Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Bill, 1938—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

At present the law governing the payment of allowances and grants for travelling facilities to members of the Oireachtas is contained in four statutes, namely, the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1923; the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) (Amendment) Act, 1925; the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1928, and the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1933. The purpose of the present Bill is to consolidate in one statute and to carry out amendments which the Government have decided are desirable after consideration of the supplementary report presented by the Shanley Committee of Inquiry. Under this Bill it is proposed that, on and after the date of enactment, allowances to a member of Dáil Eireann should be at the rate of £40 a month instead of £30 a month, as heretofore. It is also proposed that the allowances to members of Seanad Eireann shall continue, as at present, to be paid at the rate of £30 a month.

These proposals, though they depart from the majority recommendations of the supplementary report of the Shanley Committee, are not out of harmony with the views expressed by some members of that committee. They are the result of deep and close consideration of this problem by the Government. I say that in some respects the proceedings of the subcommittee of the Shanley Committee which considered this particular matter were disappointing. They were not disappointing in respect of the zeal and care with which the subcommittee investigated this matter. But they were disappointing from the point of view that members of the Oireachtas who had previous experience of these matters and who were most closely affected were reluctant to go there and make a full disclosure of their affairs to that committee. The result was that that committee on several points of view did not receive from the members of this House the guidance and information which they require. I say that because I know the circumstances under which that committee was approached. Naturally there was a great reluctance on the part of the Deputies to go and make, as some of them said, a poor mouth before the committee.

But the Government have had the knowledge that for a number of years past, a number of Deputies, not all of them, not every Deputy in the House, but a great many Deputies have felt that their allowance was not sufficient to cover all the expenses involved in the exercise of their responsibilities. Amongst other items to which special reference has from time to time been made, are the business losses and the additional business expenses consequent upon attendance here at meetings of the Dáil. Then there is the growth in the postal charges, the increase in which is occasioned by the increased burden of correspondence which Deputies have to bear; and there are the increased travelling expenses within their constituencies which Deputies have had to face. The Shanley Committee did not feel justified in taking any one of these items into consideration.

It is obvious that if Parliamentary allowance towards expenses is given at all it is given not to deal with the case of the man who is best off, not to deal, perhaps, with the case of the middle man, but with the case of the man who because his constituency is extensive or remote, or because he is most assiduous in attending to his duties, has to bear the greatest expense and is entailed in the greatest loss. The allowance is a comprehensive one to enable the Deputy with a business, the man with a profession, the man with a farm, and the man without one, but who in one way or another would be involved in heavy consequential losses by reason of the fact that he has to devote a considerable amount of his time to public affairs and to neglect his own private interests, to give of his best to the public service. This Bill is intended to permit these men to become effective members of the Oireachtas and to discharge their work as public representatives to the best of their abilities. It is the case of Deputies who do their work, who do attend to the nation's business that have to be considered—the case of men who have to do their work under the most adverse circumstances, are the men who have to be considered. It is not to meet the case of a man who because of the fact that his constituency is small or his seat secure or because he lives in the vicinity of Dublin is involved in less expenses. It is not merely to meet such cases. This allowance has got to cover every possible case. It may happen that because of personal circumstances the representative of a constituency at one time is better situated to discharge the duties of a Deputy for that constituency than perhaps his successor may be. What would apply to the present representative, in so far as he would find the allowance sufficient, might not apply to his successor. Therefore in fixing the allowances to deal with the worst cases from the point of view of expense, even in those cases a margin should be left to cover unforeseen contingencies or to cover the expansion of duties which a further and more intense organisation of public life will undoubtedly throw upon Deputies.

We cannot be bringing in Bills of this sort every year, every two years or every five years. The present allowance was fixed at an experimental figure in 1922-23, when, after the first year or two, it might be said the work of the Oireachtas was, perhaps, lighter than it is now. Everybody who is aware of the tendency which has manifested itself in regard to public business and administration, is aware of the fact that the demands made upon Deputies are multiplying from day to day. If it could be shown that the figure which it is proposed to fix to-day more than covers the expenses which the most active Deputies may be called upon to face, nevertheless that would not be any sound reason for trying to whittle that figure down. We must leave a margin for future contingencies and allow those who may be called upon to serve the community later to serve it without having to make too many sacrifices.

I know this is the sort of thing that a great deal of nonsense can be talked about. I ask Deputies who have been here for the last 16 years, for the last 12 years, or the last ten years, to point to a single Deputy who has done his duty to his constituency and who has gone out of this House, retired from politics, better off than when he came in by reason of the fact that he drew his allowance as a Deputy over the past ten, 12 or 15 years. Undoubtedly, it is for a great many people rather invidious to have to discuss these matters, but this is a problem which has to be faced. We want to attract into the public life of this country, into the Dáil, representatives of all sections of the community. We do not want to have here merely those who, because they are well off, can afford to attend to public affairs; we want to have here men who have to carry on their day-to-day business and we have got to put them in such a position that they will be able to do that without having completely and wholly to neglect their own business, so that in time they might become entirely dependent upon a Deputy's allowance.

A man cannot afford to go away one, two, three or four days, as was often the case during the last four or five years; he cannot afford to leave his business or his farm in order to attend meetings of the Dáil unless he is able to leave some person behind who is as capable and fitted to look after that business as he himself is. It may be that there are business men who, before they came into politics, amassed money or built up a business which more or less runs itself; but we do not want the Dáil to be composed entirely of those who have been able to devote the whole of their lives to looking after their own affairs, and only come in here to look after the affairs of the nation when they feel they can afford to relinquish their interest in their own private concerns. We want the Dáil to be representative of all sections of the community. We want the young businessman, the farmer and the young worker to be here, as well as the man of mature mind, the older types of men. We want these young men to bring the point of view of youth to bear upon the concerns of the nation. We want these young men to come here and receive that training which will fit them in the future to be the rulers and administrators of their country. We cannot get them to come in here if they feel that by coming in the sacrifices which are going to be imposed upon them are such that they will be failures in their own chosen avocations, the professions and businesses with which they, in the main, have to maintain themselves.

One thing which the Shanley Committee did find was this, that, while it may be said the allowance of £30 a month covered what might be described as the clerical work and the mechanical end, so to speak, of public representation, it really did not, in the words of the Shanley Committee, cover everything. They said: "We wish to make it quite clear that in our view no element of salary is included in the present allowance, and that there is no provision for what is termed consequential loss. Indeed, we are convinced that individual Deputies may be making a considerable financial sacrifice by accepting the duties and responsibilities of public representatives." Of course, every person who does come here as a Deputy has to make a sacrifice of one kind or another. Our care, and the care of the legislature of this country, will have to be that that sacrifice will not be of such moment as to deter from entering public life men who have the capacity and the talent and the character which would fit them for that life, and which would enable them well to discharge their duties to the nation. After a consideration of all these facts, the Government have come to the conclusion that to meet those elements of expense which the present allowance professedly does not cover, and to create a sufficient margin for future contingencies, the allowance of Deputies should be increased from £30 to £40 per month.

