Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1936

Vol. 63 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 2—Oireachtas.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £75,951 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Oireachtais, maraon le Deontas-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £75,951 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the salaries and expenses of the Oireachtas, including a grant-in-aid.

I do not suppose that there is any chance of inducing the Department of Finance to increase the extent to which official envelopes of the Oireachtas are available for franked correspondence. At present a letter written by a Deputy and enclosed in an envelope which has upon it the words "Oireachtas Eireann," will travel free of postage to a Government Department. Is there any hope that that privilege will be extended to cover all correspondence arising out of a Deputy's business transacted in this House? I imagine that a restriction would have to be placed upon it lest abuses should creep in but, at the same time, I imagine a restricted privilege might be extended to Deputies by allowing them free postage in respect at least. to Oireachtas stationery which was posted in the Oireachtas post office. That would avoid any possibility of the printed envelopes being taken out of the building and being used for general correspondence purposes in a city post office or elsewhere. I throw out that suggestion. It is not one to which I attach very great importance but apart from the expense of postage to Deputies, the convenience of not having to be perpetually buying stamps and sticking them on envelopes here would be considerable, particularly in view of the fact that it is becoming more difficult to buy a stamp in Leinster House. The hours during which the Post Office is available are becoming more restricted with the passage of years. However, that is another question.

There is another matter on which I wish to raise a question of principle. If the Minister will turn to the Vote for the Department of Agriculture, he will there find that we pay a considerable contribution every year to a series of Imperial Research Institutions. We pay a contribution every year, very properly, to a series of Imperial Research Institutions which provide a centre of co-operation for all the members of the Commonwealth in dealing with the obscure problems which affect agriculture in all parts of the Commonwealth. I apologise to the House for the delay.

It is on page 207, sub-head E.

I thank the Minister. We contribute to the Imperial Mycological Institute a sum of £150 a year. We contribute to the Imperial Institute of Entomology £50 a year. We further contribute various sums to the Imperial Bureau of Soil Science, to the Imperial Bureau of Animal Nutrition, to the Imperial Bureau of Animal. Health, to the Imperial Bureau of Animal Genetics, to the Imperial Bureau of Agricultural Parasitology, to the Imperial Bureau of Plant Genetics and to the Imperial Bureau of Fruit Production. I direct the attention of the House to that fact because under sub-head I of the Oireachtas Vote we contribute to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Saorstát Eireann Group. In addition to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, there is a Union known as the Imperial Parliamentary Union which provides a forum at which representatives of all Parties of the Parliaments of the Dominions meet and discuss matters of common constitutional interests, as the experts of the Dominions meet in the institutes referred to in the Agricultural Vote, for the discussion of technical questions of common interest. Last year, as a delegate from the Saorstát Eireann Branch of the Imperial Parliamentary Union, I attended a conference in London and there met distinguished Irishmen from Australia representing the various Governments of Australia, distinguished Irishmen and New Zealanders representing New Zealand, with others from New Zealand who had no connection with this country, distinguished Irish-Canadians representing Canada with French-Canadians and English-Canadians—in fact, representatives of all the sovereign Governments of the Nations of the Commonwealth.

There, matters of mutual interest were discussed. What struck me particularly was that matters peculiarly affecting the interests of this country received from those statesmen from all parts of the Commonwealth a consideration that was clearly indicative of their affection for the country to which they looked as the mother country—Ireland. It was peculiarly striking that in matters arising in the ordinary course of our deliberations, they specially referred to Irish affairs and when our attitude on certain matters clashed diametrically with the attitude of British Cabinet Ministers, I personally found that not infrequently the representatives of the Dominions ranged themselves on my side of the discussion and warmly supported the Irish side of the question which on any given occasion I had the privilege to put forward. I do not want for a single moment to suggest that I was the only delegate there. Deputy Doctor Rowlette was there, and he spoke frequently and with great effect from the Irish point of view. Senator Westropp Bennett was there. Senator O'Hanlon was there and several other Senators and Deputies represented Ireland on that occasion. A contribution is made every year by each member of that Association to the joint fund in order to maintain a publication which contains a resume of the important Parliamentary proceedings that take place each month in the various Parliaments of the several Dominions. That publication circulates through Great Britain and the other sovereign States of the Commonwealth, and keeps constantly before the Governments of the Commonwealth the views expressed by President de Valera and the several Ministers of the Crown in this country from an extreme Irish point of view—President de Valera's point of view—on all constitutional questions and on any other questions that arise from time to time in this House.

