Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 22 Feb 1929

Vol. 28 No. 3

Private Deputies Business. - Oireachtas (Payment of Members) (No. 2) Bill, 1928—Second Stage.

Professor Thrift

Before moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would like to make two or three explanatory remarks. I would like it to be understood in the first place—and this is quite a small point—that this Bill comes from a considerable section of the Independent Group. Rather unfortunately, I think, they asked me to be their spokesman for the Bill in this House. But credit or discredit as the case may be, the responsibility for the Bill, at any rate, rests with that section of the Independent Group who are interested in having it brought forward.

The second point I wish to make is much more important. That section of the Independent Group, and I, wish most emphatically to disclaim any desire to discredit the Seanad or the Senators. On the contrary, it is our belief that the Seanad is a necessary and important part of the Constitution of this State, and most desirable; and we wish in every way we possibly can to increase rather than to decrease the importance and utility of that Second Chamber.

The third point I wish to make refers to the particular time at which this proposal has come forward. That is important, because of remarks to which I will later allude. I ask the members of the Dáil to recollect that this Bill was brought forward at a time when the election to the Seanad was actually in progress. The Bill itself was really brought before our minds by the changed method of election to the Seanad. It was during the actual time when the election to the Seanad was going on that the matter really became a subject of discussion with us. We did actually discuss the desirability of taking counsel with the Seanad before putting forward in a concrete and definite form any proposal. And we should have preferred that course, but it seemed to be urgently necessary that we should make a definite proposal before the result of the election was declared. Members of the Dáil will recollect that the Bill only appeared the very day before the result of the election was declared. It seemed to us then, and it seems to us now, that it is a much more desirable and a much more courteous way to proceed to take the Seanad into consultation in the matter before making up our minds as to what is the best course to adopt. Therefore, though it was impossible for us owing to that urgency of time, and though we regret that it was so impossible, we think, as a matter of fact, that the course that Deputy Tierney is adopting is a much more desirable way of proceeding.

In formally moving the Second Reading of the Bill at this stage, I intend to confine myself to that particular point rather than to the arguments for the particular Bill of which I am moving the Second Reading. We prefer that the course should be adopted of consulting the Seanad, and we think that the course suggested by Deputy Tierney is the best way to proceed. We are prepared to accept, in substance, his amendment, which would have the effect of setting up a joint committee of the Seanad and the Dáil to discuss the matter, and not come to a conclusion about a definite proposal until we have heard what the report of that committee is. It would be more suitable, I think, to discuss the arguments on that amendment rather than on the Bill itself. If that amendment should be lost, I take it that I would have the opportunity of putting forward any arguments that may occur to me on the main proposals of the Bill afterwards. Any arguments as to the need for action would naturally. I think, come forward when Deputy Tierney is moving his amendment. I take it that I would have the right to speak on that amendment. At this stage I will just formally move the Second Reading of the Bill in order to give Deputy Tierney an opportunity of moving his amendment.

Professor Tierney

I move the following amendment:—

To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute therefor the words "the second reading of the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) (No. 2) Bill, 1928, be postponed until the question of the amount of the allowance which should be paid to members of Seanad Eireann has been considered by a Joint Committee of the two Houses of the Oireachtas, or for three months whichever shall be the shorter period."

In view of the statement made by the mover of the Second Reading of the Bill, I do not think there is any necessity for me to delay the House very long in discussing this amendment. It seems to me to be one which should commend itself to everyone. It is hardly desirable that the question of the allowances to be paid to members of Seanad Eireann should be discussed by the ordinary procedure of Private Bill without an opportunity being given for consultation with the body which is mainly affected by such a Bill. It does seem that it would be much more satisfactory if the matter could be settled by the ordinary procedure of a joint committee. Any other questions of a similar nature, besides the simple question raised in the Bill itself, which may be relevant to the matter, could also be brought up and discussed by the committee. I, therefore, expect that the Dáil, as a whole, will agree that the procedure set forth by the amendment is the more desirable, and I therefore content myself by formally moving the amendment.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Deputy Thrift has made it quite clear in his statement that this Bill emanates, as he says, from a certain section of the Independent Group. Now it is found at this stage unwise, perhaps, for them hastily to bring in this legislation without consulting others than the few who drafted this Bill which has only one clause of any importance. This is what you might call a kind of deathbed repentance for having acted hastily, and in order to mend matters Deputy Tierney comes to the rescue with a suggestion that this matter be referred to a joint committee. The people who are immediately concerned with the financial question which is raised in this Bill are to have representation on that joint committee. I do not think that is right from many points of view, and I think I could raise some objections to it. In the first place, I raise the technical objection that this procedure is in direct conflict with Article 35 of the Constitution, which precludes the Seanad from having anything at all to do with a Money Bill. That is rather emphasised by the exception in Article 21, where it is provided that the only power the Seanad has over money is to vote the salaries for its Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. The Seanad does not vote the money.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I should have said that the Seanad fixes the salaries but does not vote them. As regards Article 35, I raise the point that I have just mentioned and submit it for the ruling of the Chair. It would be, in my opinion, in conflict with the letter and the spirit of that Article of the Constitution if the Seanad which had no power to deal with money matters were to be given the privilege of nominating representatives on a committee that is to decide the salaries to be paid to themselves.

