I am sorry for being the cause of any excitement thus early on in the debate. I stated that publicity had been given to a letter stated to have been written by an income tax inspector to a farmer. I do not think anybody is going to suggest that this letter has been invented for the purpose. In fact, numbers of letters of a similar nature have, I understand, been received. These letters were quoted in the Dáil, and incidentally, they were not placed on the Table of the House. But, even this employment suggested for women working at from 5/- to 7/- a week is evidently not going to be continued. Listen to what the inspector says later on: "Further there is none of this work in winter. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that these men were required during the months of December, January or February." So in order that there may be more money for the Revenue, rural workers have got to be discharged for the months of December, January, and February. I wonder what they are expected to do in order to exist during that period? They are not insured, and, unless they do as the flies do in the winter time, sleep the time away and be saved the necessity for eating, they may die. We are, in fact, judging by the attempts of the Department of Finance, to become a half-time nation.
The House will be familiar with the proposal of the Department, it has been temporarily withdrawn, to put all workers in receipt of moneys paid out of State revenue on half-time if there are others to take their place. It is not suggested, of course, that that should apply to the whole Civil Service, although why I do not know. If the Ministry want to be consistent, why should it not apply to judges, the Army, the Guards and even Cabinet Ministers? The solution that the Government seem to have found for the unemployment problem is that workers should give up their employment for half the year so that the unemployed may take their jobs. That is an even more brilliant proposal than the fixing of the 24/- a week for able-bodied men doing heavy navvy work. But, apart from the vicious principle enshrined in this Bill, it involves a grave breach of faith so far as every civil servant, or other public employee, with a salary of £300 a year and under is concerned. No amount of sophistry or word-spinning will get away from that fact. I do not want to be quoting statements that have already been quoted elsewhere, but I think it is necessary that the statement of the President on the 1st February, 1932, in the Rathmines Town Hall should be quoted again. He said:
"It is not our idea to start cutting the lower salaries. I have often expressed the view that £1,000 was the limit, but with regard to the smaller salaries of £300 or £400, I hold that those in receipt of them are getting nothing excessive. These are not the salaries I had in mind for the cut. We could always feel certain that these smaller salaries were being spent inside the community and for necessaries, while much of the larger salaries were spent outside the community and often on luxuries."
Now the suggestion has been made that that only applied to the Civil Service proper and did not include, for instance, the national teachers. Here again is a document that was quoted in the Dáil and not placed on the Table of the House. It is a copy of a letter written by Mr. Kelleher, a member of the Executive of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, and a prominent supporter of Fianna Fáil. In a letter to the Irish Press he states:
"Mr. MacEntee's statement in the Dáil on Wednesday night re "cuts" in teachers' salaries, as reported in the public Press, illustrates the extent of the change which this onetime champion of the teachers' rights on the pension question has undergone since he assumed Ministerial responsibility.
"Mr. MacEntee says that in the Rathmines speech the only body the President had in mind was the Civil Service. I was one of the teachers who on the night before the General Election in 1932 asked the President what was his attitude re teachers' salaries. He replied that when he spoke on the question of Civil Service salaries, a short time previously in Rathmines, he had in mind the teachers as well, and he, himself, volunteered to put a statement in the public Press to that effect."
The next morning the following appeared on the front page of the Irish Press, that is, on the morning of the general election:
"In reply to queries from teachers, Mr. de Valera has announced that the principle which he stated in regard to civil servants would also apply to teachers."
Now, after that, any attempt to suggest that the President's speech did not include the national teachers is a mere quibble. Mr. Lemass, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking in Cahir on the 27th January, 1932, said: "There is no need to cut the teachers or the Guards, and the Budget deficiency can be met by retaining the land annuities and the R.I.C. pensions." Well, these have been withheld, and still the cuts are to operate. It seems to me that an attempt has been made to keep the letter but not the spirit of the undertaking. Now, this may be good political finesse, but it is very bad and questionable statesmanship. It damages the credit of the Government, and, incidentally, the State, and undermines the loyalty that public servants must have in order to be efficient towards the Executive Government.