I have a strong feeling that it is useful that the Irish Government's point of view should be circulated amongst the other Governments of the Commonwealth on all topics of that character without regard to what Party actually forms the Government of this country at any given time. From time to time our State might find itself in a conflict of interest with Great Britain, Canada or New Zealand and I should like a statement of our side of the case to circulate freely amongst our colleagues in the Commonwealth so that we might rest assured that it was brought under the attention of interested colleagues who, from my experience of them, if they had any bias whatever, had a bias in favour of this country, and were anxious to hear our side of the case in order that they could espouse the cause of this country. To enable us to make that contribution, it was the practice of the late Government to make an annual grant similar to the grant made to the Inter-Parliamentary Union for which provision is made in the Oireachtas Estimate this year.

It is to be borne in mind that in some of the Parliaments of the other several States there are a number of wealthy members who are in a position to put up substantial subscriptions themselves towards meeting the expenses of an organisation of that kind. In this country we have not got a large number of wealthy men in public life, and we cannot afford to contribute the sum necessary to maintain this organisation. We are asking the present Government to continue the contribution to the fund of our branch that the late Government gave and to give a subscription similar to what they gave to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The present Government refuses to do so on the ground, apparently, that President de Valera could not see any reason for authorising a contribution of public moneys to a Union described as an Imperial Parliamentary Union. But what consistency is there in such an attitude when we discover that his objection to a subscription to an imperial institution of that kind stops when the institution ceases to discuss matters of general interest and concentrates on separate interests. We contribute to nine separate institutions of that kind.

There is no money in this Vote for the purpose to which the Deputy refers

There should be.

The Deputy cannot move to increase a Vote. It is clear that we are going far away from the Vote in pointing out the alleged inconsistency of the President in relation to grants which come under the Vote in connection with the Department of Agriculture. That Vote has been passed.

Am I not in order in arguing that half of the contribution under consideration should be given to the Inter-Parliamentary Union? I do not want to increase the Vote. I want to divide this subscription between two Parliamentary Unions, one of which is international and the other inter-Commonwealth.

The Deputy should not proceed with controversial matters involving the President, in arguing that the Minister for Finance should give a grant for a purpose outside this Estimate.

Because it is not relevant.

Surely, my requests having been repeatedly made through the ordinary channels and answered on the ground that they cannot have anything to do with anything which bears the name imperial, I am entitled to point out that not only is that not the case, but that in fact they have made money subscriptions themselves directly to what are considered imperial institutions. I am not asking for subscriptions directly to any imperial institution. I am asking to give a subscription to an association embracing members of this Oireachtas, and which is perfectly legal and which is open to no censure of any properly constituted authority, and which for ten years appeared upon this Vote, and was only removed at the instance of this Government. Surely one is entitled, if one seems to detect in the attitude of the Government, shameless hypocrisy, to direct the attention of the House and the people to that hypocrisy. Separate imperial institutions are being maintained by moneys voted by this House at the instance of the Minister's colleague, and paid directly by the Minister to institutions, several of which have their headquarters in London and which are actually under the direct control of the British Government. All of them are excellent and admirable institutions which should be supported by this. House and should be supported with my consent and encouragement. So far as that part of the Estimate is concerned, it peculiarly recommends itself to me and to other Deputies in the Dáil.

I think it is very narrow-minded and dictatorial on the part of the Government to withdraw from the Imperial Parliamentary Union a subscription they used to pay, and to place members of this Oireachtas in the embarrassing position of pleading to the States of South Africa, New Zealand and Australia that if we are to continue members of the association we must do so now on less onerous terms than formerly. The House I think ought to know that our membership of the association will continue on the basis that, in view of the fact that we can only make such contributions as the resources of our members permit, it will be no longer possible to print the debates of Dáil Eireann in the publication of the association. Our colleagues in the association have gone a long way to make it possible to do that, largely because they felt it was in the interest of the Commonwealth as a whole that the views of the Irish Government should be contributed regularly by way of extracts from the official debates. They helped for some time, when we failed to pay our fair share, to keep these debates in that periodical. That period has now passed.

Did the Deputy say they were prepared to continue the publication?

Up to a time they did in fact publish them at a loss which the other Governments made up. But they have now stopped and no longer continue, since we are not paying our share.

Would the Deputy tell us what the deficiency was?

I am speaking now purely from recollection, but I think our annual contribution was expected to be about £100, and we were only paying £20 raised among our members themselves. I feel it is undesirable and narrow-minded and contemptible on the part of our Government, simply because they will not allow the members of their own Party to belong to this association, to refuse to contribute to at. The Minister for Finance should appreciate my attitude if I say that it is perhaps as well I should not go further into the peculiarly ambiguous attitude adopted by the Minister, and another Minister, who recently left the Oireachtas for another place, and a certain Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to this institution. I only wish they could produce in their official capacity the breadth of mind they seem to enjoy when acting as individuals abroad.

Before the Minister concludes I should like to say that some years ago the Dáil passed a resolution not to sit on holidays. But I understand that, notwithstanding the fact that the Dáil does not sit on Church holidays, the staff, including ushers and others, have to work on those holidays. I do not think that that is acting up to the spirit of the resolution.

