I am very sorry, Sir. I merely want to point out that, if you take this allowance to the Governor-General for expenses, I think that even the President would not deny, but will rather glory in the fact that the arrangement he has made precludes the Governor-General from having expenses in relation to his office. I have no doubt everyone of us in our private lives may give tea parties for our families or something like that, but I understand that the allowance for the Governor-General cannot include a tea party in relation to his office because he is not permitted to do such a thing.
I do not want to transgress, but I would have liked to point out that if we take the £1,200 and add to it £2,000 we get £3,200. The late Governor-General was assessed for income tax on £4,000 and the income tax amounted to £1,006, leaving less than £3,000. Here we have the case of a Governor-General who has no expenses whatever. I understand a house is provided for him. We have salaries, wages and allowances of a household staff and an allowance for expenses, all coming to £1,821. We have this sum of £1,821 plus some salary which is not here, plus travelling expenses and a motor car. Normally we recognise that anybody who becomes a Deputy has certain expenses that he would not have in private life. If a person becomes a Minister he has still more expenses than he would have as an ordinary Deputy. If he becomes the President one recognises it is quite conceivable under ordinary circumstances that he would have more expenses than a Minister. The Governor-General, as conceived by the Constitution, would rightly and necessarily and properly have more expenses than any of the categories I have mentioned. But in the last year or so a complete change has taken place and the Governor-General draws whatever he does draw for the purpose of doing nothing in relation to his office except sign Bills. Consequently, he has no expenses whatsoever. I defy any member of the Party opposite to indicate any expense that he has by virtue of his office that he would not have as an ordinary private person.
What is the purpose of all these payments here? He gets £1,200 for expenses independent of money that comes under the Central Fund. He has £621 for salaries, wages and allowances of the household staff. What is it all for? Originally it was recognised here, as is done in every civilised country and as is recognised by all civilised people as necessary— of course, it is recognised as undesirable by Deputy Cooney—that there must be a certain dignity, a certain symbolism in relation to holders of such a high public office; but here the whole policy of the Government is rather to degrade this office. The only argument I ever heard for degrading the symbolic figure in this State—and that is, to my mind, a form of sedition—is the saving of money. Now, we come here and we are asked in this impoverished and certainly overtaxed country to impose taxation on our people to hand over to a person who only nominally holds an office which was intended by the fundamental law of this country to be conducted in a certain way.
The Government, in defiance of the Constitution and in defiance of the loyalty and obedience of those who are anxious to defend the State from any attempts to degrade and defame it, asks us in effect to vote money out of the people's pockets as a sort of compensation for indignity. Heretofore the Governor-General's Vote was regarded as a necessary payment for dignity. We are now asked by the Government to tax the people for indignity. It is a scandal that we should be asked to spend these moneys in this way. What is achieved by it? The President will say that he would like to get rid of the Governor-General's office, but in view of the Treaty and the Constitution he is not able to do it. What is he doing but actually trying to get behind the Constitution, to reverse the Constitution and to make what the Constitution intended to be dignity, nothing but indignity? It is absolutely scandalous. When the Governor-General had a very important function in this State —of course, Deputy Cooney would not understand its importance—he was actually paid less than the present holder draws.
We are asked to increase the emoluments of the Governor-General. Why? What purpose is served? Suppose none of the money was voted; suppose the Dáil, facing up to its responsibilities as custodian of the people's purse, refuses to pay any penny on this Vote, could the President say that the refusal to pay that money interfered with the fulfilment of a necessary function, a function which he himself would rather was not fulfilled, but which is made necessary by reason of the Constitution? If not one penny is voted, still much more money will be spent upon this office than should be spent in view of the condition in which the office is now. That, to my mind, is completely unarguable. There is no work, no function, no dignity attaching to this office. There is no need whatsoever to pay any money at all. We are already paying ten or twenty times as much as should be paid out of the Central Fund. The President asks us to give another £2,246 on top of the money that we are already pitching into the gutter. One can argue whether there should or should not be such an office.