It is also proposed, in Section 3 (4) and sub-section (6) of the same section to continue the provisions of the existing law under which the allowance payable to a member of the Oireachtas is exempt from income-tax, and any provision in another statute for the abatement or suspension of a pension. Under sub-section (3) of Section 3, the provision is continued by which the salary of an appointed office held by a member of the Oireachtas is deemed to include the allowance which otherwise would be payable under this Bill.

On a number of occasions, when the Vote for the Oireachtas was under consideration in the House, my attention and the attention of the Government was drawn to the hardship which the present system involved members in immediately after their election. It has been pointed out from time to time that it is immediately after the declaration of the poll that a member's expenses are, perhaps, heaviest, and accordingly we have decided to amend the statutory provision relating to the commencement of the allowance and travelling facilities in the case of any member of the Oireachtas who is elected or nominated after the passing of this Bill. We propose to provide that this allowance and the travelling facilities shall commence as and from the date of election or nomination, subject to the condition that within 30 days from that date the member will, by compliance with the Standing Orders, have become entitled to sit in the House to which he is elected or nominated. The provision is proposed as a safeguard against the payment of arrears of allowance in the case of a member who, for insufficient reason, does not, over a prolonged period, comply with the Standing Orders entitling him to take his seat.

The supplementary report of the Shanley Committee suggested that the Minister for Finance might take any necessary powers to enable him to deal specially with cases in which the public interest would be served by enabling Deputies to inspect public works or to attend functions to which they might be invited as public representatives. Arising out of consideration of this suggestion, the Bill provides, in Section 4, for the payment of travelling expenses to Deputies or Senators who attend State functions on the invitation of a member of the Government, or who, on the invitation of such a member, inspect important public works or visit institutions or places or districts.

As I have already indicated, there was raised from time to time with the Government, and before the Shanley Commission, this question as to whether some provision should be made to cover the cost of journeys made by Deputies within their constituencies in connection with their work as public representatives. One of the factors which has motivated us in proposing this increase in Deputies' allowances is, as I have already said, to make provision for journeys of that sort.

In order to meet a point that has been raised in a few cases, provision is made, in Section 4 of the Bill, for the payment to a Deputy who does not reside in his constituency of travelling expenses between Dublin and his normal place of residence for the time being and between such normal place of residence and any place in his constituency. The existing legislation only permits payment of travelling expenses to a Deputy between Dublin and any place in his constituency. The result is, of course, that Deputies residing elsewhere than in Dublin, outside their constituencies, are at a disadvantage as compared with Deputies who reside within their constituencies. This position is anomalous, and, in my view, it is questionable whether the maintenance of the existing statutory provision would accord with the spirit and intention of the Constitution.

Under Section 10 of the Constitution (Consequential Provisions) Act, of last year, the revival of the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1923, so far as Senators are concerned, operates only with effect on and from the date of the first Assembly of Seanad Eireann. This gave rise to the difficulty that Senators who were obliged to travel on the day prior to the first meeting of the new Seanad to attend that meeting cannot be granted travelling expenses incurred in coming to Dublin. To meet this difficulty, provision is made in Section 8 of the new Bill for the payment of travelling expenses to Senators who found it necessary to travel on the day prior to the first meeting of the new Seanad. In the Payment of Members Act of 1923, Section 3, sub-section (1), (b) provided for the payment of travelling expenses in special circumstances to a member of the Seanad who may be deterred from residing within the area of the State. This provision is omitted from the new Bill.

Sub-section (5) of Section 5 is new. Under the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Acts there is no statutory authority for the grant of travelling facilities to members of the Dáil who were in Dublin on the day of a dissolution. In practice, travelling vouchers in the hands of members at the time of the dissolution were honoured if presented at the railway booking-office within a period of three days from the date of issue of the voucher. This practice was always open to challenge by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It seems reasonable, however, that where former Deputies found themselves in Dublin on the date of the dissolution they should be provided with travelling facilities to enable them to return to their homes or to their constituencies within a reasonable time. Three days is provided for this purpose in the Bill.

These, in brief, are the proposals which are enshrined in the Bill. I think that they are such as will make for the better government of this country. Their additional cost will not be great—not more than £14,500—and I think that, in the interests of the State and the nation, they ought to be approved of by the House.

General Mulcahy

I welcome the fact that the Government has faced up to this question, in spite of the complaint that the Minister may have that Deputies did not avail of the opportunity offered them at the time of the sitting of the committee to deal with this particular question. I think that anybody who realises the importance of parliamentary institutions, and of democratic parliamentary institutions, and who realises the position that a Deputy occupies as the connection between the people and their problems and the Parliament, which can do so much either for good or ill, cannot in his heart of hearts but welcome the proposal that is embodied in this Bill to increase the allowance that will be at Deputies' disposal to enable them to discharge their duties. I welcome it personally for this reason: that ever since the setting-up of a native Parliament here I have been of opinion, considering the kind of country it is and how closely related to one another the problems of every class are and how closely related the problems of the country are to the problems of the State, that a member of this House should have general travelling facilities throughout the country. There is no problem of detail in the city here or no problem of detail in the country that any Deputy seriously and conscientiously wishing to enter into and to examine will not find that, if he is to have all the information possible about it, if he is to check it in every respect so as to be able to inform this House as to what the situation is or what the Oireachtas should do, he has to travel very often far outside his own area in order to do his public duty.

The Shanley Committee that the Minister speaks about shows in portion of its appendices that the Parliamentary allowance paid to Deputies in New Zealand was £450 a year and that, in addition to that, they had widespread railway and widespread steamship travelling facilities for themselves and often for others of their families. If you only consider the cost to a Deputy of travelling inside his own constituency that we have as a result of the system of proportional representation here, you will find that the cost of travelling inside his own constituency alone, to a Deputy keeping in touch with his constituents in such a way as to be able truly to inform this Parliament as to what the conditions are, would absorb the increased allowance provided here. The most that the increased allowance would give a Deputy would be power to have and to keep and to run a motor-car, and I doubt if, in some of the constituencies, a Deputy would be able to keep and to run a motor-car if he was keeping in touch with his constituency as much as, particularly at the present time, the interests of the constituency would warrant. I doubt if he would do it on the extra allowance, but, if it was for that alone, I welcome the increased facilities that are given to Deputies here to discharge their duties. I particularly welcome it at the present time. Very many influences have impinged upon internal political life in this country for the last 16 years. Happily, in spite of the dangers of those years, we have preserved democratic institutions in this country.

