Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 13

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED PURCHASING) BILL, 1925. - OIREACHTAS (PAYMENT OF MEMBERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

I move the Second Reading of this Bill. As I indicated on the First Stage, so far as Section 1 is concerned, it became necessary because it was discovered that what was intended when the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1923, was being passed, had not actually been effected. Section 23 of the Constitution provides that—

"The Oireachtas shall make provision for the payment of its members, and may, in addition, provide them with free travelling facilities in any part of Ireland."

The Committee elected by the Dáil in September, 1922, on Salaries and Allowances recommended that Teachtaí be allowed £30 a month towards expenses, and in January, 1923, the Dáil resolved that such allowances towards expenses should be made, and this resolution is quoted in the Preamble of the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act of 1923. In the discussion in the Dáil, when the measure was introduced, the President, speaking on the 6th May, 1923 made it clear that the payment of £30 a month was to be a flat rate, and should not be regarded in the nature of salary, but as a contribution towards the expenses of members. The fixing of special allowances in individual cases would not have been practicable, and the allowance was regarded as an average applicable to members of all constituencies. On the First Reading of the Bill which became the Act of 1923, the question was raised whether the allowances would be liable to income tax and the President said on the 9th May, 1923, in the House:—

"I think I can give an assurance to the Deputies who think there is a likelihood of this sum being included in the assessment of their income tax that that will not be the case. There is no such intention."

It will be clear that it was definitely intended when the Act of 1923 was passed that the allowance should not be subject to income tax. However, it recently became necessary to consider the legal effect of the Act owing to the question being raised and the Government has been advised that the intention, which I have indicated, was not carried out. The allowance payable to Deputies under the Act of 1923, though not strictly remuneration, is legally an allowance in the nature of remuneration and as such is liable to income tax. It becomes necessary, therefore, to give effect now to the intention that the Dáil had when the Act of 1923 was passed. If we were to allow matters to stand as they are at the present time, the Revenue Commissioners would have no option but to proceed by way of deduction or otherwise to recover income tax due by Deputies and I do not think that we should either ask or put pressure upon the Commissioners to refuse to collect or to fail to collect a tax that is legally due. There would be the possibility of allowing a certain amount of it under one of the general rules. I think under Rule 10 of the Act of 1918, there is power to allow a certain part of the total allowance as allowance for expenses. Out of the £400 in England, £100 is sanctioned by the Treasury as the average amount payable necessarily and wholly by members in discharge of their duties. If a person wishes to have further allowance he must give particulars of his expenses and prove that the money was actually and necessarily paid out by him in such a way as to be entitled to exemption under the Income Tax Act.

Sub-section (2) of Section 1 is necessary for the sake of consistency and complete compliance with the Constitution. The opinion is held that Article 23 of the Constitution, which imposes on the Oireachtas the liability of providing for the payment of members, clearly refers to all members of the Oireachtas, and it is held that the Payment of Members Act ought to be construed in that way. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act states that the allowance paid to each member of the Oireachtas under the Act shall be an allowance of £30 per month. It is provided by sub-section (2) of Section 2 that the person who holds any of certain specified offices shall not be entitled to the allowance over and above the salary of his office, but that such salary shall be deemed to include the allowance. We are advised that the salary of persons holding one of those offices should be deemed to be segregated, one portion being an allowance payable under the Act, and the remainder being the salary proper, and it follows that persons holding one of these offices is entitled to have that portion of his salary, which is deemed to be allowance, treated in the same way as an allowance paid to other members of the Oireachtas.

Section 2 is really introduced because of the cases we have in connection with the Military Service Pensions Act. It has been the practice under various British statutes since 1834 to provide that if a person is entitled to a pension from public funds any other pension, remuneration or allowance from public funds to which he may be entitled, shall be set against the pension, and that such pension shall be suspended or abated.

