I beg to move: "That a sum of £11,033 be granted for the year ending 31st March, 1923, for the salaries and expenses of Seanad Eireann." This is not a Supplementary Estimate at all. It is an original one, and explains itself. At the time the original Estimates were before Dáil Eireann, the Seanad had not been constituted, and the allowances and expenses to Senators, and of the staff of the Seanad, have hitherto been provided out of the Vote for additional and unforeseen services. Opportunity is now taken of making provision for expenditure incurred in this service in a separate Estimate, and the Vote for additional and unforeseen services will be recouped the amount already expended.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF SEANAD EIREANN.
I want to draw attention to this Vote. I see here that the Clerk of the Seanad is drawing £1,000 a year, the Assistant Clerk £700, and the Second Assistant Clerk £500, and the reporting staff is put down at £800. I do not think the Dáil has as large a staff as that, and I suppose we do seven times as much work as they do in the Seanad. I do not see what a Second Assistant Clerk is needed for, or why such an appointment was made. I move that the Vote be reduced by £500, the amount of the salary paid to the Second Assistant Clerk. In my opinion, it is more or less a public scandal to be paying away money in such a fashion. I think the place is overstaffed doing nothing.
I did not catch the Deputy's remark with regard to the reporting staff.
I am calling attention to the salaries paid to the Clerk, Assistant Clerk, and the Second Assistant Clerk. I do not see what they want such a large staff for, considering that they meet so rarely.
On the question the Deputy raised about the reporting staff, I just wished to say that the same staff is engaged for the Dáil and Seanad. This sum of £800 referred to is merely an allocation of the amount expended under that particular head in the Seanad.
I am not drawing attention to that in particular. What I do object to is the employment of a Second Assistant Clerk.
I wonder is Deputy Gorey aware that the reason given for the employment of a Second Assistant Clerk was that the Clerk of the Seanad did not know Irish. I do not know whether Deputy Gorey is in favour of a Clerk or an Assistant Clerk who understands Irish, or whether he is in favour of Irish being used in the Seanad at all. I suggest that if Deputy Gorey were promoted to the Seanad he might be able to prevent things happening about which he now complains.
If that is the only argument that can be put up for the expenditure of all this money, it is a very poor one, indeed. I do not know if there is a word of Irish spoken in the Seanad.
Irish is spoken in the Seanad. There is one Senator, at least, who will speak nothing but Irish.
I do not think the Chairman can speak Irish.
I heard him speak Irish myself.
It must have been some simple Irish phrase.
Can the Minister give us any information about a shorthand-typist who appears on the Estimate as receiving 55/8 per week, and an adult messenger who is receiving 47/6 per week, and does he consider these adequate rates of pay?
Well, it is not in the province of the Minister for Finance to express any opinion as to the advisability of increasing the wages of the staff. His whole object is to keep them as low as he can. These are orthodox appointments—appointments that were made when we took over, and we have not interfered with them. The scale is the regular scale that was in operation here—the same scale that is in operation, I understand, in the service of the British Government. We have not changed that. It stands exactly as it stood.
We may take it that if sufficient pressure is applied in the right way the Minister will be amenable?
We will then probably reduce the number.
I hope Deputy O'Brien will carry on that pressure, and we will back him.
Are we to understand that these are adult messengers at 47/6?
I could not say.
In that case I hope there will be a definite expression of opinion from the Dáil that it is very unsatisfactory. Possibly if Deputy Gorey's amendment were carried some of the money could be made available to raise the wage of the other servants of the Seanad.
The lower paid servants.
Yes, the lower paid portion of the staff. I am led to understand that there are actually men who have wives and families in the service of the State, and that they are expected to live on a wage of 47s. 6d. per week. I am further informed that they are not so far away as mere State employment would indicate, but that they are actually in the service of the Dáil at 47s. 6d. a week. If that is a fact then I think it is a scandalously low wage, and it is not reputable, and whatever the British Government may do in that respect, we ought not to allow ourselves to sink into the same iniquity, or to allow ourselves to remain in that sink of iniquity any longer.
It is only right to say that these posts previously were given to pensioners of the British Army, and their salaries were in addition to their pensions. We have got no pensioners and we ought to pay decent wages.
Am I to understand that there is a larger staff over there (in the Seanad) in the way of Clerks than there is in the Dáil? How many clerks are here? Nobody seems to answer.
Deputy Gorey might also deal with the question of output.
Wages and output! I know their work here, and I know they do nothing beyond.
Would I be in order in moving a reduction of £200 a year on the salary of the Head Clerk to the Seanad, which would be added to the salaries of the messengers there and give them a chance of living?
A motion to reduce item "C" would be in order.
I am informed now that Deputy Gorey is moving a reduction of £500 from the salary of the Clerk to the Seanad.
Deputy Gorey has not actually moved it.