One of the things that I welcomed in the Bill that passed its Second Reading yesterday, was the recognition of the Party system in that portion of the Bill which gave leaders of Parties, of up to a particular size, certain allowances to enable them to keep up a secretariat. I welcome the recognition there that this House is going to be served by Parties, and by organised Parties, and that, if this House is going to be served by organised Parties properly, you must have some sort of secretariat provided to enable them to do their work. So, now, having passed the difficult times, we have now a democratic system of government and a Party system of government recognised, and, with the very serious problems before this country, I welcome the increased, as it were, responsibility that is being put on Deputies by reason of the increased facilities that are now being made available to them.

We are at an important time. Many things have obscured the real issues before this nation, and the real problems before our people, up to the beginning of this year. I believe that all these things that stood in any substantial way between our people and the realisation of their problems and the realisation of the national objective have been swept away during this year when an end was made to the economic war and to the different relations between ourselves and Great Britain, with whom we have such great trading interests. Those relations— shall I say—have been put on a reasonable basis. In addition to that, the Banking Commission, having sat for three years, has held up, as it were, a mirror to our people of the facts of the situation in a way in which these facts could not have been otherwise shown to them. It has held up a picture of the facts and the trends in our social and economic life as a result of the years that are immediately past. Then, there was the threatened European, war which many people in this country thought was going to rescue us in some kind of a way from the effects of our economic war and from our difficulties, generally, and smother up our difficulties in the past. That, however, thanks be to God, is past also, and I do not believe that any scare-mongering policy with regard to the problems of defence or finance or partition is going to stand between our people to-day and a serious facing of the real facts of our economic and national situation.

Having regard to that situation, therefore, the Parliament here has work to perform. That work can only be performed by individual Deputies. What do these individual Deputies find? They find that there is a very serious falling of the population in the country. The Minister for Education, the other day, indicated quite clearly that the fall, to the extent, in three years, of 25,000 pupils on our Primary schools rolls, was due for the most part to a fall in the number of births. He stated, in the course of his remarks yesterday, that not only could we expect that fall to continue, but that it was possible that it would be more serious in the future. That is a very serious thing for us to consider. Then, the Census of Production that was published recently, draws the line under, and states quite definitely, what has been argued here so often, that the consumption of the necessaries of life by our people here has been substantially falling. It has been brought out clearly that the consumption of bacon has gone down in this country by a considerable percentage and, with regard to the consumption of bread, the Census of Production bears out that it has fallen by 10 per cent. Anybody connected with Dublin life knows what the milk problem is to the people in the city here. The situation in the City of Dublin is that the consumption of milk is far below what, in the ordinary interest of health and strength, the people in this city would require daily, while, in the neighbourhood of the city itself, the farmers have a difficulty in disposing of a considerable part of their milk.

I do not want to develop the serious problem that is in front of us, beyond that. We stand to-day in a cleared situation, with our own responsibilities down on top of us, and with nothing to help us to make a job out of working this country and making a good job of it except the efforts and desires of our own people, canalised through our Parliament here. On one side of that, you have a falling population in this country and, on the other side, you have a lack of consumption of the necessities of life. Along with all that, you have an appeal from various classes of the community for assistance of one kind or another, in connection with rents, rates, free school books, and so on. The facing of all these problems is our job, and I think that no Deputy in this House can get away from the fact that, no matter what constituency he comes from, one of the main factors that is going to improve that situation and going to help to utilise Parliamentary institutions in this country for the solution of these problems, are his own efforts as a representative of the people acting in a democratic way, and that it is only by doing his own work inside his own Party, and pooling the political intelligence and the general intelligence of all Parties in the House, that we can make any attempt to improve the situation in the country in any kind of a reasonable time.

Excellent attempts have been made, and perhaps there is not a person in the House who could not put his hand on his heart and say that he had done his very best to remedy the situation, but I do think that if better facilities had been in existence in the country during the last few years, and if members had been more in touch with the situation, it would not have taken us six years to realise the trend of events. It has taken a Banking Commission, with all the machinery of government at its disposal, three years to visualise the whole situation. We cannot afford, in the future, to be three years behind the time in facing any problem that may be before the country, and I do not think we need to be three years behind the time if we have a Parliament the members of which are put in the position that they can be in closer contact with their constituents.

The Minister talked about the business loss of members of the House in coming here. I do not think there is a political Party here whose experience has not been that the men with big business interests will not enter Parliament, or that even the men with moderate business interests will not enter Parliament. I believe that, if there has been that difficulty in the past, it is going to be at least as great, or possibly greater, in the future, because in the case of the modern business man, with big business interests, it takes him all his time to mind his own business without minding the public business as well. I think it will always be found that the person who will become a representative in public life, whether in the City of Dublin or in rural constituencies, is the small man—the man who is in the position that he is able to feel, as an average person in his constituency, what are the things that, from the public point of view, are wrong, the man who knows best from the public point of view, what legislative and administrative action is required in order that the position of the average person may be made better or more secure. I think you will always find for many reasons that it is the small man of public spirit who is driven, both by his own immediate personal surrounding and by public opinion and his own interests, to be a representative in public life; the man who has not, as the bigger man might have normally, travelling facilities and facilities for correspondence. Therefore, I think it is not going too far to say that the increased assistance in this Bill simply takes the Deputies as they are at present, and puts on them the responsibility, and gives them the facilities for keeping in touch with their constituents. If we are to preserve democratic institutions and effective Parliamentary institutions in this country, we can only do it through machinery which will give us Deputies who feel their responsibilities, and are put into that position. I think that this Bill does that, and as I say, I welcome the fact that the Government has approached the matter in this particular way.

Mr. W. Broderick

I oppose this Bill, but before giving my reasons for doing so I wish to state, with Deputy Mulcahy, that I now feel in a freer atmosphere to deal with the internal conditions of the country since the settlement of the economic war and the return of the Government with a majority over all Parties. That majority gives them full responsibility for their every act. The settlement of the economic war leaves us to deal with the internal conditions of the country without the danger of being told, if we advance any depressing view, that we are playing the enemy's game and discrediting the country. That atmosphere, Sir, is entirely removed. Before dealing with the merits of the Bill I might say I am aware that there are many Deputies in this House supporting this Bill to whom the financial advantages of the Bill are of very little importance or of very little consequence. They support it because they feel that Deputies ought to do their duty to the country and ought not to be compelled to do it at the expense of their private resources.