What was the spirit?

I do suggest that if the Dáil does not sit on Church holidays the staff should be treated as they are on Sundays and that no work should be done in the institution.

After the very moving plea that we have just listened to from Deputy Dillon, that at the expense of the people he should be provided with another forum in which, to use his own phrase, he might spread himself, it is difficult to treat his remarks upon this Vote seriously. We are asked to pay £250 in order that we might read the report of some of our own speeches and some of Deputy Dillon's speeches in a certain publication. I think it requires a great deal of mutual forbearance to listen to the speeches on either side of this House without having to undergo the additional torment of reading them in cold print.

The Deputy endeavoured to make a point out of the fact that on page 207 provision is made for subscriptions to international and other research organisations. The organisations which come under the sub-head which enables these subscriptions to be paid include a considerable number of international organisations as well as a number of organisations of a more specialised character, but all of them are research organisations and all of them are likely to produce material results which will be beneficial to agriculturists in this country. The reason why we contribute to these organisations and institutions, whether they call themselves "imperial" or "international," is that we think the people of this country will be benefited by the contribution and that some good results will accrue to them. It is not because they bear this label or that we make the contribution but because of the good results that may accrue. What good results would flow to the people of this country from a payment of £250 to the union to which Deputy Dillon has referred? Such a contribution is not going to help our farmers or our industrialists, and it is not going even to strengthen the bonds of the Commonwealth with which Deputy Dillon seems to be concerned. It would merely ensure that speeches such as we have just listened to and speeches such as I am delivering would be reported for the benefit of Deputies and members of legislatures in other countries. I do not think that that would be worth the money—£250. That is what it comes down to——

Will the Minister dilate on the advantages of the Inter-Parliamentary Union?

I can say this about it, that there are more members of the Oireachtas interested in the Inter-Parliamentary Union than are interested in the other union.

Question!

I do not think there is any question about that. I think that the Deputy's statement as to the amount he is able to collect in regard to the Commonwealth Union indicates that comparatively little interest is taken in the proceedings of that body. I understand that much greater interest is taken in the proceedings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

There are about 50 members.

We have a limited amount at our disposal. It might, perhaps, be said that we do not get a lot of benefit out of membership of either of these unions, but I do know that the Inter-Parliamentary Union has always been more favoured by members of the Oireachtas than the other Union. They have, on occasion, been able to send fairly large delegations abroad to various countries to. participate in the proceedings of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I do not think members have ever been quite so successful in regard to the proceedings of the Empire Parliamentary Association. I am speaking with reservations and I say "I do not think" they have been able to do that. The fact that more interest is taken in one association than in the other and that no great advantage is to be gained by this contribution of £250 is, I think, almost a conclusive answer to Deputy Dillon.

With regard to the other question raised as to the franking of Deputies' letters, I have had that matter considered. I do not think it is a matter that ought to be debated across the floor of the House, nor do I think that the other matter just referred to by Deputy Corish is one that should be discussed here. It is a matter more for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which represents the general body of the Deputies in regard to matters of common concern.

The Minister has a unanimous recommendation from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Yes, and I have carefully considered it. I am satisfied that the privilege of franking cannot be safeguarded from abuse. It has been universally abused and has had to be abolished in many places. Originally the privilege was, I think, enjoyed by members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but it had to be abolished in 1838 owing to abuse. It is common knowledge that in the other countries in which it has been in use it has also been abused. In addition, it would impose a fairly considerable burden upon this Vote.

The Minister is now offering an explanation to this House that he did not offer to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges when they put this matter unanimously before him. He is now giving an explanation which is utterly at variance with the case he made to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

The Deputy has not heard me to the end. I advise the Deputy to read the debate which has just taken place on Vote 9 and to see what his leader said in regard to correspondence with the Banking Commission. I was saying that the privilege had been abused. It is not necessary for me, in correspondence with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, to state all the results of my investigation. It is generally admitted that, where granted elsewhere, the privilege has been abused. In addition, it would impose an additional burden on the public funds. In all the circumstances, we could not agree that Deputies should have not merely the privilege of franking letters addressed to Government Departments and sent in envelopes officially marked "Saorstát Eireann," which they now have, but that they should also have the privilege of franking letters addressed to other correspondents. Who is going to open a Deputy's letter to see that it relates only to public business? As I have said, we could not, for that reason and for other reasons, extend this principle of the franking of letters other than those sent on official stationery to the Government Departments.

I have listened just now to the Minister, and I want to repeat that on this question of the franking of letters, in respect of which the Minister got a unanimous recommendation from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, he is giving this House, as the only explanation of his adverse comment on it, a reason which was completely absent from the recommendations of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Am I to understand that the recommendations of the Committee in connection with the working of the staff on holidays will meet with the same fate as the recommendation for the franking of letters?

I am not responsible for the staff.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share