Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1938

Vol. 72 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote 2—Houses of the Oireachtas.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £73.740 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, 1939, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Tithe an Oireachtais, maraon le Deontas-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £73,740 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, 1939, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Houses of the Oireachtas, including a Grant-in-Aid.

Dr. O'Higgins

This particular Vote this year is, I think, worthy of a few more remarks than were devoted to it by the Minister. For the first time for a number of years we have a provision for the payment of members of the Seanad. Some years ago there was — whether real or mock — jubilation on the Government Benches at the economies secured by the abolition of the Seanad. Now we have resurrected that body, and if we are to follow the headline set by the Minister this Vote is to be passed in silence. However, I am aware of the fact that practically all of us experienced growing pains before we reached maturity or the use of reason. I will refer those past exhibitions to growing pains and congratulate the Government on having reached sanity, no matter how late. I am quite favourable to a Second House, and I do not want to get into the confidence of the Government, but last year a commission was appointed to inquire into the payment of the Seanad. That Commission made certain recommendations. This Vote seems to be at variance, and I would like to hear a few words from the Minister as to his intentions.

Mr. Corish

I would like to know from the Minister if it is the intention of the Government to take any steps to secure that a member, when he is elected to this Oireachtas, is paid from the date of his election. I think hardship is suffered by many members by reason of the fact that they are not paid until the date the Dáil sits, notwithstanding the fact that all during that period, especially in the case of an older Deputy who is sitting continuously, he is doing the same amount of work as if he were a Deputy all the time. He has certain expenses. In many cases he has to come to Dublin to do the work of his constituency, and I suggest to the Minister that it is not at all fair that a member should be without salary between the date of election and the date the Dáil sits. On this occasion it was a period of 13 days, and I would suggest to the Minister that some legislation should be brought in by which those members could be paid. I think that is the general feeling of the House.

Mr. Linehan

There are two items I would like to raise on this Vote. Properly speaking, I am sure that one of them should have been raised and was already raised by me on the Vote for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. But, as a matter of fact, I submit, Sir, that I am entitled to go back to it on this Vote, because in the Estimate here we find that estimated amounts include other Estimates in connection with the Service. On page 4 you will find the Posts and Telegraphs Vote, £900. My submission is that the Houses of the Oireachtas should take in the facilities that are given to Deputies and Senators in this House and I submit that I would be entitled to refer to it. Every town in this country has not a mid-day postal service. Only the larger towns have. The town where I live has only a morning postal service. To get the morning post at home I must post before 4.30 here. That is bad enough from one point of view but when you turn it the other way, from home to reach Dublin I can post as late as 7.20. That is an amazing discrepancy and it is extremely awkward at times. It is not always feasible for Deputies to post at 4.30 and you often find your letter is delayed and does not arrive in the country until the second day after it is posted.

There is one other item. I am not at all sure exactly what is meant by it but it is G on the Estimate — the Restaurant contribution in connection with catering expenses, £500, an item which for 1938-39 shows an increase of £150 over the Estimate for 1937-38. I assume that that is a payment made in respect of the restaurant and the other services connected with it, and, without any inside knowledge at all of the arrangements, I find it very hard to understand that, because one would be inclined to assume, as an outsider, that the restaurant and bar, etc., was a commercial proposition. It is very hard to see why the taxpayer should have to contribute £500 in the Estimates of this House to make good a deficit to somebody or other for the running of these services. I find it very hard to find, in view of my experience of a year now, any justification at all, looking at it from any point of view, for the payment of this sum.

Mr. MacEntee

Is the Deputy speaking for his Party now?

Mr. Linehan

The Deputy is speaking for himself, and the Deputy is speaking because he has seen this amount in the Estimate and is entitled to raise it. Why is it, if somebody at any period thought it worth while to come in and take over the catering services of this House as a commercial proposition — at one period they must have regarded it as worth their while, or they would not have done it — that we have arrived at a point where the taxpayer is paying £500 for the pleasure of getting somebody to take over the catering for this House and for the pleasure of feeding the Deputies and Senators who will also pay for their privilege? I do not know what the explanation is except that it is an unsound commercial proposition and could not be put on a sound commercial basis by any company that would take it over. I am rather inclined to doubt that, and I hope that the Minister will be able to ease my mind on behalf of the suffering taxpayer when he comes to reply on that point.

Mr. O'Neill

I think that the question of the travelling expenses of Deputies is a matter that should get a little more sympathetic attention than it has been getting from the Department of Finance, particularly in the case of those Deputies who have to go very long distances and who have to go partly by road and partly by train. I had a particular case to put before the Department, and I am fighting them still over it. They fight over pence in a most extraordinary way. My object in raising the matter is not so much that, but either I am wrong or the Department of Finance is wrong.

Mr. Linehan

The Department of Finance is never wrong.