Professor Thrift

On a point of order. I think the Deputy misunderstands the amendment. The amendment proposes that a committee should be set up which would report but would not act. It is only when the committee's report is received that the Bill either in its present form or in a changed form would come forward. It does not suggest that the committee should be given any power beyond discussing the matter and making a report.

Professor Tierney

Deputy O'Hanlon made the suggestion that I was in some way or other the instrument of this death-bed repentance on the part of the Independent Group. I would like the Deputy to know that I have no dealings whatever with the Independent Group. I could not tell who the members of the Group are. I am putting forward the amendment purely on my own responsibility.

Mr. S. Jordan

But surely you would visit the sick?

An Ceann Comhairle

With regard to Deputy O'Hanlon's point, I am not clear that it is for the Chair to decide whether a motion or an amendment is in conflict with the Constitution. The only thing I can do is to explain the implications, from the point of view of the procedure of the Dáil, of the first paragraph of Article 35 of the Constitution which says:—"Dáil Eireann shall in relation to the subject matter of Money Bills as hereinafter defined have legislative authority exclusive of Seanad Eireann." The amendment before the Dáil proposes to set up a joint committee of Senators and Deputies to consider the question of the allowances to members of Seanad Eireann. When that joint committee reports, the report will have no effect upon the finances of the State. That is to say, no money will flow from the Exchequer as a result of the report. Even when both Houses have approved of the report, should they approve of it, the position will still be that no money will flow from or into the Exchequer. The procedure necessary for giving effect to the approval of the two Houses will be the usual procedure. In that procedure, the Dáil by a Bill which might subsequently be deemed by the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil to be a Money Bill, would have authority, but that authority does not seem to be impaired by this amendment.

Mr. Flinn

If we set up a precedent for previous consultation with the Seanad upon financial matters which are definitely matters for the Dáil to deal with, it seems to me that we are setting up a precedent in consultation which, while it may not be disorderly, is certainly a remarkable change.

An Ceann Comhairle

The point put to me was as to the constitutional powers of this House. I have said that I see nothing in the amendment which seems to me to take away from the powers of the Dáil in financial matters.

Mr. Flinn

Deputy Thrift said the object was to increase in every possible way the power of the Seanad. My suggestion is that is what he is doing.

Professor Thrift

I do not think I used the word "power." If I did I would like to modify it.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Technically, the ruling of the Chair is, of course, quite all right, but is it not bringing in by a side wind the Seanad to deal with a matter which will afterwards be the subject of a financial resolution? It is merely getting the Seanad in by a side wind in the same way as they were brought in to decide the form by which they would be elected. I object entirely to getting the work of the House delegated to Joint Committees and dealing in that way with matters which should be discussed fairly and openly before the public, and the reasons given why the salaries should be reduced or left as they are. I do not think we ought to hide behind a Committee when deciding a question of vital importance affecting this House and the taxpayers.

Mr. Lemass

When Deputy Thrift moved the First Reading of this Bill in this House the members on these Benches were very glad that action was about to be taken to reduce the cost to the people of maintaining the Seanad, and although we had no illusions in our minds as to the motives which actuated Deputy Thrift in preparing this Bill we decided to support it, and having decided to support it we are not now going to allow the opportunity to be taken from us without at least entering a protest. Undoubtedly the reasons which compelled us to support this Bill have nothing in common whatever with the reasons which Deputy Thrift has now given for its introduction. I believe that the members of the Independent Group who acted primarily in this matter came together prior to the election of a number of Senators some time ago and decided to introduce this Bill. Their main desire was to find some means by which the privilege, if it is a privilege, of membership of the Seanad would be retained for that particular section of the community which they represent. Under the system of election which prevailed before the change there were a number of people who secured membership of the Seanad who could not possibly have got that membership if popular opinion or popular vote had any influence in the matter. A change was effected—a change with which in some respects we disagreed, but it resulted in the elimination of a number of people who, in my opinion, were undesirable in the Seanad, even though it did not make the utility of that body any greater. I believe that the motive which actuated the Independent Group here, and I think the motive which actuated certain members of the Seanad who also moved in this matter, was to ensure that it would be possible for those only to seek election to the Seanad who were provided with independent means of livelihood; in other words, that membership of that body would become the exclusive privilege of the moneyed class. In so far as that was the motive which actuated the movers of this Bill we thoroughly disagree with it.