A similar provision in sub-section (1) of Section 8 was inserted in the Military Pensions Act, 1924, and in regard to this provision the question arose as to whether the payment of £30 a month to members of the Oireachtas was to be treated as a payment to be set against the military service pensions receivable under that Act. We have been advised that the allowance to members is a payment which must be treated in that way, and the military service pensions, consequently, in such cases are subject to re-abatement in respect of the allowance of £30 a month to members of the Oireachtas. This would mean that in future a person who had a military service pension and who became a member of the Oireachtas, would be subject to a loss of a very substantial portion of his military service pension because of his membership of the Oireachtas, although, of course, he might, and probably would, by reason of his membership of the Oireachtas, incur expense actually to the full extent of his allowance received as member of the Oireachtas. He would be very much penalised by becoming a member of the Oireachtas. Although this is the effect of the section in the Military Service Pensions Act, it is not felt that this is desirable. There might be other pensions and allowances which would be subject to abatement in the same way if a person became a member of the Oireachtas, and it is not felt, in general, that that should occur. It is consequently provided that, for the purposes of the suspension or abatement of any pensions or allowances received by any persons in this country, the allowance received as a member of the Oireachtas shall not be taken into account.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would the Minister translate sub-section (2) of Section 2? I do not know whether anybody else can understand it, but it is very difficult for me.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is a corresponding section to sub-section (2) in Section 1.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think I know what it is intended to do, but I think nobody can understand it unless he is very much addicted to cross-word puzzles.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is proposed that the abatement may vary, if any pension or allowance varies according to the amount of other remuneration received. It is proposed in the case of a person who holds one of the offices dealt with under the Act of 1923, that is, the Ceann Comhairle, An Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, An Leas-Chathaoirleach, the President of the Executive Council, or any office which is dependent on the Executive Council or dependent on the support of the majority of Dáil Eireann or any office dependent on the term of existence of a particular Dáil Eireann, that in respect of persons like that the £360, or whatever may be the allowance given to members, shall not be taken into account for the purpose of determining what shall be the amount of the payment or whether there shall be a suspension of any payment received by them. There is a matter which, it was suggested should be dealt with in this Bill, and that is the question of travelling facilities, but there is not such great urgency about that matter. There is also power under the Act of 1923 to adjust the method of providing travelling facilities if it is thought desirable and necessary to do so. The Act of 1923 provides that a member of Dáil Eireann shall have travelling facilities between Dublin and any place in the constituency of which he is a member, and that members of Seanad Eireann shall have certain other travelling facilities, and sub-section (2) says that the travelling facilities aforesaid shall be provided and paid in the same manner as shall be, from time to time, prescribed by regulations made by the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Eireann and the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Eireann. So that if it is desired to make any adjustment in the matter of travelling facilities, that can be done to a considerable extent, at any rate, without further legislation.

There has been a demand for a system of season tickets instead of the present system of vouchers. So far as we have been able to estimate, we think that the system of providing season tickets would involve an increased expenditure of £1,500. There may be irritation caused to Members by reason of the fact that season tickets would have to be for a particular station in a constituency, whereas a Member might wish to travel to other stations in the constituency, so that adjustments would have to be made. The position so far is, that it is not felt that a change from the present system of vouchers would, by reason of any convenience it might cause to Members, justify an additional expenditure of £1,500 a year. Some time ago we took up with the railway companies the question of special rates for season tickets. At that time any concessions were refused. In view of amalgamation, the matter has again been raised, and it may be that some new arrangements may be possible, but, in any case, we did not feel that it was necessary to deal with the matter by seeking further legislative powers. This Bill before us deals with two matters, both of which are in a sense, urgent. The matter dealt with in Section 1 is very urgent, because there is no doubt that very considerable irritation and trouble would be caused if the Revenue Commissioners proceeded with the collection of the tax. It is, on the other hand, most undesirable that the Revenue Commissioners should be expected not to collect a tax which we are advised is legally due. Section 2 deals with a matter which is a very considerable hardship on two or three or, perhaps, four or five Members of the Oireachtas.

Mr. JOHNSON

I have given notice of the following amendment:—

"That a decision on this motion be postponed for six months, and that the Seanad be requested to assent to the appointment of a Joint Committee, to consist of ten Members, to inquire into the effect of the existing arrangement in regard to the payment of Members of the Oireachtas, and travelling facilities, and to make recommendations as to the best method of putting into operation Article 23 of the Constitution."