If the Government feel, as I believe they do, that the financial position is such now that they cannot implement the pledges they gave a year or more ago, why cannot they be honest and say so? If they explained to the national teachers and to others to whom they gave these definite and explicit pledges, that the financial position has disimproved to such an extent that they cannot now, no matter how much they would like to, honour those pledges, then there would be a clear understanding on the matter; but to attempt to prove that pledges are being kept when, in fact, they are not, is not honourable, and it certainly will deceive nobody.
To justify the "cuts" in the case of the teachers, statements are made that are untrue, and that the people who make them must know are untrue. It is stated, for instance, that the teachers agreed to a 10 per cent. cut in 1931. Now that is an impudent falsehood. The cut that was tentatively accepted in 1931 was a flat 6 per cent. cut. The present Government are calculating the 4 per cent. which the teachers always paid towards their pensions as a cut and counting it— adding it to the 6 per cent. cut proposed. On the same basis the 5 per cent. to 8 per cent. in the present Bill would have to be counted as 9 per cent. and 12 per cent., so that there is no use in trying to misrepresent the position in that way. The Executive Committee of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, under pressure, in 1931 tentatively accepted a cut of 6 per cent. on the understanding that the pension question would be adjusted once and for all. In other words, the Minister for Finance of the day was to take responsibility for the payment of pensions, and to relieve the teachers of all further anxiety in that respect. That proposal was placed before a special congress of the teachers, and was carried by a majority. Immediately a revolt took place, very ably led by, amongst others, the present President of the I.N.T.O., now a Fianna Fáil Deputy. Even the present Minister for Finance figured in the Press in the roll of champion of the teachers. I quote from a letter of his that appeared in the Irish Independent on the 18th January, 1932, in the course of which he says:—
"Apparently the teachers have decided to facilitate Mr. Blythe in disposing of their savings. The greater part of the fund has been built up by their contributions. The whole of it belongs to them, and represents the sole tangible security there is for the payment of their pensions. Even though it may be in temporary difficulties, the fund is something sure, something certain. Once it is dissipated the pensions of national teachers will become a political question, the treatment of which will depend upon the financial exigencies of the Government."
Yet, last year he made an exactly similar proposal himself when the fund was to be handed over, not to Mr. Blythe's tender mercies, but to his tender mercies. Well, the revolt was so successful that at the ensuing election for the I.N.T.O. Executive the whole of the outgoing body were defeated, and a solid Fianna Fáil block was elected. In the general election of 1932 the teachers, in a body in some places, almost unanimously supported the Fianna Fáil Party. "Vote Fianna Fáil and no cuts" was the cry that met me in various constituencies. The General Secretary of the I.N.T.O., who was a Labour candidate for South Mayo, had the teachers out against him everywhere in that constituency supporting "the Fianna Fáil Party and no cuts," and he was defeated. I was down in Sligo-Leitrim at the election, where an outgoing member of the I.N.T.O. Executive was a Labour candidate. I was met with a manifesto signed by the teachers of the constituency, calling upon their colleagues "for God's sake to support Fianna Fáil this time." Everywhere you had that. "Vote for Fianna Fáil and save your salaries."
Now one of the effects of this mischievous interference on the part of outsiders in the affairs of a trade union, of politicians seeking to exploit trade union difficulties for their own advantage, is that an I.N.T.O. executive since has no possible hope to get accepted by their members anything that involves a disimprovement in their conditions. At the annual congress which was subsequently held, the Fianna Fáil Government being in power, the delegates almost unanimously rejected the suggestion of a cut. Nobody could think of a cut, but there was a rather rude awakening in June of last year, when the present Minister suggested a 5 per cent. cut instead of a 6 per cent. cut, with an adjustment of the pension question. The support of the teachers was worth 1 per cent. evidently, and they were going to get it. Now the executive that was returned on the slogan of "no cuts" could not possibly with any degree of consistency go to their members and ask them to accept the cut in the circumstances. Of course, they did not do so. But if that 5 per cent. cut were good enough to meet the Exchequer demands in 1932, why have we cuts which, in this Bill, I am told, average from 6¼ per cent. to 6½ per cent, and that all over? Does that mean that if the teachers accepted the 5 per cent. cut last year there would be a demand for a further out this year?