We think that if the Seanad could possibly at any time serve a useful function in the Government of this State, then its members should be provided with an allowance which would make it possible for the poorest member of this community to fulfil all the functions of membership. Whether £200 a year or £360 a year is an allowance adequate to that end, I am not going now to express an opinion, but I would like to point out that it is possible for a shopkeeper or a professional man to carry out the functions attaching to the Dáil or the Seanad without any serious diminution of his income from his profession or business. There are very few working men earning a weekly wage who could, I think, persuade their employers to permit them to be absent from their work while the Dáil or Seanad was in session, and to return to their work during the recess. A working man, therefore, who becomes a member of the Dáil or Seanad is practically compelled to devote all his time to it. He is certainly not in the position to find any source of income to augment the allowance which he receives here. It was, I think, to exclude possibly all persons without private incomes becoming members of the Seanad that this Bill was originally introduced. The members who introduced it through Deputy Thrift assured us that the Seanad is a necessary, important and desirable part of the machinery of Government here; we disagree with them in that also. We do not think that any case has been made in this House or outside to prove that the Seanad is a necessary, important and desirable part of the machinery of government. We think, and in fact have often expressed our opinion, that the machinery of government would be strengthened and made to work much more freely if the Seanad, as at present constituted, did not exist. We believe that that institution was created primarily to act as a brake upon any effort by the Irish people to effect a constitutional change in the position of the State in the direction of greater independence. Believing that that is the prime purpose for the Seanad's existence, we have been striving for a long time past to secure its abolition. As we have not been effective in securing its abolition we have striven to reduce its cost to the nation. When the question of the mode of election to the Seanad came before this House in the last session, we supported the idea of an election by the Dáil as against an election by the people, not because we considered an election by the Dáil preferable to election by the people, but believing the Seanad to be useless we considered it advisable to select it by the least costly method, believing as we did that no matter how excellent the persons elected might be individually, as members of that body they would be useless nationally.

We have here a Bill to reduce the allowance paid to members of the Seanad from £360 to £200 per annum, and we are going to support that Bill, because we believe that the cost of the Seanad should be reduced to the minimum. We believe, of course, in the first instance, that the Seanad should be abolished altogether, and that nothing should be expended in relation to it. We have not been able to achieve that, but as an alternative the Bill is a step in that direction. There is an amendment to the motion that this Bill be read a second time. The amendment is that the Bill be postponed until the question of the amount of the allowance which should be paid to members of Seanad Eireann has been considered by a Joint Committee of the two Houses of the Oireachtas, or for three months, whichever shall be the shorter period. That amendment is moved by Deputy Tierney, and while Deputy O'Hanlon thinks that he has done so to get the Independent Group that sponsored the Bill out of a difficulty——

Mr. O'Hanlon

No, I did not quite say that.

Mr. Lemass

It is my opinion that he has moved it to get the party of which he himself is a member out of a difficulty. He is, I think, the decoy duck for Cumann na nGaedheal in connection with this measure, because we have found in the past that it was always the desire of the Executive Council to be able to put the responsibility for any of their acts of omission or commission upon some committee, commission or tribunal other than themselves. Deputies should be prepared to decide in the open whether there is to be any reduction in the allowance made to Senators. Evil deeds love the dark, and it is because evil deeds love the dark that I think this amendment is before the House. It is to take the discussion on this matter away from the public so that the public will not hear the arguments against the motion which would be advanced, perhaps, by members of the Committee, or the arguments in favour of it which would be advanced by others, that we are now asked to suspend consideration of the Bill to enable this Committee to get to work. If Deputies have reasons, which they believe to be good, for supporting this Bill, surely they will not be afraid or ashamed to state them here. If, on the other hand, they have reasons, which they believe to be good, for opposing this Bill, let them stand up here and produce these reasons. I think it is undesirable that they should be given an opportunity of going behind closed doors for the purpose of stating these reasons and presenting a report on which the Government would, of course, act automatically and refer all criticism to.

The point raised in connection with the point of order by Deputy O'Hanlon is one which I think we should consider also, if not as a point of order, as a point of argument. It is, I think, one of the fundamental tenets of democratic government in all countries that the House which secures its right of legislation direct from the people should retain under its control all matters relating to the expenditure of money. The suggestion in this amendment is to take into consultation on what is in effect a Money Bill the members of the Second Chamber. We have a direct responsibility to the taxpayers, and we cannot get rid of that responsibility by setting up a special committee. Nor do I think it is right that in this matter members of the Seanad should be consulted. I disagree altogether with the view that courtesy demands it. It is for Deputies here present as representatives of the people to decide what, in their opinion, should be the allowance adequate to members of that Chamber, in view of its utility and the amount of work devolving on it. We are, therefore, opposing the amendment. We believe that those Deputies who share our view as to the utility of that Second Chamber, and those other Deputies who are always preaching about their desire for economy, should not let this opportunity pass from them into the hands of such a special committee as is suggested. They should hold on to this Bill like grim death, a Bill that in an injudicious moment members of the Independent Group have placed before them. They cannot withdraw the Bill without the leave of the House, and I would urge upon Deputies not to give that leave.