I think it is very generally agreed that the present system of payment does not fall with anything like equal benefit upon the Deputies in the Dáil, and that amendment in the method is required, is, I think, generally conceded. There is a common impression abroad fostered by newspaper writers some times who do not appreciate the facts, that it is a very paying proposition to be a member of the Dáil. Well, a member of the Dáil who lives in the country, and who devotes any reasonable amount of time to his duties, would require to be in residence in Dublin during every sitting of the Dáil, and on other occasions when the Dáil is not sitting, and residence in Dublin in hotels for a very extended period of the year does not allow very much of a margin out of the £30 a month salary. In addition there are the usual expenses for postages, amounting to 5s. or 10s. a week, and car fares within his constituency. Either a Deputy has to refrain from coming to Dublin for his duties, or to have some other source of income which is sufficient to enable him to carry on with. In that way there is a penalisation of the Deputy who is not in a position to carry on independently of his allowances as a Deputy. One of the consequences, I fear, of this method of payment is a temptation to stay away from the Dáil occasionally for the purpose of saving the inevitable expense of remaining in Dublin. I do not know whether that is only a guess on my part, or whether it is a fair assumption, but I risk the making of it, without having heard anyone mention it except myself. I think there is need for reconsideration of the method of making allowances, and of considering whether or not there should be included in these allowances something in the nature of a penalty for nonattendance, or inducement for attendance. I am very well aware of the difficulty of departing from a flat rate, but these difficulties have been met in other countries where it has been decided that the greater equity could be arrived at by other methods than the flat rate.

We have had two years' experience of the working of the 1923 Act, and I urge that that experience ought to be availed of, that we ought to re-consider the whole question of the payment of expenses to members, and that we ought not to legislate afresh even in respect of income tax until that inquiry has been made. The Minister has made it clear, and I think it has been clear to everybody who was a member of the House in 1923, that the intention of the legislature was to consider this £30 per month as an allowance for expenses, that is to say, that the sum paid to Deputies and Senators would be free of income tax. But the Bill provides more than that. It proposes to consider the salaries of Ministers and others as something apart from allowances, or rather that the allowance has to be considered as something apart from the salary, and it has been suggested that when the Act said "salary shall be deemed to include allowances," it was intended that that part of the salary which was equal to the allowance of Deputies would also be free of income tax charge. I think that is an interpretation that is not generally held. The belief at the time, in my opinion, was that a Minister or officer of the House who was in receipt of salary would not be in receipt of allowance as a Deputy, and as a consequence the exemption from income tax would not apply in such a case. The effect of this section would be to increase the salaries in question, and, as I think, interpreting the original Act in a way which the original legislature did not intend.

In may be said that interpretation of Article 23 of the Constitution makes it essential that a distinction shall be drawn, and that the Ministers and others should be free from liability for income tax on that part of their salary which is equivalent to the allowance of Deputies, but the effect of it is an increase in remuneration to salaried officers. I think we ought not to pass any legislation at present in any direction of that kind without having given very full consideration to the position. To begin with, I think it is an unfortunate time to introduce any proposal of the kind, however desirable it may be on the merits, but the House is not in a position to judge of the merits without pretty close examination. Therefore, I am proposing this amendment, which would mean the setting up of a Joint Committee if the Seanad assents, to consider the whole question of allowances and salaries in relation not only to the Dáil but to the Seanad also, and that then legislation should be enacted, if required, to deal with the position as might be found to prevail by that Committee. We do not know what the effect of these sections is going to be. They are very involved. We do not know the number of persons that might be affected. I think that we would be legislating in the dark in favour of people of whose existence we do not know, and that we ought not to be asked to pass any such Bill as this without the fullest inquiry and investigation. In the first place, as I have said, it is an unfortunate moment to be legislating for any increase in salaries for ourselves, or Ministers, or Secretaries, or officers of the House. Deputies and Senators are all included, and I submit that we ought to make a much fuller inquiry into the whole position before we pass this legislation.

Mr. GOREY

I second the amendment, and for this reason, largely, as stated by Deputy Johnson, that this is an unfortunate time to propose legislation that could bear the construction he has placed upon this proposal, and the proposal could certainly be construed into meaning what he has said. The way we should look at this matter is that in actual practice it will be found that for the Deputy living in the country who has to leave his business and give conscientious attendance in the Dáil the allowance he gets is not sufficient to meet his outgoings.

If he is paying any attention to his business and has to come up to Dublin every week and find accommodation for himself there, he will find at the end of the time that the balance is altogether on the wrong side. The position of the Deputy who lives in Dublin is quite different. That might explain the great anxiety that there is on the part of people in Dublin to become representatives of rural constituencies. We have a great many candidates of that kind seeking the suffrages of rural constituencies. To the man living in Dublin this allowance is an income. Whatever his occupation is, he can devote a few hours on a few days in the week to the Dáil, and do his duty fairly well. Ministers are in the same position Having their homes in Dublin, what they draw in salary is undoubtedly income. After deducting the £360 that an ordinary Deputy gets, I think that the rest of their salary ought to be subject to income tax. Last year we suggested a ten per cent. cut in the salaries of Ministers and Teachtaí, but we were told it could not be entertained, as it was against the provisions of the Constitution.

