, and the desirability of stability in regard to wages. A breakdown occurred. The Federated Union of Employers having resisted for a long time reached a point where they were prepared to think in terms of an adjustment of 10 per cent and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions considered that an adjustment in the neighbourhood of 14 per cent was necessary, taking into account the extent to which the cost of living had increased, the estimated increase which would occur in the cost of living following the decision of the Government to impose the 2½ per cent turnover tax and the assumption that in the nature of things there would be some further adjustment over a period. Both parties were asked to come together again to try to arrive at a settlement.
The Taoiseach must be given credit and is given credit for inviting both parties to get together again and see could they resolve the difficulty. The difficulty was resolved. Yet, ever since that time, for some reason or other—of course there is certain advantage taken of it in a political way at certain times—people talk in terms of the Government giving the workers 12 per cent. Deputy Lyons again today, in an area where people should know better, used the same terms.
We must examine the report on the economic situation and the motion before the House in relation to paragraph 50 of the Report, on page 38, which sets down what the Council considers an incomes policy to be. I quote:
By an incomes policy we mean a policy which is concerned with the behaviour of all money incomes, i.e. wages and salaries, incomes of farmers and self-employed persons, professional earnings, rents, profits and realised capital gains—rather than a policy which focuses attention on particular components of the total such as wages or profits. Too often an incomes policy tends to be regarded as a wages policy. We repudiate, as inadequate and inequitable, any incomes policy which does not embrace all categories of money income.
We take it that the Minister for Finance, in moving the motion before the House, subscribes to the view expressed in that paragraph. One would not think so, however, if one were to judge by the contributions to this debate of the Minister and his Leader and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party. The tone of their speeches and of their argument is that wage and salary earners should be restricted with regard to claims for wage or salary increases and, further, that they should not negotiate fringe benefits, reduction in working hours, service pay, extension of sick pay or superannuation schemes. That would appear to be the reported views of both the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach.
Is that surprising? It need not be surprising to anyone in this House or to anyone outside who has observed over the years the attitude of Fianna Fáil in government. I emphasise "in government", when they felt they were in a rather difficult financial position. They lost an election in 1947, on the very same grounds. At that stage they indicated clearly and definitely that they proposed interfering with the trade union movement and they intended, if they returned to power, to take over the job of looking after the workers' interests and the organisation of the workers, laying down rules and regulations which would be harmful to the trade union movement. They lost the election that time.
It is an extraordinary thing that every time a Fianna Fáil Government feel themselves faced with some, to them insoluble problem, the first thing they do is to strike at the very people who have unfortunately supported them all down the years. Fianna Fáil is synonymous with wages standstill. There is nothing in this document about a wages standstill but the only interpretation to be taken from the Taoiseach's statements is that there will be a wages standstill. In November, 1965, the cost of living had increased by 10.5 as compared with November, 1963. What is the Government's approach to that? Three per cent is mentioned as a possible figure in relation to money incomes. I should like to know from the Minister, and so, I am sure, would everybody else, how he proposes to restrict the bankers, for instance, to three per cent. How does he propose to restrict the self-employed, the professional classes and the large farmers to three per cent? What steps has he in mind?
There is one thing the Government must do, that is, get their priorities right. At the moment many in the lower income bracket, agricultural workers and thousands of industrial workers, are earning around £10, or less, per week. The activities of the Government should be directed towards ensuring that something is given to these people. The Government have failed to do what is recommended in this document with regard to precautionary measures to be taken when there appears to be an unfavourable trend. This is something that has not arisen now for the first time. For many years, we, on these benches, have been insisting on the necessity to plan ahead, nationally and economically. For many years, our advocacy of such planning was laughed to scorn by the Taoiseach. I am afraid Deputy Dillon has now donned the mantle worn by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach was always wedded to the profit motive; once that was secure, everything would be lovely in the garden; the carrot of profit was sufficient inducement; the land would flow with milk and honey. However, over the years the Taoiseach learned that a modern economy just does not operate in that way. He has learned that there is need to think in terms of the future. Deputy Dillon is, of course, the great individualist. I am afraid there are many like him and many of them are in a position to exploit their fellow humans. I do not say that Deputy Dillon would knowingly exploit anybody, but his approach is that of an individualist— no necessity for economic or any other form of planning, no necessity for fiscal guidance. There are a great many who think like him. However, I think the day of laissez faire has gone.
It is pertinent to ask if the Government propose to think in terms of the future and of the view expressed here. We have a number of State-sponsored bodies, among them the Agricultural Institute. The responsible Minister is, of course, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The Labour Court, a body set up by the Government to deal with industrial disputes, recommended that an agreement which had been made between the technician staff association and the Institute, an agreement which was about to be dishonoured, should be honoured and the operative date should be 1st October, 1965. The association sought 1st January, 1964, and the Institute sought 1st January, 1965. The interesting thing is that the day after the Institute formally acknowledged it was accepting the recommendation of the Labour Court in respect of the technician staff, it applied salary adjustments for its professional and administrative staff as from 1st April, 1964.
I am not one to criticise people in clerical or administrative grades for obtaining adequate salaries, but I understand that in relation to senior grades of staff in the Institute, not only did the Institute offer an earlier retrospective date but they offered a percentage increase on top of the 12 per cent, varying from 12 per cent to 22 per cent in the case of the professional staff and from nine per cent to 25 per cent in the case of the administrative staff. This decision must have been made by the council or perhaps by the Director-General of that organisation at the time when this Report was going to be discussed in Dáil Éireann. Whoever was concerned, possibly the Minister for Agriculture himself, was aware that this Report had been published in November, and these proposals were made only within the past three weeks. Then the Taoiseach speaks here about a three per cent adjustment in wages.
It has become quite clear that the ordinary people of this country—by "ordinary people", I mean those who have to work to earn their livelihood— are facing a conspiracy between this Government and the Federated Union of Employers. The Government say they do not intend to give their staffs any increase; they talk about a three per cent adjustment in the face of a 10.5 per cent increase in the cost of living. Let us remember that usually the spring is a period in which the cost of living increases more rapidly than at other times of the year. When the cost of living figure comes out for the period to mid-February, we may find that lower-paid workers are again subject to increasing hardship.
One knows that to apply compensation to wage and salary earners whose wages are around £10 a week—and there are many salary earners at that level—would require about ten per cent, but to apply an adjustment all round would require no more across the board, as far as wage and salary earners are concerned, than around seven per cent.
The Taoiseach is giving sustenance to the people who are responsible for the deepsea port of Dublin being closed today. Anyone who knows about the situation is aware that the dispute should be settled between the representatives of the workers and the representatives of the employers. They will not be let settle it, and I wonder, and lots of people are wondering if this direction is reinforced by the case made in the discussion on this incomes policy report by the Government spokesmen.