Professor Thrift

We do not ask you to do so.

Mr. Lemass

Well, I would urge on them not to accept an amendment which amounts to the same thing.

Professor Thrift

Oh, no, not at all.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Thrift says "not at all," but if some other method of getting rid of the Bill, while at the same time preserving their countenance before the people, could have been devised this amendment would not have been put before us. I think this amendment was introduced to shelve the Bill and to take the responsibility of coming to a decision off the shoulders of Deputies——

Mr. Flinn

How does Deputy Thrift know it was not introduced for this purpose if he had no consultation with Deputy Tierney?

Professor Thrift

I was referring to our acceptance of the amendment, which I think was what Deputy Lemass said.

Mr. Lemass

In any case I urge Deputies to reject the amendment and to pass the Bill, in the first place because matters of this kind should be settled here in the Dáil, and settled after Deputies have had the opportunity of hearing all the arguments on one side or the other, and in the second place because it is not right that the Second Chamber should be taken into consideration in a matter in which money is concerned before a decision of the Dáil is made. I would also ask them to adopt that course because of the very fact that the Seanad, being as it is a useless encumbrance on the machinery of government, should be made to cost as little as it can be made to cost. If we could get Deputies to agree to its abolition altogether we would be very pleased. As we cannot get them to do that, let them at least reduce the bill which the taxpayer has to meet in relation to it. Deputy Thrift made some reference to the time at which this Bill was introduced. There have been some criticisms as to the method by which the recent election of Senators was carried out. Deputies will recollect that we approved of the method of election by this Chamber—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that does not arise on this.

Mr. Lemass

It does, indirectly. We did not approve of the method of nomination. But this criticism of the method of election has only become vocal now, not because of any inherent defects in the method, but because five quotas were made to elect six Senators, and I think that if the result of the election had been different we would not have had the same opposition to that method as has since been expressed. I refer to that matter to give myself an opportunity of saying that the attitude of Fianna Fáil towards the Seanad has not in any way been altered by the fact that we decided to put forward candidates at that election and succeeded in electing them. We still believe that the Seanad serves no useful function in the nation, and that it would be a wise national policy to abolish it. Because of that we will support any legislation that is introduced designed to restrict and confine its powers, and to reduce the bill which the taxpayer has to bear in relation to it. Therefore, we are going to support this Bill, whether the mover likes it or not, and we are going to oppose the amendment.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

The procedure that has been adopted here to-day in regard both to the motion and the amendment seems to me to be most extraordinary. First of all we have a motion for the Second Reading of a Bill, and the proposer of that motion gets up and says: "As there is an amendment on the Paper, I will not move my motion."

Professor Thrift

Oh, no.

Mr. O'Connell

Well, "I am going to accept the amendment in effect." Therefore he makes no case for his motion. The mover of the amendment immediately gets up and says in effect: "There is no reason for me to argue my amendment, as this thing seems to be accepted, generally speaking," and we have no case made at all, as a case ought to be made, for a change of any kind. That is the first case that ought to be made, in my opinion, and that has not been made. That is the duty of the proposer of this motion, and, in my opinion, that case should have been made before the House is asked to decide, one way or the other, on the motion or the amendment. No case has been made for a change. No case has been made, therefore, to refer this subject to a joint committee. If we are going to have it referred to a joint committee, we ought to know why there is a change proposed. The mover of the motion, or the mover of the amendment, has not vouchsafed that to us. I am against the amendment, and I am also against the motion. I listened with care to what Deputy Lemass said. In the beginning of his speech he made a case against this Bill, from my point of view very much better and more eloquently than I could make it. Anyone who listened to his remarks must admit that he made it clear that if this Bill is passed it will not be possible for a working man to take his seat in the Seanad. That is the position. He made it quite clear that if this Bill were passed it would not be possible for a working man to take his seat in the Seanad.

Mr. Lemass

That would be for the good of the working man.

Mr. O'Connell

It may be for the good of the working man, but I want to emphasise that point, and say that it is the view of Deputy Lemass that if this Bill is passed it will be impossible for a working man to take his seat in the Seanad. After that Deputy Lemass says: "I am going to support the Bill." Now we know where Deputy Lemass stands, and if his Party stands with him——

The President

It took you a long time to find it out.