From that point of view the Bill may be defended, but I view it from an entirely different angle—the source from which this money is to come, and the capacity of the people to pay. I realise, too, that members of the House are in a sensitive position in defending a Bill under which they are to receive personal benefit. Equally, too, I realise that I am open to misrepresentation in the attitude I am taking up, but I feel, Sir, that anyone associated with me in public life in the country will not doubt for a moment the sincerity of my motives. If this country were being financed out of ordinary items of taxation, such as income tax and taxation on luxuries, I would not hesitate about this Bill, but it is an entirely different matter when we are compelled to tax the cost of living to provide those moneys, because, as we all know, that ordinary taxation has long ago reached saturation point in this country, and we are compelled to maintain the State by taxing the cost of living. At present I am not going to deal with the motives for the taxation, but there are taxes on a number of items on which our people exist. There are taxes on butter, bread, sugar and bacon. I am not dealing with the motive. What I am dealing with is the fact that the people have to pay at least £5,000,000 before they can get the use of those commodities. That falls harder on the poor man with dependants than it does on anybody else, because people who are fairly well off can provide other commodities as substitutes, but the ordinary poor man has to depend altogether on those items. In that position, therefore, it would be very little pleasure for me to avail of the financial provisions of this Bill.

I might point out, Sir, that indirect taxation is the most brutal taxation of all. It makes no reserves; it does not operate in the same way as income-tax. It falls heaviest on the man who is, in fact, most entitled to our consideration, the man with the most dependents. The man with nine or ten dependents, in order to provide them with the necessaries of life, will have to pay ten times more in taxation than the retired pensioner who has to provide only for himself. The Ministry and members of this House are disposed to view the conditions in the country in the atmosphere of Dublin, the gilded pageantry of your State and social functions, the activities of the city that has an advantage of over £9,000,000 in circulation in various schemes here, and a good deal more by private enterprise. But those are not the conditions down the country. If you consider the position of our palsied towns and practically desolate countrysides, you will get a truer picture of what are the conditions in this country. The towns are deprived of practically all revenue except that derived from State-aided works. As a matter of fact, there is really no money in circulation there except what is provided by the State or the local authorities, or religious or charitable institutions. Those are the conditions in those places. You have the ordinary business man straining under the responsibilities of his own family, weighted down by taxation, in the grip of vested interests which extort £6,000,000 under the new industrial policy, harrowed by inspectors, and having to pay a tribute to the Minister on everything which he provides for his family. He is in a pitiable condition. That is not the atmosphere you have here in Dublin. The respectable farmer in the country, weighted down by local and national taxation, having to pay a tribute to the Minister on every requirement for his family or for his farm, and unable to pay labour, is compelled to make slaves of his children. I have seen little girls of very tender years, at a time when they ought to be in their beds, helping their fathers to drive a few cattle to the fair.

Remember, it is on this man's efforts and energy that this State depends. Without him you have no revenue for the State, and he is therefore entitled to far more consideration than we are showing him. I might say that as I do not wish to add to his burdens, I oppose the Bill. Remembering the awful spectre of conditions in town and country, I find on coming here that there is nothing under consideration but Dáil salaries, Ministerial pensions, and hordes of people looking for some security in the form of pensions for, possibly, most trivial efforts at a particular time. I do not like to use the word ramp, but it would appear as if the whole country was engaging in activities with a view to holding the Exchequer up to ransom. Everybody is making an effort to get pensions and increased allowances. I suppose if I used a simile I would be ruled out of order but, in the old days the knight of the road held up the royal mail with a mask and a gun, while we are holding up the resources of this State by law. We are holding it up in that way and by legal decisions compelling it to deliver up ransom to provide either increased salaries, increased Dáil allowances or pensions. I do not think that is a desirable position.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would that all the similes used were as mild as the one used by the Deputy.

Mr. Broderick

Thank you very much, Sir. Possibly the next one will not be so mild.

Mr. Morrissey

The Chair has asked for it.

Mr. Broderick

If ever democracy is threatened in this State it will not be threatened by the people, but by the restless ambition and intrigues of those in power for personal preferment.

Mr. Morrissey

The Chair will be shocked.

Mr. Broderick

Not a bit. The Deputy would not be shocked. No one is better aware of conditions in the country than the Ministry. When the Minister was in opposition he continually railed at the over-taxation of the country, and did so at a time when it was at least two millions less than it is now. We had no taxes then on the commodities required for everyday life. At that time the Opposition held that this country could not exist with such taxation, and that no man's services were worth more than £1,000 a year to the State. They said that the provision for the Governor-General was one that should go. When the present Ministry came into office, having won the appreciation of the country, they immediately let it be known that as far as they were concerned, they would not accept the statutory allowances. As they had undertaken, they removed the Governor-General and the financial obligations attached to the office, but to-day we have the expenditure restored under another name, so that really they did not cut down taxation. I venture to say—and I do not think the Minister will contradict me—that the amount of money the people have to pay now, whether for Treasury purposes, vested interests, or to provide the various subsidies and bounties, is at least 11 millions more than when the present Ministry took office. The provision for a Governor-General has been restored, and the Minister admitted last night that for a considerable time the full statutory allowances had been taken. I think that is rather a callous, shall I say, betrayal of the policy under which they got into power.

I do not wish to go very far into State obligations, but I should like to remind the Minister and the House that taxation to-day by the means I have suggested, whether for Treasury or for other purposes, is not less than £37,000,000 a year. The adverse trade balance for the last few years was considerably over £20,000,000. The National Debt, according to the Banking Commission, has had a considerable sum added to it, and the Minister will scarcely deny that it is less than £90,000,000. Possibly it may be news to some Deputies to know that when we had a Parliament in this country for 18 years, we accumulated a debt of £132,000,000. In the conditions of that day, of rack-renting and landlordism, when the value of money was a good deal different from what it is now, we were deemed unable to pay, and the debt was taken over by the then United Kingdom. To-day, after 16 years of this Parliament, a colossal debt is mounting up, but there is no United Kingdom to pay it off. That debt will have to be paid off by the efforts of our people, and by frugal living, while the men who created the debt will have gone into secure retirement.