Then, if Deputy Gorey is not moving it, I propose to move a reduction of £200 in the salary of the Head Clerk and £100 reduction in the salary of the Second Clerk, and that the £300 be added to the messengers' wages in order to give them a chance of living. (Laughter.) You may laugh if you like; we have been told here that in the English House these positions were given to pensioners. While I am on these Estimates I say it is a very huge expenditure of money, and when we look upon the Seanad, as the majority of the people of the country do look upon it, as the Lower House, I think it is too much. I think I heard the Minister for Finance say here that he had nominated thirty of the wealthiest gentlemen in Ireland; and we find that before some of these wealthy gentlemen took their seats in the Seanad they sent on a communication to know whether they would be paid their expenses, and also be allowed a salary while sitting in the Seanad. I think if these wealthy men were nominated by the President, surely to goodness the least they could do would be to save the ratepayers and taxpayers of the country this £30 a month which they receive the same as the Deputies nominated and selected by the people. Furthermore, I see here that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad has the very identical salary as the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil. Now I think that is absolutely ridiculous when you take into account that that particular gentleman has about £3,500 a year pension as well from a foreign Government. Then we find that the Leas-Cathaoirleach has £1,000 a year, the same as Deputy O Maille has here, a man who has fought and suffered for his country. Now I think that these things should be taken into account, and I think it is possible to have a reduction in this Estimate. I put forward a plea and ask every Deputy in this Dáil to give justice where justice is deserving. There is no justice whatever in giving the same salary to those gentlemen of the Seanad as are given to the gentlemen who have the honour of acting here in the first Parliament of the Irish people—the men who fought to get us the freedom which we have come to enjoy. I did not say anything concerning the other Estimates, because I knew in my heart and soul that these were required, and I am perfectly well aware this Estimate could be reduced by thousands. I think we should make the reduction here and now. If we do, the people will have less to pay for the destruction and the trouble in the country.
If I supported an increase of wages to workmen I certainly would object to increasing the wages by £150 each.
I did not suggest that I think the money should be divided between the clerks, shorthand writers, and typists.
I think the Dáil is interested in these two messengers, and I think they would like to see their wages increased if the President will do so.
I would like to say that the motion is to take £200 off £308, and to take £100 off £49! You can do that if you like, but under the Constitution you cannot add it to anything else.
I would like to give a personal explanation. My motion is to take £300 off £1,903, which is the salary, allowances and expenses for the Clerk.
I do not know whether I could shorten this discussion. The Dáil will recollect that a resolution was passed here, on, I think, the 19th January, requesting the Seanad to send certain Senators to meet the President and myself to discuss the question of staffs. A meeting was held, at which I was present, and with the findings of which the President, as Minister for Finance, concurred. It provided that, with the exception of the Clerk, and two Assistant Clerks in the Seanad, the general staff was to be an Oireachtas staff. That clearly makes for economy. It provided also that the Clerk of the Dáil should be regarded as the senior. It will further be necessary, I think, that that Committee, or some similar Committee, should consider the whole position of the staffs of both the Dáil and Seanad. A report on that question will eventually have to be laid before the Dáil dealing with the question of the staffs of the Oireachtas, so far as they concern ourselves. The matters in this Estimate will, therefore, eventually have to come under review, if the President agrees with my view of the matter.
I agree. It is to restore to the fund out of which these moneys have been paid the sums so deducted that these Estimates are brought forward. It is in the Constitution that the Seanad can pay its Chairman and Vice-Chairman any sum they like. They could have paid them £2,000 a year each if they so wished, according to the Constitution.
Have the Senators the right to fix their own salaries?
The Seanad, no doubt, has the right to fix the salaries, but we have the right to refuse to pay. The question that has been raised in regard to the working staffs of the Oireachtas will, I hope, be considered by such a body as the Ceann Comhairle suggested, which might report to the Oireachtas as to the duties and responsibilities and the remuneration that should be paid. From what I have been able to see, we are all ashamed of the information that is divulged in these Estimates, which show that the staffs—the staffs at the lower end—are paid so badly. I hope that the staffs at the disposal of the members of the Oireachtas will be considered when the Estimates are being presented within a few days, and that provision will be made for a considerable improvement in the salaries of these staffs.
The Minister reminded us that this is an original, and not a supplementary, Estimate. As an original Estimate it should, I submit, include all the expenditure on this Department. Now there is no reference made to stationery supplies. That, I presume, is because the cost of stationery forms portion of the Estimate for the Stationery Office. I wonder would it be in order to raise a question which I brought under the notice recently of the Minister for Industry and Commerce—that, so far as one may judge from the type of stationery, more particularly the envelopes, supplied in the other House, it is not of Irish manufacture. I should like to raise the question that the supplies for all the Departments of State should, where it is at all feasible, be of native manufacture. I do not know if it would be in order to do so under this particular heading.
I do not think so. It is not provided for under any of these headings. Is Deputy Lyons pressing his amendment?
I have no desire to press the amendment, but I should like to get some assurance that those unfortunate employees who are living and trying to support a family in their own country will get something better that 47/6 per week.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.