Mr. O'Connell

We have it clearly that it is the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party to prevent any working man, who would have to depend on the allowance he would get, from going into the Seanad.

Mr. Lemass

We want to prevent anyone getting into the Seanad. We want no Seanad.

Mr. O'Connell

The question of the existence of the Seanad is not an issue in this matter. That is another matter. We have the Seanad now; we may have it for ten or twenty years. While we have it Deputy Lemass is not going to have working men there. I think that is a most extraordinary doctrine for Deputy Lemass, of all men, to preach in this House, and I must express my surprise at it. I was not surprised one bit at a motion of this kind coming from the quarter it came from. It was what I expected. I agree to a large extent with Deputy Lemass in his interpretation of the motives that inspired this measure. I believe that coming from an Independent Deputy or a group of Independents who proposed this measure, who represent the moneyed and leisured classes very largely in this country—or say they do —that this is what I would expect them to do—to move a motion of this kind— which would tend to reserve positions in the Seanad, and such power as the Seanad may possess, to the people who are of independent means, and who can afford to be members of the Seanad, even though no allowance is paid. As I say, I could quite understand that motive, but I cannot understand the Fianna Fáil Party and their spokesmen, after making it quite clear —clearer and with more eloquence than any member on these Benches could make it—that that would be the effect of the Bill, and still they come along and say: "We are going to support this measure." No matter what motives they have in view, whether the motives are the same as those of Independents or not, the effect is going to be the same, on their own admission. I am against this Bill for the reasons stated by Deputy Lemass in the opening part of his speech, that this is a class Bill—that it is class legislation which, as I say, would have the effect of keeping the working man from taking a position in the Seanad.

A Deputy

What do you mean by a working man?

Mr. O'Connell

What do I mean by a working man? I thought that was clear to everybody. A wage-earner in fact. A man who is dependent entirely on the income which he gets from the Seanad. Is that clear enough? A man who has no other source of income except the allowance which he gets from the Seanad or from the Dáil. I suppose the next step will be to bring the same measure into effect as far as members of the Dáil are concerned. I will oppose this Bill strongly, because no case has been made for a change of any kind. I will likewise oppose the amendment. I hope the amendment will be defeated, and I hope also that the Bill will be defeated. The amendment keeps the Bill hanging up here as it were, and until a case has been made, if a case can be made, for any change at all in the present regulations, then I am going to vote against the amendment and the Bill.

Mr. Law

I can quite understand Deputy O'Connell's objection to accepting the Second Reading of the Bill, but I am at some loss to understand, even in spite of his explanation, his objections to the amendment. He assumes that the effect of an inquiry by a joint committee must be to reduce the allowance paid to members of the Seanad.

Mr. O'Connell

No, I want a case made for the change.

Mr. Law

I apologise if I misunderstood the Deputy. I understood him to say that he was against the amendment.

Mr. O'Connell

Yes.

Mr. Law

He is against the amendment on the ground that the operation of the inquiry would be to reduce the allowance for the Seanad, and possibly for the Dáil.

Mr. O'Connell

Oh, no.

Mr. Law

Then I withdraw if I misunderstood what was said. I thought that was the point. But there seems to be, certainly in the mind of Deputy Lemass, that idea. I only want to point out that all that is asked in the amendment is that there should be a preliminary inquiry. For all I know, the result of that inquiry may be a recommendation—that is all the committee can do—that the allowance in the Seanad be increased. There is nothing in the amendment limiting the joint committee to making a recommendation in favour of a reduction. It is asked simply to inquire into the amount of the allowance which should be paid to members of Seanad Eireann. Obviously, if a case were to be made showing the amount of work done in the Seanad, and if the expenses incurred by members of the Seanad were in excess of the amount paid them at present, then there would be a clear case made for an increase in their allowance. Deputy Lemass seemed to be labouring under a misapprehension, but I do not think he was. I am afraid that if it had been some other member of his Party I would have given him the benefit of the doubt, and would have supposed him to be labouring under an honest misapprehension. In the case of Deputy Lemass, I am afraid I must come to the conclusion that on this occasion, as upon some others, he has lent the brilliancy of his intellect, the weight of his statesmanlike appearance, the impressiveness of his resonant voice, to a completely unfounded suspicion. We heard from the Minister for Defence yesterday, and I think it was true, that it was characteristic of the Fianna Fáil Party to cherish unfounded suspicions. They looked for plots, secret mysteries, something deep and dark in every action of the Government and in every quarter of the House.

Mr. Flinn

Passing round envelopes in the Seanad. Do you remember?

Mr. Law

I do not.

Mr. Flinn

Well, you ought to.

Mr. Law

I am sorry, but I was not there.