Major COOPER

I would like to support the amendment, though not entirely on the grounds that commend themselves to Deputy Johnson and the remainder of the Labour Party, or those that commend themselves to Deputy Gorey. I find it difficult to criticise this measure for a number of reasons. One is that the Minister introduced it on my birthday, and may have some intention of making me a birthday present thereby. Another is that some eighteen months ago, in reply to a question, he informed me that this exemption from income tax was statutory, and he had no power to dispense with the statute. He has now got another adviser, and tells me it is not statutory, and that the Revenue Commissioners have no option but to proceed. I think it is the Bible says that in the multitude of counsellors there is wisdom. In the Minister's case he has found in the multitude of counsellors confusion, as is not invariably the case. I find it difficult also to discuss this matter without reverting to the position of those Deputies who are not well endowed with the goods of this world. Deputy Gorey spoke of dwellers in the city having an easier time than dwellers in the country. That is so to a certain extent, but it is not entirely the case. Dwellers in the city and county of Dublin for instance, do not get their travelling expenses I do not know if Deputy Gorey knows that. A great many people do not know it. They have to pay their own expenses and, when there are late sittings, they have to make their way home at their own expense.

Mr. GOREY

So have we all.

Major COOPER

It depends how near the home is. They may have homes in County Dublin far away from parts of their constituency. The other night some of my constituents in North Dublin wanted to see me. There was no suitable train service and no 'bus, and I had to hire a taxi at a cost of £2 10s. Whether a man lives in the city or the country, the spirit of the Constitution, I think is, that any man, no matter what his means are, or lack of means, should be enabled to be a Deputy. Therefore, I would willingly support any measure that made it possible for the poorest Deputies to receive adequate remuneration for their services here. That is one of the subjects which, I take it, will be before the Committee that Deputy Johnson proposes. But the Bill goes beyond that. The Bill, for instance, as has been stated, makes no provision for dealing with irregular attendance. Article 23 of the Constitution lays down no particular term for which the allowance made to members of the Oireachtas is to be paid. It does not definitely say that they are to be paid by the month. I suggest they might be paid by the day. We usually sit from 120 to 150 days in the year. I would willingly see Deputies paid three guineas a day, or even more, on condition that they appear on that day to claim the money. Of course, there would be some who would get the money and then go away, but, on the whole, there would be a better attendance I commend the idea to Deputy Dolan. I am glad to see he appreciates it. At any rate, this is a matter that would be suitable and proper for the Committee to consider.

Then again, there is the question of those Deputies to whom this is, in fact, an allowance; those who, having private means, will not need to depend on it for their livelihood. While this allowance may very properly be exempt from income tax, I do not quite see why it should be exempt from super tax. The Deputy or Senator who is in a position to pay super tax might not unreasonably pay it on this £360. That at any rate, would be in accordance with what Deputies Johnson and Gorey say and with the spirit of the times. Lastly, I come to the question of making Ministers and others exempt on a portion of their income. I doubt whether that is a sound principle, particularly as regards Ministers. I doubt whether it puts a Minister in the right position, in his relation to the tax-paying public, to exempt any portion of his income from the payment of the taxation that the ordinary person has to pay. It is not that Ministers are overpaid. I have never had the smallest sympathy with that particular cry, which is a foolish one. We want the services of good men, and we ought to pay them as much and more than they are getting. I would gladly increase their salaries, but I do not like exempting them from taxation that they ought to feel, taxation in precisely the same way as the ordinary man, getting some nominal income, has to pay.

Mr. BLYTHE

That is what is proposed.

Major COOPER

To exempt them as to a portion?

Mr. BLYTHE

For the same portion as the ordinary Deputy gets.

Major COOPER

That is what is proposed. But, perhaps fortunately, all men are not Deputies.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are we to understand that this is a proposal to reduce the salary?

Mr. BLYTHE

No.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then it is not the same.