The proposals in this Bill do not involve any adjustment of the pension question at all, so that to that extent the position now is worse than it was in 1931, because a 6 per cent. cut there involved a settlement of the pension question without any extra charge being imposed on the teachers. This cut leaves the pension fund in the same unsatisfactory condition in which it was found. It has been alleged that in the last election this was not an issue at all, and that if it was why did not the teachers come along and get the Ministers to pledge themselves. Well, in the first place, Ministers were already pledged up to the eyes and consequently they had not to go and get satisfactory assurances. I quote from a speech made by the General Secretary of the I.N.T.O., Mr. T.J. O'Connell, in Carlow on Saturday last. He said:—
"The President told the teachers at Westport last January that he would abide by the spirit of his declaration made at Rathmines previous to the 1932 election. Mr. Ruttledge, the present Minister for Justice, and his colleague, Mr. Cleary, were interviewed prior to the general election, 1933, by a deputation from the Swinford teachers. Here is the account of that interview, as furnished to their branch by the five teachers who met Mr. Ruttledge. Mr. Ruttledge stated that there was no cut in contemplation, the whole trouble being the pension fund, and that teachers might be asked to contribute towards this fund. In this connection, he said he could not promise to oppose a contribution from the teachers to the pension fund. He said definitely he was against cuts in teachers' salaries and if there were to be any cuts in salaries of public servants generally, his Party would begin at the top. His Party looked upon money spent on primary education as money well spent, as the vast majority of children got no other education. Mr. Cleary on that occasion said there was no intention to cut teachers' salaries."
These pledges, which were pretty definite, were made immediately prior to the last election and still we find that the cuts are to take place.
There is another peculiar lapse in the financial statement published in the Press by the Department of Finance after the Bill was introduced. This statement contained the following:—
"About 2,500 teachers—junior assistant mistresses and lay assistant teachers—not hitherto eligible for pensions, are to be admitted to full pension rights."
There is not a word about this in the Bill. Deputy Murphy asked a question about the matter recently in the Dáil and the Minister for Finance replied:—
"I am not in a position to mention the date from which pensions will be payable to junior assistant mistresses and lay assistant teachers. The Government have already decided in principle that the teachers in these classes are to be given the benefit of pensionability. The terms, however, upon which pensions may be granted are part of the general question of the future pension position of the national school teachers as a whole. The general question still remains unsettled. In April last the President, while Acting-Minister for Finance, informed the Irish National Teachers' Organisation that the Government were willing to discuss with them the final settlement of the question of making solvent the teachers' pension fund and the terms on which future pensions should be payable if the organisation sent plenipotentiaries with whom a settlement could be arrived at. That invitation has not been accepted and the Government have consequently not been in a position to settle the matter by agreement."
The Minister wants the teachers to send plenipotentiaries—people who will be able to conclude a settlement without ratification, I take it, by the Teachers' Congress. We are withholding the land annuities and other payments because a settlement was made with Britain, which was not ratified by the Oireachtas. That is a sound principle to go on. Why, then, ask the teachers to adopt a procedure in conflict with that principle by making settlements without consulting the delegate-conference or, in other words, the parliament of the teachers? On the question of equality or equity, where is the equity in imposing a 5 per cent. cut on a teacher who has only £147 per annum, while omitting from the list a civil servant with £300 per annum? A civil servant with £400 per year gets only a 2 per cent. cut, while a teacher drawing the same salary gets a 7¼ per cent. cut. The teachers' organisation issued a statement to the Committee set up to inquire into proposed economies which showed that a civil servant who had £369, including bonus, in March, 1922, has suffered less since then than a teacher who had the same salary at the same time. To put it in another way—a civil servant and a teacher had each £370 in 1922; in the aggregate, as the statement points out, the civil servant has drawn £105 more spread over the ten years since, than has the teacher—that is to say £10 a year more. There were years, of course, when the cost-of-living bonus was cut, but there were other years when it went up, and that slightly adjusted the position. Meanwhile, the teachers have had a 10 per cent. cut in salaries and about 2 per cent. of an additional cut in regard to fees—a total of 12 per cent. The teachers have proved conclusively in the tables they have issued that they have made a greater sacrifice than even the civil servants. Yet, they are being subjected to cuts which do not apply to the civil servants at all. Some people will say that the teachers have only got their deserts for placing their faith in the word of professional politicians. There is a more important aspect of the matter than that. Some of them may deserve what they got but, after all, one must expect some standard of reliability in regard to the speeches of people who are prospective Ministers and members of the Government of the State. When pledges of that kind are broken it threatens to shake the whole credit of the State.