Mr. Flinn

It was part of the conspiracy.

Mr. Law

There is conspiracy. You will hear that statement presently from the other great statesman. But at any rate Deputy Lemass, in his most impressive manner, told us that the object of his friends' amendment was to take away from members of this Assembly that which was their own proper function—the determination of matters affecting the public finance, that this committee was to meet behind closed doors, that its purpose was to deny the members of the Dáil and, what was more important, the citizens of Saorstát Eireann any opportunity of knowing what were the arguments for or against this Bill. He did not say it, he is much too clever to say anything so foolish, but I gathered that anyone who did not know what the procedure in Parliament is would naturally infer when they read his speech in the newspapers to-morrow morning that what is proposed here is that we should set up a committee with plenary powers immediately to make alterations in finance. They will assume for the committee legislative powers which will come into operation immediately, and that what they say goes. We know perfectly well that Deputy Lemass knows that that is not the position at all. All that is asked here is that we should set up a joint committee, and put upon that joint committee the function of considering carefully the pros and cons of this whole matter, the work to be done by members of Seanad Eireann, the amount of time occupied by that work, and the remuneration properly to be paid to the Senators. The Committee is to report back to this House, and nothing that the committee can possibly do can prevent the fullest, frankest and most completely open discussion here on that matter. The whole of this plot comes down to nothing more than that we ask a number of members of this House and the Seanad to meet here to go into the whole matter, and then come back with a full knowledge of the affair, so that we in turn may debate this matter, not ignorantly, but with an actual detailed knowledge, so that the whole of the matter in controversy may be known.

There is only one other point I will refer to. Deputy O'Hanlon has raised a point. I understood him to say that it was not proper that any matter affecting the public finances should go to the Seanad which, under our Constitution, is precluded from dealing with Money Bills, "should be brought in," I think he said, "by a side wind." Am I correct?

Mr. O'Hanlon

Yes.

Mr. Law

I am glad that for once I did not misrepresent him. It is not quite true to say that the Seanad has no function at all in relation to Money Bills. In Article 35 of the Constitution it has certain functions. It is true they are very limited functions, and the question whether, in relation to any particular Bill, the Seanad has other functions depends primarily upon the certificate given by the Speaker of this House. We do not know at present whether a Bill such as that introduced by Deputy Thrift is or is not a Money Bill. We cannot know whether it is or is not a Money Bill until that certificate has been given, and even then it is, of course, subject to reference to the Committee of Privileges under the Constitution. Therefore we can not assume at this stage that it is a matter for which even technically the Seanad has no concern. It is quite obvious, apart from that technicality, that the Seanad is very closely concerned. I think even if on technical grounds there was something to be objected to in this procedure, even technical grounds ought to be waived, not only as a matter of courtesy, but also because I would not like the Dáil to lie under the suggestion that we were being extremely meticulous with the money paid to other people, while we were exceedingly careful not to interfere in any way—that in any way we were not at all anxious to court inquiry as to the payments made to ourselves. I think we should put ourselves in a very awkward position if we were to claim, on purely technical grounds, the right to judge all these matters for all these other people while removing the thing from ourselves.

For my own part I would personally welcome, not at all for the reasons Deputy O'Connell seems to suggest, the extension of this inquiry into the payments made to members of the Dáil itself.

Mr. O'Hanlon

You would suggest the withdrawal of the Bill.

Mr. Law

The reason I say that is I think the more the public is made aware of the real facts of the case and the relation between the work done, the services rendered, and the payments made to members of the Oireachtas, the better it will be for everybody, not for this section or for that, but precisely in order that the payments may be made according to services and according to need, and in order that we should get away in this as in other matters from this abominable atmosphere of suspicion which clouds so many of our proceedings.

Mr. Flinn

I rather waited because I thought the House would like to hear officially or unofficially what action the President was going to take in this matter and what the official or unofficial view of his Party might be in relation to this action of the Good-and-Thrifty party which has put forward this proposal and the stool-pigeons which have been used for the purpose of clouding the issue. It seems to me Deputy Thrift and Deputy Tierney are going to alternate in that position. Whenever the Government makes a fool of itself with a declaration in relation to, say, the Referendum, Deputy Thrift can always be called upon for tricky moves of this kind, and whenever Deputy Thrift makes a fool of himself then Deputy Tierney will bring them back to the ark from the waters of trouble. The branch is being sent out again. I do not use any classical allusions, but there are people very closely connected in history whom you do not separate automatically at least or whom you automatically connect. I think in this House in the future the names of Deputy Thrift and Deputy Tierney will undoubtedly be associated as people who can always be called upon in an emergency to do the useful tricky thing which is necessary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a phrase which the Deputy should not use. The Deputy should deal with the Bill rather than with personalities.