Intimate and close association with town and country life has compelled me to paint the picture I have painted. It is a depressing picture, but it is not necessarily an intimidating one to men of courage. If we make up our minds that by every effort open to us we will increase productivity and lessen taxation, by giving a good example of patriotism, I am satisfied that the time will come when this country will offer reasonable opportunities to everybody, and that it will not be necessary to bribe what is considered on all sides of this House the best intelligence in the Dáil. I do not want too much intelligence. What I want is men with a purpose, men who are prepared to share the sacrifices that they imposed on other people. Because the Bills before the House for the last few days are Bills to protect other people from bearing their share of the difficulties that they have imposed on the country, I am determined to vote against them. We have got control here now, and it is up to us to do what we can for the country. Let us do our best. It will require a united effort but, if we give the example, and show that we are really in earnest, and are not prepared to create vested interests, but to give everyone a chance, then I have every hope for the ultimate welfare of this country. Because this Bill strikes right across such principles I oppose it.

Mr. Bennett

If the conditions of people whom I represent, in the main the agricultural people, were merely normal, not to say prosperous, I would have no compunction in voting for this measure. I could even make as good a case for this Bill as was made for the Bill yesterday—possibly a better case. I realise, as possibly every Deputy realises, that the allowances paid to Deputies at the moment do not suffice to cover all the expenses that a Deputy incurs in the course of his duties. I realise that the position of any Deputy who lives over 100 miles from Dublin is a whole-time job. When the House is sitting it necessitates his being away from home not merely on the days the House sits, but the day before and the day after. If he has to come to Dublin, as nearly every Deputy has from time to time, to interview a Minister or Department, he cannot do that in one day like a Deputy living near Dublin. It means two days to do a three or four hours' job. Every Deputy has made sacrifices in the last 16 years. I agree with the Minister in that. There has not been a single Deputy who left this House as well off as when he came into it. There has not been a single Deputy who has not made sacrifices, given up most of his time, neglected his business, given up almost all his pleasures and sports that he used to engage in. We all made sacrifices—Ministers and Deputies.

If, having said so much, I am asked why I am reluctant to support this Bill, it is because I view it from two points of view. I view it from the point of view of a Deputy representing, in the main, agricultural people—of course I represent other people as well. I also view it from the position of the farming community, one of whom I am myself. I say that if I am sacrificing myself, as every Deputy is, so are the farmers. In my dual capacity, one part of me, if I might put it that way, is a Deputy and the other is a farmer. I want to do justice to the Deputy and to the farmer and the agricultural worker. I seek justice for them both. For which of them must I seek it first? Am I, as a Deputy, to ask this House to do justice to me before I do it to the farmer?

We have had in this House for the last few weeks—it came to a climax last night—a debate on a motion asking for a relief for the agricultural community. There was not a Deputy, and I do not believe there was a Minister, who spoke that did not realise the necessity for that, that did not realise the sacrifices and the sufferings that the farmer and the agricultural worker endured during the last few years, and is still enduring; that did not realise the circumstances under which thousands of farmers and agricultural workers are living at present. Can I seek relief for my own particular disability as a Deputy and not seek relief for my brother farmer?

Yesterday we voted a measure in this House making extra provision for Ministers and ex-Ministers, and they deserve it. I did not speak on that measure, but I believe that Ministers are under-paid; that having regard to the responsibilities, sacrifices of time, of business, and of money that they have made, they deserve a higher remuneration than they get. I believe that a similar case can be made for Deputies. But I believe the Deputy's first duty is not to himself, but to his constituents, the people who sent him here. We knew we would have to make sacrifices when we came here. We knew we were forsaking our business practically all the week. Most of us knew that when we left this House we would leave it in worse circumstances than when we came into it. But, when some of us began our careers, we did not know that the condition of the people who sent us here was going to become gradually worse. If we now find that our allowances are not sufficient to enable us to do our duties in the manner that they ought to be done, we also realise, I hope, that there are many thousands of people who are, unfortunately, worse off, people who are unable to provide the ordinary necessaries for their families, farmers who, as Deputy Broderick said, have to ask their girls to do the work that boys should do.

In that state of affairs I think this is not the time that we should be asked to pass this measure. If this measure was preceded by, or even accompanied with, a measure offering some relief to the farmer and agricultural worker, giving some hope to the agricultural industry, then every Deputy could conscientiously vote for it. I see no reason why, even in the interim between the introduction of this Bill and the final stages, the Government could not give some answer to the appeal made in this House by almost every Deputy in the last few weeks for some temporary, if not some permanent, relief for the farmer pending the findings of the commission which has been set up.

The Minister for Finance, who is in charge of the country's purse, has made the case that this will cost only £14,000, that the Bill discussed yesterday will cost only £6,000 or £9,000, and that that sum can easily be found. It can be found. I am not arguing that it is going to make any material difference to the ordinary taxpayer. It is not. But when we ask for relief, that would cost a great deal more, for the agriculturists, who comprise the bulk of the people and who need relief more than any other section, it is not given. There are necessitous cases in Dublin and elsewhere; there is hardship amongst workers and other people everywhere; but the real necessitous cases are in the country districts. Why do we see thousands of agricultural workers flocking every day to another country? Is it not because they cannot find here the work that they used to do?

Even at this stage I would make an appeal to the Government. This House has been generous to them within the last 24 hours. This House recognises that it is difficult for them to continue to make the sacrifices that they have had to make for the last six years, and, having recognised it, proposes to equip them to perform their duties in comparative comfort. If, realising the generosity of the House towards them, they will in the interim between the introduction of this Bill and its final stages offer some relief to the farmers and the agricultural workers, then without any qualms of conscience, those who feel themselves compelled in the circumstances to oppose this Bill will vote for it. I say that it can be done and that it must be done sooner or later. Why not do it now?

The Minister for Finance will probably answer that he cannot find the money now. The Minister and the Government can find money for other purposes. They can find money for defence purposes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Finance may reply that the question regarding agriculture was disposed of by motion yesterday.

Mr. Bennett

Yes, but I am arguing that this is not altogether a question——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is reopening a debate in which a decision was taken yesterday.

Mr. Bennett

That is, the question of the Ministers' salaries?

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion dealing with agriculture.

Mr. Bennett

On the question of agriculture, I shall not say very much more——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not say any more.

Mr. Bennett

I shall put it this way —that there are two sets of people in whom I am interested. One set is that which is named in this measure and the other is that which I am more desirous of helping. Regarding myself in my dual capacity as a Deputy and a farmer, I say that if there is not to be a policy to assist the two together, then the farmer and agricultural worker should come first. Until some assurance is given that that will be done, I feel I cannot support this measure. If in the interval between now and the passage of this Bill——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must get away from the agriculture motion.

Mr. Bennett

There are certain circumstances to which reference was not made and to which I should like to allude——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must not redebate that motion.

Mr. Bennett

For the reasons I have stated, I feel compelled to refrain from supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. In its final stages, I may be compelled even to vote against it.