Mr. O'Neill

I have been trying to do the Department if I am wrong, or vice versâ. At all events, I happen to come from a constituency which has no railway station, and I have to go outside my constituency to where I start my journey to the Dáil, but the Department of Finance discovered that there was a railway station nearer to me than the City of Cork, about half way. To make a long story short, my journey to Dublin should start from Ballinhassig instead of the City of Cork. The railway ticket from Ballinhassig was dearer, but the motor allowance was smaller. Between the two the Minister saves sevenpence on this journey. I think it costs the country over £3 to bring me here every time I come, but they save sevenpence. I could not leave my car on the side of the road all day.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Linehan will let the moral of that sink in in regard to the restaurant.

Mr. O'Neill

There is the matter of the Deputies' allowances. I do not know if it is statutorily defined that a Deputy is not entitled to any allowance until he signs the roll. If that is a statute there is no use in raising the point. I think a man is a fully fledged member of the Dáil when he has been declared elected by the returning officer. I think his allowance should start from that point. These are matters of small moment, but what brings me up about them is because the Minister's particular Department goes into such devious ways to save twopenny stamps and sevenpence and they waste millions in other ways. That makes you very annoyed at times when you are brought into conflict with them.

I am sorry to see a reduction in the allowance for the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and perhaps the Minister will explain why that is found necessary. I have had some experience of the working of that group, and I think it a very salutary one. It brings the members of this Dáil into close contact with other Parliaments, and I think the members of the House contribute privately something towards this group, too. At the same time, I think, as such a small amount is necessary to keep up this very salutary relationship, that it ought to be continued and the sum allowed ought to be more. It has been reduced there from £225 to £125, a reduction of £100, and no explanation has been given as to why that is necessary. Last year a very successful meeting of this Inter-Parliamentary Union was held in Paris, and members of this Dáil, representative of all sides of the House, were brought into touch with 23 other European Parliaments, in fact, world-wide Parliaments — the Japanese were represented there, too. I think this ought to be really treated more sympathetically — more liberally, I should say. That amount of money is a very miserable amount, and I do not see why it should be cut down by £100. No reason is given for that. I suggest the Minister might be more liberal rather than cheeseparing in this matter. It has a very educative effect on those brought into contact with the representatives of other Parliaments. I wonder if I would be out of order in referring to the discontinuance of our relationship with the Empire Parliamentary Union? I thought that, owing to the great change of heart and feeling towards our good friends — as I presume they are — across the water, we might renew our relationship with the Empire Parliamentary Union. I think that a contribution might also be given to that body and that the relationship should be continued. Perhaps the Minister will explain why he found it necessary to cut it out.

Mr. Gorey

The House has had considerable experience with regard to the restaurant. It was formerly run by a committee which was responsible to the House, and they bore the expenses directly. I would like to know if in any year a loss of £500 was shown since 1922. Possibly some loss might be shown up to 1927, but since that period I do not know of any year in which it could be shown that there was a loss running into over £1,000. There are Deputies who are of the opinion that the restaurant was managed better by a committee of the House than it has been since; I mean that Deputies were better satisfied. If that is so, I do not see why we should not go back to that position again. The position now seems to be that the Government have given a guarantee to the caterers that if they show a loss they will be compensated.

Mr. MacEntee

If I might intervene, I should like the Deputy to know that the Government are not primarily responsible for the restaurant. The restaurant is under the control of the Ceann Comhairle and the officers of the House. It is a matter that might be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, where it could more suitably be discussed.

Mr. Gorey

I do not want to go into the matter in any detail now, but I will say that the restaurant is not giving the satisfaction it used to give.

Mr. MacEntee

With regard to the question of the Seanad, a proposal in that connection is under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any definite announcement at this stage. With regard to the date upon which Deputies' allowances should commence, that is also, I understand, under consideration, as well as the question of providing better travelling facilities for Deputies.

Mr. Corish

Will they be retrospective?

Mr. MacEntee

That, I cannot say. The matter is occupying the attention of myself and my advisers and I hope to have some decision by the Government as a whole within a short time. With regard to the questions of postal hours, again you will see that the Minister is not responsible for the conduct or the control of the Oireachtas and any representations in that regard ought to be addressed, through the Ceann Comhairle, to the permanent staff of the Oireachtas. The same applies to the position of the restaurant. I may say, however, that, in deference to representations made to me, I had to agree that a grant of this amount should be given to cover, not the whole of the loss, but some part of the loss. Deputies will understand how the loss arises. The restaurant is working under very great pressure for a comparatively small portion of the year. During the rest of the time the business is slow and the staff has to be engaged elsewhere. A skeleton staff has to be retained to deal with Deputies who may call there.