Mr. Flinn

The discussion to-day has been why this amendment has been introduced. There have been repudiations of all sorts and kinds. When Deputy Law rose I wrote upon my tables "Oh, Law!" and I could not find really much else except that he was repudiating suspicions while deliberately creating them in every word he said. He was above suspicions, a male "Caesar's wife." At any rate Deputy Law has produced a laugh, and I do not know that he ever produced anything else in his life.

The one statesman in Europe whose mentality and whose method of speech I personally appreciated more than any other was Arthur James Balfour, and Arthur James Balfour has produced a phrase which would perfectly cover the whole of this debate and discussion. He spoke of the causes which go to form opinion as distinct from the reasons by which we afterwards justify them.

Deputy Lemass told us what he thought was the motive of Deputy Thrift, and then Deputy O'Connell told us what he thought of what Deputy Lemass thought of the motives of Deputy Thrift. According to Deputy O'Connell—this man who does not belong to the leisured classes, who does not belong to the wealthy classes, but who does belong to a class of which there is a very small proportion in this country, those who have the wealth of the world—Deputy Lemass approves of this Bill of Deputy Thrift's for the reason that Deputy Lemass thinks Deputy Thrift had in producing it.

Mr. O'Connell

I did not say any such thing.

Mr. Flinn

There will be produced in a week from now a record of the proceedings of this House.

Mr. O'Connell

Yes.

Mr. Flinn

And that is good enough for me.

Mr. O'Connell

And for me too.

Mr. Flinn

Deputy O'Connell said also that Deputy Lemass was approving of this because the passing of Deputy Thrift's Bill would exclude from the Seanad working men.

Mr. O'Connell

Again I must protest against misrepresentation. I said no such thing. I said that would be the effect of Deputy Lemass's support of the measure. I did not attribute any motive whatsoever to Deputy Lemass for supporting the Bill. In fact I expressed my surprise that he should be supporting it.

Mr. Flinn

I am very glad to have given Deputy O'Connell an opportunity of explaining that which his method of debate had left obscure.

Mr. O'Connell

Is there not another reason why it is obscure?

Mr. Flinn

Yes—that was from the beginning—a lack of ability to express yourself clearly.

Mr. O'Connell

Or to understand.

Mr. Flinn

But let us get back to the point. The statement that this measure will exclude from the Seanad working men, and for that reason this motion should not be passed. When did the Labour Party send to the Seanad a man who would be excluded on this ground? Because he was a working man he had to leave his job.

Mr. O'Connell

They are already there.

Mr. Flinn

Who are they? Men of the leisured classes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not on this Bill criticise members of the Seanad.

Mr. Flinn

I can discuss the question.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can discuss what he is allowed to discuss by the Chair, and nothing else.

Mr. Flinn

It will be impossible, according to Deputy O'Connell, that a working man should leave his job.

Mr. O'Connell

According to Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Flinn

According to the misrepresentation of Deputy Lemass by Deputy O'Connell. But they have never attempted to use the opportunity. They have sent there paid officials.

Mr. Corish

That is a lie.

Mr. Flinn

Would Deputy O'Connell be prevented from going into the Seanad? Would he have to leave his job? Would Deputy Davin? Mind, I am not attacking any of them in this manner but they have other means of livelihood.

Mr. O'Connell

You would confine the seats to the paid officials; that is your policy.

Mr. Flinn

Oh no, I am not doing that; you have done it.

Mr. O'Connell

That is wrong.

Mr. Flinn

You have done it.

Mr. O'Connell

I deny that.

Mr. Flinn

As far as I know. We will have a list, but I understand for the moment that the Chair will not allow me to give you a list. It is no fault of mine.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will not allow the Deputy to criticise members of the Seanad on this amendment.

Mr. Flinn

All I am concerned with is whether I will give the list. In other words, the very complaint that Deputy O'Connell makes is a complaint which has no foundation, or the actual thing which he says is wrong has been their practice in this matter.

Mr. O'Connell

You will not get out of it so softly as that.

Mr. Flinn

The leisured classes—this hard driven people of the class and order and state and condition of wealth of Deputy O'Connell. I am in favour of Deputy Thrift's motion because I believe the Seanad as at present constituted of 60 members is a thoroughly bad and wasteful expenditure of public money, and that it should for that reason be reduced. I would not have elected anybody to fill the last vacancies. You have had two elections now to that body. The standing aside of part of the national opinion made the first election ridiculous and made the Seanad ridiculous also. I think it will be admitted on every side that the first popular election to the Seanad did it a great deal of damage in public opinion. Now you have had another election and is anyone going to suggest that the second method of election has not done it as much damage as the first? Is there anyone suggesting at the moment that it has re-habilitated itself in any way? A good sound Labour man, a man with ideas and a man with imagination has gone into the Seanad. He has attempted to make that Seanad work, and if there is one thing that the Seanad is solidly agreed on it is that it will not let that Labour man make it work, that it will not let it make itself a Seanad of the kind in which it will not be true, as was stated by Deputy Davin in this House, that the ordinary member for the time he spends there was paid the trades union rate of somewhere about £7: 10s. 0d. per hour.