Major COOPER

As regards the £360 they are put in the same position as the ordinary Deputy. I am not talking of Deputies; I am talking of the ordinary individual that you meet in the tram-car or the train who is not in that privileged position. I think it is unwise for Ministers, unwise even for Deputies, to claim any position of privilege in this respect. Let us pay an adequate and sufficient allowance to remunerate Ministers for their great responsibility, for the many claims on their time, and a sufficient allowance to make it possible for Deputies to attend here regularly without the feeling that their business affairs are suffering. Let us not put ourselves in the position of exemption from the taxation that the ordinary individual, the ordinary constituent, the ordinary merchant, shopkeeper or clerk has to pay. It is not so much wrong as undiplomatic. It is unwise and giving a chance to people to throw stones at us as occupying a privileged position. Since I take it that the Committee proposed by Deputy Johnson will take all these matters into consideration I support the amendment.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There seemed to me, and I admit it is rare enough, in the Deputy's speech, a certain confusion of thought. The Deputy said it was undesirable that Ministers should be in any different position from that of the ordinary man in respect of their salaries. That is not questioned. The confusion of thought that I would put my finger on is this: that a Minister on becoming a Minister does not cease to be a Deputy. He does not cease to be a member of the Dáil. He does not, in most cases at any rate, cease to have expenses incidental to membership of the Dáil. I am sure the Deputy would not claim that the Minister for Fisheries or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Finance was any the less a Deputy because he held a Ministerial or Secretarial position. The salary of Ministers was fixed at £1,700. That £1,700 included the allowance which is made to Deputies as members of the House. The effect of the Bill would be to exempt from income tax, not their salaries but £360, that portion of their salary which represents their allowance as Teachtai Dála. The alternative to that is to charge on the entire salary of £1,700. That would come to £300 or £350. In doing so you would in effect be charging income tax on their allowance as members of the Dáil, which is not proposed and which has not been the practice on that allowance to other members of the House. I think I am right in claiming that it is not a question of discriminating in favour of Ministerial salaries, but rather asking the Dáil to agree that there ought not to be discrimination as against Ministerial salaries; that you ought not to do in the case of Ministers what has not been done in the case of Deputies, and what it is not proposed to do in future in the case of Deputies, that is to assess for income tax the £360 which represents their allowance, under the Payment of Members Act as Deputies. The remainder of the salary will, of course, be liable to taxation. There is no question whatever about that.

Major COOPER

No. I was not suggesting it.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

There is only the question of that portion of their salaries, £360, which, in common with other Deputies, they receive as members of the Dáil. The effect of the Bill certainly is to exempt that from taxation just as it is exempted in the case of other Deputies.

Mr. HEWAT

I think the proposal in this amendment, to set up a Committee, is really unnecessary. We can view the whole situation without calling in the assistance of any Committee to inquire into the pros and cons of it. In a proposition of this kind it would be useless to lay down rules that would differentiate between Deputies I say that the allowance of £360 is fixed to cover what is considered a reasonable amount for expenses attached to the position occupied by Deputies In some cases it may not be sufficient, and in other cases it may. One must remember that membership of the Dáil is not, generally speaking, recognised as a whole-time occupation. It is not, I take it, intended in itself to provide a livelihood. If that were so the amount would be entirely inadequate to cover election expenses and the incidental expenses of attending the Dáil, as well as various other charges that fall on Deputies. You should not differentiate because a man has other means, to the extent of what other means he has available, and say he is only to get so much, while his next-door neighbour is to get another sum. If you say that a man living in Donegal has considerably more expense than a man living in Dublin, you might also have the position that the man in Dublin would have a larger family than the man in Donegal. You would bring considerations into the matter which I respectfully suggest are unnecessary or undesirable. As regards income tax, I think the Bill is reasonable in that part except in so far as the amount that really becomes a salary. I think that the Dáil could hardly differentiate in that way. Of course the tax does press very heavily at the present time. One must recognise that the present rate of income tax chargeable to the ordinary man in the street operates in connection with every expense he has to undergo. In connection with that factor of the high rate of income tax it does seem that freedom from income tax on the £360 paid to Deputies is unduly favourable to the individual, but, on the other hand, to put that right would mean differentiating between Deputies. I think that is impossible, although it may be desirable.

Mr. WILSON

When this £360 was originally fixed the idea was that the other £40, which would make it £400, would go as income tax. I understand that was the intention in fixing £360 and that the £360 was not to be subject to income tax. A different matter arises with regard to Ministers, as in the Ministers and Secretaries Act it is definitely stated that the amount they receive is salary. I can hardly see how that can be got over. Each Minister is appointed at a salary which is set out in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, and unless that Act is amended I cannot see how Ministers can be exempted from income tax as far as the £360 goes.