Deputy Gorey had better make up his mind that I am not the Minister responsible for the restaurant. I have no control over this House, and I cannot do anything. I am in the same position as the Deputy. I enjoy whatever facilities are provided, but if any representations are to be made for the better control of the restaurant, they have to be made to the proper authority, and that is the Ceann Comhairle, who is the head of the Dáil, and the official head of the Oireachtas staff. I can assure Deputies that this provision for a Grant-in-Aid of losses would not have been made if I were not satisfied that the losses were substantial, and they do, in fact, exceed the £500. The £500 there is a limit. We have undertaken to provide half the losses up to a limit of £500. In fact, in some years the actual expenditure does not reach that figure. In 1936-37 and 1937-38 the grant was only £150. It depends entirely on whether the Oireachtas is kept pretty busy. If the sessions are long, and if Deputies are here in greater numbers for longer periods, the loss is correspondingly reduced.

Mr. Linehan

Do I understand the Minister to say that he undertakes to pay portion of the loss?

Mr. MacEntee

Only portion, if a loss arises.

Mr. Linehan

So there is a benevolent commercial firm in Dublin undertaking to provide us with food and drink at a loss?

Mr. MacEntee

I would not say that at all. The fact that they are caterers to the Oireachtas restaurant has commercial advantages for them. They are able to, and they do, advertise that fact, and they are prepared to pay something for that advertisement. They do not do it for the love of Deputy Linehan or for the love of the Minister for Finance. They do it because it enables them to hold themselves out as caterers to the Oireachtas, and that has a certain commercial value. They are prepared to sustain some loss in order that they may secure that position. As to the manner in which Deputies' travelling expenses are computed and paid, I am satisfied that the Act of 1923, which was amended in 1925 or 1929, and again in 1933, was much too rigidly drawn in that regard. It does not allow any sort of reasonable facility to Deputies to meet their own convenience, and it does not permit the officers of the Minister for Finance any margin for meeting hard or extreme cases.

Deputies will have to understand in that connection that it is the Accounting Officer who is personally responsible for any overpayment which may be made, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, following a serious report made in the early days of the State in regard to travelling allowances of one sort or another, scrutinises the allowances made in respect of travelling with very great care indeed, and the permanent officials have to make good the mistakes or have to make good anything which may not be justified by the Act; so, in order that they may avoid being carpeted before the Public Accounts Committee — a body which has a very salutary effect, not merely on officials but on Ministers, and whose activities I heartily endorse — in order to avoid the possibility of being carpeted before them and the Comptroller and Auditor-General, they have to exercise great care to see that every payment is fully justified by the statute or by the regulations. I am satisfied that the original Act was too narrowly drawn, and I am hoping to be able in due course to put other proposals before the Oireachtas which will enable a reasonable attitude in regard to this question of expenses to be granted to the officers who have to deal with the Deputies in that matter.

Dr. O'Higgins

May I intervene for a moment merely to correct a misapprehension? I did not raise the matter of the Salaries Commission in order to inquire the intentions of the Government with regard to that. Probably these will be disclosed in the course of time. I raised that point in order to call attention to the fact that some 12 months ago, when there was no Seanad, that commission was asked to make recommendations with regard to a Seanad. They made certain recommendations regarding other matters dependent on the recommendations with regard to the Seanad. Apparently their recommendations with regard to the Seanad have been ignored. If the other recommendations are carried out, those of our Party on the commission will find themselves in the difficult position of having made certain recommendations which could only be justified and based on certain economies. If the economies are ignored, it will then be more difficult to justify the new expenditure recommended by the commission. They made those recommendations at a time when we had no Seanad.

If we put this Estimate through, and subsequently if the Dáil decides to carry out fully the recommendations, then we will be interfering with what have become a kind of vested interest. The new expenditure and economies in the recommendations were balanced. I think it is rather a pity that when we established the new Seanad we did not automatically adopt the rates recommended by that commission. Then if the Government decide to go on with the further recommendations of the commission, any decision would be prejudiced, and certainly the whole position will be made a lot more difficult by the carrying through of the recommendations with regard to the Seanad, and in the future the Dáil will be presented with the position of having either to reduce the rates of allowances for the then existing Senators or to increase vastly the State expenditure. I think the whole thing is unwise. If the Estimate could either be revised or postponed, it would be only what is due to a number of people in all walks of life who at the request of the Government gave up months of their time to, in a perfectly honest way, making recommendations. It is a pity that those recommendations have been ignored in this respect.

Mr. MacEntee

They have not been ignored. It is not right to say that the recommendations have been ignored. A Bill to deal with the recommendations of the commission is under discussion in Departments of the Government. We had hoped to have these proposals before the House at an early date but the negotiations on the Agreement and, subsequently, the general election interfered with our time table in that regard. The position now is that with the coming into operation of the Constitution, the original position in the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act applies and, consequently, Senators are entitled to receive payment at the old rates until this is changed. I cannot at the moment make an announcement with regard to the report of the Shanley Commission but I do hope that in a short period I will be able to make a statement to the House on the question.

Vote put and agreed to.