It is not good enough. Until we can reorganise that Seanad, until we can reduce it to the position in which it is useful, every expenditure in relation to it is wasteful, and should be stopped. Now, it is suggested as a way out, with the able assistance of Deputy Tierney, that this should be sent to a lethal chamber. They call it a committee. The House knows quite well what very ingenious and clever use was made of the previous conference between this Dáil and the Seanad in relation to the Seanad. You had there a packed chamber. I mean that on the previous occasion you had, I think, twelve altogether, of whom nine could definitely be calculated upon for any undemocratic action in relation to that committee. That committee was regarded here as if it were an authoritative and impartial body. In this case you would have the same thing. Whatever suits any reaction agreed to by that Committee will be produced here to us as if it were the pure water of legislative wisdom. Personally, I think that that ought not to be done. The second question is also one of constitutional change, that in a matter which is definitely a financial matter, because the Bill, as it now stands, is a financial Bill, that that shall be done by the Dáil on its own authority.

It is a question whether you want it done upon the authority of this Dáil or upon the authority of the Seanad. What sort of Bill do you think will emerge from that committee? It is now a Financial Bill which can be dealt with by this House, but does anybody believe that the Seanad representatives are such fools that the Report which comes down will not be a report which will change the Bill into a mixed Bill of finance and legislation? That is a trap we do not want to get into. Our business is to keep financial matters in and for this House, and any attempt to send financial matters, as previously, for consultation to the Seanad definitely weakens that control. If there could be some agreement between the Houses as to what was going to be the future of that chamber, if we could come to some understanding as to what use or benefit we were going to get out of it, we might consider it in a very different way. At present we are considering finance in a country whose budget is unbalanced, in relation to a thing which we regard as useless, a thing which we think is intended to develop on lines which would be bankrupt of everything of use and value to the country. As regards one group—I do not know what to call them, as they are not wholly independent, but I call them the good— and—thrifty group—if these people were prepared to say to us, "We, the good—and—thrifty group, desire that the Seanad shall be an economic body and run as cheaply as possible in relation to the work it does"—do they agree?

A Deputy

No.

Professor Thrift

Who said no?

Mr. Flinn

It was one of those answers which should have immediately been "Yes."

Professor Thrift

Rhetorical, surely.

Mr. Flinn

Very well. At any rate we have thrifty agreement. We agree that the Seanad should be as cheap as possible. We will agree that the Seanad should be as small as possible? Yes or No?

Professor Thrift

I will answer "Yes" or "No" when it comes to my speech, but I will not interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. Flinn

Yes, but this new power in the House, this new party who are showing initiative and who are going to teach the people how to legislate and fill the gaps of inertia, surely do not possess so much mental inertia themselves as not to be able to give an immediate answer. Does it mean that they must approach Deputy Tierney and ask him what amendment he will introduce afterwards to get them out of an admission which they made by nodding their heads? I will suggest a line of agreement. We will see, having regard to developments on that line, whether we might not all come to consider Seanad salaries on a different line—first, a Seanad altogether smaller than the present Seanad (ten, twelve or fifteen), a Seanad which has no legislative powers whatever, has no powers of delay whatever except such as are required to perform its functions, a body of experts which will be chosen without any regard whatever to their political opinions but merely to their knowledge of the subject, a body to which all the legislation of this Dáil, before it is considered by the Dáil or at some future stage before it is passed by the Dáil, is sent for annotation and comment, a body of experts, a body which will take Clause 1 of a Bill and say that its implications are so-and-so and that if such-and-such a thing is not done the result will be so-and-so. Then the Dáil will come to consider any legislation which may have gone up and been annotated with the full knowledge of what independent, competent men, whatever their political opinions were, would say about it. It would not matter twopence halfpenny whether a man was a Unionist or an anarchist; perhaps they mean the same thing in some people's minds. You would then simply have on Clause 1 an annotation which people would consider and say: "That seems fairly reasonable; it seems sound," or you would have the suggestion that if Clause 1 were read in conjunction with Clause 4 it would produce a sort of stuff that was produced by the Shannon Bill. You would have people who would explain to this House what Deputy Good, Deputy Hewat and the other independent members who fought the Shannon Bill did not understand in the Shannon Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before the Deputy goes further on the Shannon Bill, perhaps he would move the adjournment.

Mr. Flinn

That is what I intended to do. I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Wednesday, 27th February.