Mr. Linehan

I oppose this Bill for a number of reasons. I can understand, from one point of view, the case made by the Minister and I can understand the case made by Deputy Mulcahy, because I should imagine that he would have regard, as he did have regard, to the position of the ordinary Deputy and the work he is expected to do. But I join issue with the Government on this Bill for entirely different reasons. I do not believe that this is the proper time in which we should have before us a Bill to increase our own salaries. Apart from any particular type of motion which might be under discussion, I believe that the time of the House could be more usefuly appropriated by the Government to some other purpose than the debating of a question of this sort. The Minister opened his remarks by saying that the Shanley Committee did not recommend increased allowances for Deputies. That committee made three major recommendations. The Government dropped one of them —that which related to the increase of Ministers' salaries. They adopted and are implementing another, and they now bring in a fresh proposal to increase the salaries of Deputies.

A Deputy

The "allowances."

Mr. Linehan

"Allowances," if you think that is a better word. We have a most peculiar state of affairs in connection with the recommendations of this committee. This committee was set up with a view to finding out what the correct position was in regard to these matters. It was a responsible committee. Yet, the Government refused to implement one of their recommendations, while they invented another. It would be only in keeping with the attitude of the Party opposite, whether in office or out of office, that they should refuse to implement one recommendation and bring in an additional proposal, because they knew that this country would not stand for Ministers on the opposite bench increasing their own salaries at the present time. It is amazing to find the Minister for Finance making the case that we are going to get a better type of person into politics than we have got by making the position of Deputy more attractive, so that nobody will lose anything by coming in or so that the damage to them professionally or commercially will be very small. That might be a justifiable attitude, but I doubt if it is good for democracy, as the Minister suggested, or for the membership of this House that the standard should be whether members were paid sufficient for coming in or not. If we are going to talk about a democratic State, about getting in the best men, let us not make the test what the allowance or salary is going to be.

The attitude on this question has changed very much in the past ten years. Deputies on the opposite benches will say that they never criticised Deputies' allowances. No, but they criticised every other allowance made. For ten years they criticised every allowance made by this House except the Deputies' allowance. They criticised every pension and every major salary, and, after seven years in office, they swallow their own words. They have not attempted to reduce anything. Any action they took was designed to increase expenditure. If they have now come to the conclusion that they were then wrong, the Minister cannot justify the change by saying that it is good for the public life of this country, because the Taoiseach, ten years ago in Dáil Eireann, gave his views as to what the position of a public representative should be. He was not then attacking the allowances to Deputies. Speaking on the 13th July, 1928, on the Central Fund Bill, he said:

"I hope any public servant——"

I include in the words "public servant" a Deputy

"——is worth more to the country than what he gets in actual cash. He ought not to enter the public service if he expects that his only reward is the cash value."

I wish the Taoiseach were here, in view of his later statements. Does he still believe that a public representative ought not to expect his only reward to be in cash for services rendered to the country? I should oppose the Bill if for no other reason than the headline which the Minister is setting in public life. Is it possible to justify a Bill of this kind on the ground that people are to be encouraged to go into politics because they will not have to make any kind of sacrifice for their country? If that is to be the kind of politics we are to have in the future, then Fianna Fáil are welcome to it. For ten long years they were denouncing big salaries and pensions, and now they urge that men should be encouraged to come into politics by these attractions. For the life of me, I cannot believe that there is anything genuine in this proposal, or that there is any decency behind the attitude of the Government Party. Those who went into the attack ten years ago to save the people from big salaries, judicial pensions, and so forth, are now coming out as champions of democracy and telling us that these increased allowances will bring us a better type of public representative. In that way, they seek to throw a democratic cloak of decency around their action.

Apart from that, I cannot believe the Minister's assertion that Deputies could have given evidence before the committee, and did not, because, as he said, they were afraid to make a "poor mouth." If any Deputy wanted to make a case on the salary question, it was easier to make a "poor mouth" in private before a Select Committee than to have the Minister making a "poor mouth" for him in Dáil Eireann. I ask Fianna Fáil to remember—it may be hard hitting—that there are not many people on the Fianna Fáil Benches who are dependent on this sum of £360 or £480 which they are drawing from this State.

Mr. MacEntee

Is the Deputy?

Mr. Linehan

I am drawing no money from the State except my £360. I should like to know how many members on the Fianna Fáil Benches are drawing pensions from the State, apart from the £360.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter is not relevant.

Mr. Linehan

If I may say so, they are even referred to in the Bill. Military service pensions are exempt ——

An Ceann Comhairle

Whatever Military service pensions Deputies or other citizens are in receipt of have been awarded under Acts of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Cooney

The clients of the Deputy are not excepted.

Mr. Linehan

Even if I had no other reason for opposing this Bill, or if I did not believe that there was a totally dishonest attitude by the Government towards this Bill, I would oppose it because I am satisfied that this is not the proper time to bring in a Bill of this nature. The Dáil might well be engaged in dealing with the question of the type of relief that ought to be given to the taxpayers, or with the policy of the Government in inflicting an extra burden of taxation on the taxpayer, but there is no justification in spending the time of the House in debating a measure of this kind. There are a number of cases that require to be looked after, individually and collectively up and down the country, and there is no justification in spending our time, while that is so, in dealing with a Bill of this sort. I do not believe that at the back of any Deputy's mind he feels that he can justify himself, at any rate before his own constituents, when he has to tell them that he spent a day or two days here discussing a Bill which increases his own allowances, while there are many grievances in the country and many a poor person who feels that these grievances should be looked after, I do not believe that any Deputy can justify himself when he has to admit that he spent his time discussing an increase of his own allowance, and that the business of the country was let go by the board.

I would ask Deputies to view the situation fairly. The £14,000 involved in this Bill is not going to make much difference in view of the taxation that has already been inflicted by the Government, but the very least we ought to face up to is the fact that there is work to be done in this country. We have gone a long way from the day when we were told that if we put the present Government into office they would reduce taxation by at least £2,000,000. That is all forgotten now, but I think the sooner we get down to business and try to do something for the people of the country the better. It might very well be said that the time will come when this Bill will be justified. It might very well be said that when the day arrives when all the Fianna Fáil election promises have been redeemed, when it would be apparent that everybody was well off, that the agricultural community was prosperous, that the towns were humming with business—it might very well be said then that an increase would be justified, but when the country is down and out, there is no earthly reason why we should jump on the country, even though jumping on the country means that we increase our own allowances by £10 per month.