The proposed cutting of the salaries of the Gárda is even less justifiable. The Gárda have stated—it has not been contradicted—that they are the lowest paid police force in the English-speaking world. Their wages were fixed in 1922 on the basis of the report of the Desborough Commission, which had already fixed the rates of pay for the police of both Great Britain and Ireland. These and the allowances were supposed to be the irreducible minimum. Yet the Guards have had cuts amounting in the aggregate to 17½ per cent. since then. When they got the last cut, they received a definite assurance that there would be no further interference of any kind with their rates of pay. If this Bill is passed, they will have suffered cuts ranging from £32 8s. 0d. per annum in the case of a married Guard to £38 6s. 2d. in the case of an unmarried Guard and £65 per annum in the case of an inspector. A Guard takes 22 years to reach his maximum of 83/- per week. A member of the R.U.C. reaches 95/- per week in the same period—that is 12/- per week more. Sergeants reach 98/6 here as against 112/6 in Northern Ireland and station-sergeants 105/- here as against 120/- in Northern Ireland.
The Gárda came into existence at a time when a lot of people were just laws unto themselves. The Guards were sent out unarmed to restore order and many of them gave their lives in the public service. They did not get the support or the sympathy that they might have got from many people, including politicians and prospective Ministers. Even to-day, their position is an extremely difficult and delicate one. Then, there is a standard of respectability expected from them that is not expected from anybody else in the public service drawing the same rate of pay. A Guard cannot live in any type of house or in any type of street. He must not have the same social connections as the average citizen has because he must maintain a certain standard of independence if he is going to administer laws such as the Weights and Measures Acts and the Licensing Acts. Every year, additional duties are being imposed on the Guards. Statistical laws and other enactments increase the duties and responsibilities of the Guards. They have, too, to make individual decisions of a very serious kind. I shall quote a paragraph from the report of the Desborough Commission:
"We are satisfied that a policeman has responsibilities and obligations which are peculiar to his calling and distinguish him from other public servants and municipal employees, and we consider the police thereby entitled to special consideration in regard to their rate of pay and pensions. A candidate for the police must not only reach certain standards of height and physical development, but must have a constitution which is sound in every way. The duties the police have to perform are varied and exacting; they are increasing, and will probably still increase in variety and complexity, and a man cannot make a good policeman unless his general intelligence, memory and powers of observation are distinctly above the average. His character should be unblemished; he should be humane and courteous, and, generally, he should possess a combination of moral, mental, and physical qualities not ordinarily required in other employments. Further, when he becomes a constable, he is entrusted with powers which may gravely affect the liberty of the subject, and he must at all times be ready to act with tact and discretion, and on his own initiative and responsibility, in all sorts of contingencies. The burden of individual discretion and responsibility placed upon a constable is much greater than that of any other public servant of subordinate rank."
These are the men whom we propose to subject to further sacrifices.
The attack on educational authorities, from the national school to the university, shows a very deplorable tendency. These cuts will shake enthusiasm, and, in some cases, impair the efficiency of those responsible for training the children and young people of the nation. Not long ago, an eminent Austrian chancellor said that Austria was too poor to be able to afford to economise on education. I think that the same might be said of this country. We are too poor to afford to do anything that would undermine the efficiency of our educational system. This Bill, in great part, tends to do that. Having regard to the fact that we have retained for our own use about £5,000,000 that we might otherwise have to pay, and having regard to the fact that taxation generally has been increased in other directions, it is deplorable that it should be found necessary to impose these additional sacrifices on public servants, notwithstanding the saving that is being effected because of the reduction in the cost of living. The whole Bill, to my mind, is the equivalent of an emphatic vote of no confidence in the future.