Then Deputy Cooper's point is that the Ministers who have the right of levying this income tax should be made to feel what the public are feeling, by paying out of their salaries what the outside public are paying out of their incomes, and by that means have it brought home to them what an enormous burden this income tax is on the salaries of people. Perhaps it would teach a lesson and perhaps it would enable us to get rid of that burden. I would like legal opinion to be given as to whether you can possibly—in view of the fact that under the Ministers and Secretaries Act the Ministers are getting what is described as a salary— pass this legislation.

Mr. T.J. O'CONNELL

I would just like to say a few words on this, as I happen to be one of the members of the Committee which sat originally to consider this question of the payments to be made to Deputies and Ministers. I would like to say, in passing, that the method that was adopted that time, as will be in the recollection of members of the last Dáil, was that a Committee composed of various parties in the Dáil at that time, considered the whole question and made a report to the Dáil. The report was discussed and adopted and was finally enacted legislatively. Now that is the suggestion that is proposed in Deputy Johnson's amendment, and I think, on the whole, it is a wise and proper suggestion to adopt. I think it would be better if there was an opportunity of a full discussion— such a discussion as you cannot possibly have in the Dáil—on all the issues that are involved, before coming to a final decision on the matter. That is why I support the amendment. I might say in connection with this matter, so far as my memory of what took place at the Committee goes, that it corresponds with that of Deputy Wilson— that the original idea was that the allowance to Deputies should be at £400. It was finally agreed that £360, less income tax, would, approximately, in the generality of cases, amount to £400 with income tax. It was finally agreed that the figure of £360 should be fixed, that sum to be free of income tax, as this would get rid of a lot of trouble and queries so far as Deputies were concerned. I remember, distinctly, that the same question arose with regard to the salaries of Ministers. We had before us representatives from the Ministry of Finance who strongly advised—and their advice is on record, I think—that it would be altogether wrong, quite impossible, and introducing a bad principle, to fix a salary for a Minister free of income tax. Now, in effect, what this Bill proposes to do is to fix the salary of a Minister at £1,340. That, in effect, is what it does, plus his allowance as Deputy. He gets his allowance as Deputy and his salary as Minister is £1,340. That is the proposal. Of course I take it for granted that in the Estimates in future under the heads of the various Departments, the figure for salary will appear as £1,340 instead of £1,700 and that the allowance of £360 will go into the general Vote for payment of members of the Oireachtas. If it does not, it will lead to confusion. That is the only way I hold it can logically and reasonably be done.

I am one of those who held and hold that the payment of £1,700 a year is not sufficient, at least for our principal Ministers. It is not sufficient remuneration for the responsible duties they have to perform. As a member of that Committee, it was with great reluctance I agreed to the figure of £1,700. I do hold that the payment of £1,700 a year all round to the different Ministers is not an equitable arrangement. I think, at the same time, that it would be far preferable and far better if the motion were brought definitely before the Dáil to increase the salaries of the Ministers, in accordance with what the Dáil would think right, rather than that this roundabout and indirect way be taken of increasing the salaries of Ministers. But that is what is being done. I say, distinctly, as one of the members of the original Committee which had this matter under discussion, that the clear and definite intention of that Committee was that the £1,700 a year should be subject to income tax—that is, income tax on the full £1,700 a year. That was the intention of the Committee. I have no doubt at all on that point. I suggest, therefore, that Deputy Johnson's amendment ought be accepted and that the whole thing should be reconsidered by a joint committee. The Seanad now is also interested in the matter. The whole thing should be reconsidered with a view to seeing whether there is any better way of meeting what, I am prepared to agree, is a grievance on the part of the Ministers. I think it would be a better way all round if that suggestion were adopted, and when the report came before the Dáil it could then, if necessary, be enacted in the usual form.