Mr. Keyes

It was explained by Deputy Norton last night that this Bill, in conjunction with the previous Bill, has been left to a free vote and discussion amongst members of the Labour Party. I want to say now that I am in thorough agreement with the proposal contained in this Bill. I agree with the Minister in his opening statement that the Bill is necessary if we are going to give reality to the principles of democracy for which the State stands. Proportional Representation has been introduced into this country to try to secure equitable representation in the Parliament of the State for all sections of the people, but Proportional Representation and other safeguards would be valueless if the representation of this House must be measured by the financial standards which would seem to be the estimate of many of the speakers who have spoken here this evening. I consider, Sir, that anybody in this State who has reached the use of reason and who has reached a sufficient standard of intelligence, who has wooed the votes of the electors and has succeeded in being elected to this House, is entitled to come in here without his right to sit here being measured by financial standards. That does not seem to be the view of the previous speaker. Some Deputies may be privileged to have professions and some may be financed by strong financial concerns behind them, but if that were the only standard by which the right of election to this House should be regulated, it would leave very little room for those citizens of the country who have nothing to commend them but citizenship of the country and the ability which God has given them. Such citizens, I suggest, are entitled to come into this House equally with the professional man or the commercial or industrial magnate of the country.

If the standard of the successful professional man or of the commercial magnate is to be the test, then it is very difficult if not impossible for persons of the character I describe to carry on their duties here. I think that feeling is shared by all Parties and is responsible for the diversity of opinion expressed in regard to this Bill. There is no political partisanship running through the discussion. I am pleading for the lowly standard which is the only one I can fulfil. I am a representative of workers, who never had any business of my own nor any profession but I come in here feeling that I am as much entitled to represent the people of this country as the biggest manufacturer or the most successful merchant in this House. If, for any reason, financial standards were prescribed for the successful performance of my duties, such as would debar me from discharging these duties, I would feel that I had a grievance not only for myself, but for the class I represent. We give lip sympathy to democracy by having Proportional Representation and other kinds of safeguards. If direct effect is going to be given to these safeguards, the lowliest in the community are entitled to select their standard bearers to come in here without the fear that their representatives are going to be victimised or that their families will be left in want by their coming in here.

The Minister has spoken, and rightly spoken, of people of the higher classes who come in here and sacrifice their commercial enterprises or their professions and who, after a few years, may have to go back to find that their business has lapsed in the meantime. If people who are making a financial sacrifice, are to be remunerated by the State for the attention which they give to public business here, that applies with greater force to people of the class to which I have referred, people who have no business or no profession but who claim the right of citizenship, who come in here on equal terms with any other section of the community. If we are going to maintain financial standards as the test of entry to this House, then I say we are definitely narrowing the people's choice since only a certain section of the community can aspire to enter this Dáil. That may perhaps have an influence on the minds of certain Deputies here. They may not like to see the field widened. There is we know a class barrier in certain constituencies. Only people who are able to come in here in their spare time, and devote such time as they can afford to the business of their constituents, can come along and get the support of the people in these areas. When I hear people talking about Deputies coming here for one day or two days and then going home to their own business, it strikes me that they seem to have a poor conception of their duties to their constituents. Deputies' duties seem to increase day after day and I should envy the Deputy in this House who feels that he is doing his duty to his constituents by coming in here for one day or two days in the week and then going back to his home and forgetting all about his constituents for the remainder of the week. That is not the conception that I have had of a Deputy's duties during the few years that I have been here as a Deputy of this House.

Peference has been made to a statement by the Taoiseach on this question in 1928. I have a recollection of a statement by the Taoiseach in reply to a statement by a Deputy occupying the seat from which I am speaking, Deputy MacDermot, when he moved to reduce Deputies' salaries in this House. He had not then joined the Fine Gael Party. He was then the leader of the Farmers' or Centre Party, and I distinctly remember the gentle handling he received from the Taoiseach who mildly suggested that Deputy MacDermot ought not to move such a motion if he was mindful of the duties of a Deputy and the responsibilities attaching to that office. I have an equally clear recollection of Deputy McGilligan's handling of the same Deputy on the same question. The Official Debates of that particular time make interesting reading for Deputies on all sides. Deputy MacDermot was definitely put in his place on that occasion.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be better if the Deputy read them than refer here to one who is no longer a member of the House.

Mr. Keyes

I have not got them here so I must pass from the point, but I commend it to Deputies as a very interesting part of the Official Debates. The same argument, to my mind, holds to-night as came from the Fianna Fáil benches and the Fine Gael benches— from the Taoiseach and Deputy McGilligan—that night, the contention of both being that while there may be a case for the reduction of a number of Deputies, there could be no question of a reduction of salaries, but, on the contrary, a definite case for an increase. A movement is being made by Fianna Fáil now to make that necessary advance to secure that people of all types and kinds in this country will be enabled to come forward and offer themselves as Deputies, free from any fear that they or their people are going to suffer financially, and in the knowledge that they will be in a position of independence and free from the taint of being from one class or the other, in giving their services towards forwarding the interests and claims of constituents and dealing with the legislation of the nation generally.

There ought to be a standard. We have standards set in other countries where parliamentary representation is placed at a certain value and level, and I think that the representation in An Dáil ought not to be on a standard lower than that of other countries. We hear comparisons as to the standards of life throughout the country. I think it is completely out of order to discuss this matter in relation to poor law relief, unemployment or other questions. From these benches, the Labour Party has advocated at all times the uplifting of the social standards of the poor and the lowly, but we do not consider that the question of the stipend, remuneration or allowances of parliamentary representatives has any relation to, or bearing on, the social standards of the country. Some of the people who to-night are shedding crocodile tears because this sum of £14,000 per annum is going to deprive the people of the country who are so badly off of the moneys they ought to have were absent when the time was ripe for discussing the social uplifting of these same people. I think it is nothing short of hypocritical to contend that this proposal is going to deprive the unemployed or those in lowly places of unemployment assistance, or unemployment insurance. I believe it ought to be dealt with on its merits, as to whether or not Deputies, doing their duty and representing their constituents to the best of their ability, are sufficiently remunerated at £360 per annum. If each individual Deputy were to ask himself that question and to answer according to his conscience, there could be only one answer—a unanimous reply that they have not been sufficiently remunerated and that the £480 per annum suggested is only a reasonable standard for such Deputies.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Deputy Keyes has stated that there is not the usual Party line-up on this matter, and so far as this Party is concerned, there will be a free vote, with every member entitled to give free expression to his opinion. I have listened to the debate since it started and I must confess that I was struck by one outstanding fact which emerged from the speeches of those who have declared themselves against this Bill. It is that neither of my colleagues—Deputy Broderick nor Deputy Linehan—suggested for one moment either that the present allowance was adequate, or that the proposed allowance was more than adequate. Deputy Linehan, I think, laid particular stress on the fact that the time was not opportune. I have been a member of this House since the first meeting in this chamber, nearly 16½ years ago. I represent one of the largest constituencies in the country and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that there is not a Deputy, representing even a constituency smaller than that which I have the honour to represent, who, doing his duty, can say that £360 per annum is sufficient to cover the expenses.

