Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Apr 1923

Vol. 3 No. 4

THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SALARY AND ESTABLISHMENT BILL, 1923—SECOND STAGE.

I beg to move the Second Reading of the Governor-General's Salary and Establishment Bill. Article 60 of the Constitution states that "the salary of the Governor-General of the Irish Free State shall be of the like amount as that now payable to the Governor-General of Australia, and shall be charged on the public funds of the Irish Free State, Saorstát Eireann, and suitable provision shall be made out of these funds for the maintenance of his official residence and establishment."

In order that the payments for the salary and the establishment expenses may be made in a regular manner, it is necessary that an exact method of charging, which is not indicated in the Constitution, should now be defined. Payments out of the public funds may be made in various ways. The present Bill proposes to indicate the exact manner in which those payments should be made. I accordingly move the Second Reading.

I second the motion.

I want to comment on this Bill to the extent that Section 1 provides for taking away from the Dáil, to some extent, supervision of the expenditure. It is suggested in Section 1 that a salary of £10,000 was to be a charge upon the Central Fund, and Section 2 provides for the expenses of the establishment being paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. I think it is very desirable that we should have both sums charged against the same moneys voted by the Oireachtas. As far as I can see, there is no necessity for this particular alteration or variation; and it is better that we should have our attention drawn year by year, to the fact that this particular officer of the Saorstát is costing us £10,000 per year, plus establishment charges. Then I think it is undesirable to state in the Preamble that "the Dáil resolved, by Article 60 of the Constitution, to provide for the salary," and so on. I think that the manner of stating this rather suggests that we are very willing and keen about it. I prefer to suggest that we are doing it because we are compelled by the Constitution and by a clause in the Constitution which we did not willingly submit to. It is better, I think, that the Dáil should make clear that the constitutional officer known as the Governor-General has not been a freewill offering, but that he has been imposed upon the Saorstát by agreement; and it is rather better that we should bear that in mind when we are drawing up Bills relating to that particular officer. One does not need to say very much about the Bill. We have bound ourselves to pay this sum, which is alleged to be £10,000, or whatever sum it is that is paid to the Governor-General of Australia. But we had better do it in such a way that will ensure that it will always be clear to our successors, year by year, that we are paying this particular sum, and also that the Constitution requires us to do it, and that it is not what you might call a generous gesture on the part of the Dáil, but that it is something that we had to do and could not get out of.

It is, perhaps, too late to attempt to revive the discussions upon which we entered with so much verve and zeal when the question of the salary and emoluments of the Governor-General were debated as an Article of the Constitution. We had to accept this functionary by an Article of the Agreement. We were obliged as a consequence of that to agree to pay him the salary that is set out here, as measured in the way set out here. But what at the time I think most of us were inclined to resist, had not party allegiance interfered with the voluntary actions of so many, was the impositions upon the Free State of all the cost of the maintenance of his establishment. Equity would suggest that as he is in a large measure the official of the Commonwealth of Nations of which this Saorstát forms a constituent part that some, if not all, of the expenses of the establishment should be borne as an Imperial charge. However, we were defeated in our representations in this regard, and I think it ought to be obvious to us now that inasmuch as provision for this office and its maintenance is one of the essential charges or impositions upon the State by virtue of the Treaty, it is only reasonable that provision in this Bill should be made to have it a charge upon the Central Fund. But when it comes to a question as to determining how much from year to year shall be expended on the upkeep of the official residence, the pomp and other things incident thereto, it becomes of the last importance that the money should be voted by the Parliament, so as to be kept under constant scrutiny and liability to revision by the Parliament. In making the provision there in Article 2 for a different method of raising the money from that, or at any rate indicating a different source from that out of which the payment of the annual salary of £10,000 is to be drawn, I think the Bill is to be commended and supported. There is one feature in it, however, objectionable. Clause 2 says:—

"There shall be paid by the Minister for Finance out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas such yearly or other sum or sums as the Minister for Finance may from time to time determine to be suitable provision."

It would be meticulous criticism to say that there is a certain inconsistency in that provision, but my objection to it is not on any verbal grounds; my objection is that it appears to leave to the Minister himself the free discretion to determine how much shall be appropriated for this purpose. In other words the function seems to be divided between the Parliament and the Minister in this fashion, that the Parliament, when invited by the Minister for Finance, is to provide yearly a sum or sums, and it is for the Minister to determine the measure of such sum or sums. With all respect and deference to the Minister for Finance I would suggest it would be better if it were left with him to advise the Oireachtas as to the amount that he deems necessary and appropriate and to leave it finally to the determination of the Parliament instead of taking over to himself the determination. It may come to the same thing in the end. But as a matter of policy, as a matter of constitutional practice it would seem to me to be better that he should advise that the Dáil should determine.

The Preamble, as Deputy Johnson points out, is in slight measure defective also, inasmuch as it fails to recite that this office is created by the Treaty. The first recital should be: "Whereas in accordance with the Treaty provision is required to be made for a Governor-General," and it should then proceed to recite these other things. It is on the records of this Dáil that we do not do this thing freely, or even with a measured amount of enthusiasm. At the same time technically I think what ought to be the second recital is fairly correct in its phraseology that "Dáil Eireann has resolved." It has passed a resolution; that undoubtedly is a historical fact. The Bill leaves itself open I think to no serious criticism except that the Minister for Finance is given a larger amount of discretion in the matter than I think the Dáil ought to accord.

The first part of the Bill applies to the salary paid to the Governor-General in the same order as salaries are paid to Judges or other items which are unchangeable and not variable from year to year. The second part deals with the upkeep of the establishment; that is variable. It is possible that in one year one could have much more expense than in another year. The first year's expenses ought naturally to be much larger than succeeding years. I should say in the particular case we have in mind that we have been saved a good deal of expense by His Excellency, the present occupant of the position of Governor-General. In the ordinary way we might reasonably have been called upon to provide certain furniture that he insisted on taking over from his own house. The Constitution has already adopted this, and I think it is not really wise to put forward the objections that have been entered as to qualifying the terminology of the Bill. The terminology appears to me to be a very fair reflex of what has already appeared in both the Treaty and the Constitution.

Question "That the Governor-General's Salary and Establishment Bill. 1923, be read a second time," put and carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday next.
Top
Share