Mr. BLYTHE

It seems to me that attention is concentrated on what is really a minor aspect of the Bill. It may be that it is desirable that the whole matter should be looked into by a Committee at a convenient time. I, certainly, would offer no opposition to the appointment of a Committee to examine whether the whole question of the allowance to Deputies should not be recast. I can see very strong arguments in favour of that. Of course, no doubt, very distinct administrative difficulties would arise in the carrying out of some alternative system and a delicate situation would probably be created for, perhaps, officials of this House. But it is a matter that might well be discussed and I certainly would see no objection at all to discussing it. On the other hand, I do hold that we are faced with a certain crux here, and that we must deal with it at the moment, whatever we may do in the way of further revision of the whole system later on. We are legally advised that this tax is payable on the £360 a year. That being so, it becomes the duty of the Revenue Commissioners, at once, to take the appropriate action with a view to the recovery of that tax. I believe that it is particularly unsatisfactory in the case of members of the Oireachtas that we should bring pressure to bear on the Commissioners to fail or to delay in the discharge of their duty. If it is the advice of the solicitor to the Revenue and of the Attorney-General that the tax is due on this £360, then it would be extremely wrong that I should go to the Revenue Commissioners and say to them: "Look here, I do not want you to take any action in this matter; I want it to rest as it had been doing when you were of another opinion as regards the law."

There is no doubt that if we appoint such a Committee six months would be the minimum time required for its report If we are to go into the matter thoroughly and deeply, as Deputy Johnson suggests we should go into it, it would be this time next year before a Bill could be brought in. We should not be in the position of restraining, by a sort of not very correct pressure, the Revenue Commissioners from taking the action they would ordinarily take, during a very prolonged period like that. For that reason, I think that whatever we may do about the Committee we really ought to meet the difficulty that has arisen now as a result of the legal advice that has been given.

With regard to the question of the Minister's allowance, that is really a minor matter. The advice that we have got is that the proper way of carrying out the provisions of the Constitution is that we should make an allowance to members and that we should read the Payment of Members Act, 1923, in the sense I have already indicated, as including the £360, with all its exemptions and penalties. That is to say, the salary of the Minister should include this allowance, and whatever is the law in relation to the allowance to one member of the Dáil should be the law in regard to the allowance to all members of the Dáil, whether Ministers or not. The proposal which is made here is to put Ministers in the same position as other members of the Dáil, except members who have no other income than the £360. If a member of the Dáil has income, including the £360 he gets here, the £360 is free of income tax. If we take the position say, of a professor, who had salary and emoluments amounting to £1,340 a year, if he becomes a member of the Dáil, the total remuneration which he receives from all sources is £1,700. If he were simply a member of the Dáil, he would have that £1,700 a year and he would be chargeable to tax, subject to the usual allowances, on £1,340 of that. If he became a Minister and had the same remuneration, he would be chargeable to tax on £1,700. It is a matter that is, I think, not of very much consequence, but the arguments that have been suggested to me seem to be correct: that this allowance should be paid in exactly the same way to all members of the Dáil whether they hold offices such as Ceann Comhairle or Minister or Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. JOHNSON

Better include the Cathaoirleach when going through the list.

Mr. BLYTHE

I now come to Deputy Cooper's point about supertax. I see no reason why we should not deal with supertax in the same way as income tax. As a matter of fact, if there is any case at all for giving this allowance to people who have substantial incomes, there is a perfectly good case for not making the £360 chargeable to supertax. Deputy O'Connell has referred to the view put forward by the officials of the Department of Finance and Revenue Department when the Committee was sitting. Undoubtedly, the opinion of the officials is that we should not have £360 free of tax, but that we should have, if the Dáil thinks it wise, a larger sum, subject to tax. You will find that the general official view is that all salaries should be subject to tax and that if you want to get a certain net sum you should provide a gross sum sufficient to give you that net sum, after tax had been paid. If there is anything in the argument put forward by Deputy Wilson he should really carry the matter further.

If he says it is necessary, for the giving of proper consideration to the feeling of taxpayers, that every penny of the Ministers' salaries or remuneration should be taxed, then every penny of remuneration given to T.D.'s should be equally subject to tax. If we set up a Committee, as has been suggested, I am sufficiently in touch with the Revenue Department to share their view that the proper thing to do would be to increase the salaries, so as to give £360, after charging the tax, although there would be certain difficulties about that. The position is now that it was intended to have this £360 free of tax. We find that that intention was not carried out in legislation. The £360 is subject to tax. Unless we legislate further, it is the duty of the Revenue Commissioners to proceed for the recovery of the tax due and arrears. I do not think that that is a position that we should allow to remain for so long a time as would be taken by this Committee in its deliberations. If Deputy Johnson proposes such a motion as this, independent of this measure— that is to say, to set up a Committee to consider the whole matter—I certainly would not object.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Main question put and declared carried.

Bill read a second time. Third Stage fixed for Tuesday, 30th June.