There is a lot of talk outside amongst the general public and a good deal in the newspapers, and even here, about the number of days and the number of hours per day the Dáil meets in the year. We are told that we get £360 a year for 80 days, or 60 days, or 90 days, and that we do not meet until 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Let me say this—I do not know how many Deputies will subscribe to it—that, as a matter of fact, experience will show that the easiest part of a Deputy's work is when he is sitting here in Dáil Eireann, and the hardest when he is away from the public eye and the newspapers, doing, perhaps, the really practical work amongst his constituents. Far from working only 80 days in the year, the T.D. is one of the few workers left in this country who has not got a 48-hour week. He has a seven-day week and the day which is supposed to be a day of rest is usually the busiest day of all. Do we not all know that when we go home from here there is a constant and regular stream of people coming with their grievances from morning until late at night? We know that one would need to be a walking encyclopædia to answer all the questions put to one. Do we not know quite well that the people in putting a person in the position of Deputy expect to get from him full service?

I should like to have that point made perfectly clear, that the work of a Deputy, as Deputy Keyes said, does not begin and end with coming in here at 3 o'clock in the afternoon and going out at 10.30 or 11 o'clock at night. I want to say, further, that some of the most important work done by members of the House, from the point of view of the people, is the work done down there in committee rooms, which never gets into the newspapers, and for which Deputies get very little credit. There are more than Party meetings. There are members of the House of all Parties who perform a very necessary and very vital work on one of the most exacting committees, the Committee of Public Accounts, sitting down there morning after morning. The work of a T.D. does not begin at 3 o'clock; it begins at 10 o'clock in the morning. It begins with a volume of correspondence, followed by a trek to the Land Commission, the offices of the Revenue Commissioners, and down to the Custom House. That goes on morning after morning. That is the sort of work that is to be done in Dublin.

On the question of first-class expenses, the newspapers tell the people that Deputies get an allowance of £360 a year, plus first-class travelling expenses. The people, as a result, assume that all your travelling expenses and all your transport charges in connection with your duties as a Deputy are paid for by the State. Of course, that is not a fact. There is a great deal of play made about this £2 10s. 0d. a week. What does it mean to the Deputy who lives in and represents a country constituency? If he wants to attend a meeting in his constituency, and he has to travel 30, 40 or 50 miles to it, there is the cost of hiring a car. Is it not true to say that a Deputy doing his duty and covering his constituency, as he is expected to and ought to cover it, is faced with heavy expense in the matter of transport charges alone? It ought not to be overlooked either that nowadays, when there are no great Party money chests, that Deputies have to pay, if not all, certainly a considerable part of their election expenses. But, as I was saying, in the case of a Deputy who lives in and represents a country constituency, and who has either to hire a car or to purchase one and maintain it, he cannot do that at a less cost to himself than £2 a week. Transport alone will cost that, and I have put the figure deliberately low. Members will agree that that is so. Is it not also a fact that Deputies are expected to contribute to everything that is got up in their constituencies, and very often to functions organised outside their constituencies? There is not a morning that we open our post that we do not find a request for a contribution to this or to that, and whereas the ordinary private individual can get away with a nominal subscription, simply because of the fact that you are a T.D. you are expected to send a very substantial contribution.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about bribing people to get in the best men. It is not a question of bribing people, because if we are to take it on that line then it is only a question of the size of the bribe—whether the bribe is to be £360 a year or £480 a year. I have a higher conception of the people of this country than that they expect their public representatives to perform their duties here in the Parliament of the nation at a loss to themselves. Mind you, we are supposed to be a nation of idealists. We are popularly supposed to be, but I am doubtful if you will get 138 men in the whole of this country who are prepared to come in here at a dead loss to themselves. Deputy Keyes put his finger on the matter a few moments ago. There are men here who, because of their position in life, because of their particular business and perhaps because they live in the City of Dublin and represent Dublin constituencies, may be of the opinion that £360 a year is adequate to cover their expenses, but for the vast majority of the members that sum is not adequate, and I think that ought to be faced up to. It may be the popular line to take to oppose this Bill, and, as I have said, some of us who take that line might perhaps sit down, keep our mouths shut and go into the Lobby and vote either for or against; but I do not believe in playing down to the low prejudices of certain people in this country.

We heard some very high-toned speeches here to-day—one in particular, a very fine speech, to every sentence of which I would subscribe if it were delivered at the right time and on the relevant subject. I heard a speech delivered here to-day that I would love to have heard delivered on the Minister's Budget two years ago when it would have been most appropriate—a speech which referred to the over powering burdens that this Bill is going to put on the taxpayers, and in particular upon the poor. I would like to have heard that speech delivered, with all the force and vehemence of which the Deputy is capable, on the Budget —I hope my friend, Deputy Tom Kelly, will take notice of this—which imposed by indirect and direct taxation a burden of almost £1,750,000 on the poor of this country. We did not hear the speech then.

Deputy Linehan tells us that the position is that the £14,000 does not matter. It means nothing, but the time, he thinks, is inopportune. Then we are told that those of us who have the temerity to vote for this Bill will be jumping upon the down-trodden taxpayers of this country. Let me say with all respect that that sort of exaggeration does not do any good. There is no use in trying to distort the picture, and there is no use in having that sort of—I do not know what to call it—false modesty, I suppose, about those things.

Mr. Everett

You will find that he will take it.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I do not know. That is a matter for every member of the House to consider himself. I do not know what Deputies are going to do as far as that is concerned, but I do know this that Deputies ought not to be either afraid or ashamed to state clearly their views here. I will have to answer to my constituents as well as every other member of the House, and I am stating the facts as I know them. I have had 16 years' experience as a member of this House, and, as a result of that, I have no hesitation in saying that it has been my experience that the allowance given to Deputies has not been adequate.

The Minister mentioned that Deputies had not gone before the committee and given evidence which would justify it in recommending an increase in the allowance. The Minister said that probably Deputies did not want to be making the poor mouth. Deputy Linehan seemed to take the view that Deputies did not go there because they could not make a case for an increase. I want to say that Deputy Linehan is quite wrong if that is his point of view. There are very few members of the House who would have had any difficulty in showing to that committee, or to any other committee, that the present allowance is not adequate. I am quite satisfied that Deputy Linehan himself would have no difficulty in showing that the £360 a year is not adequate to cover his expenses because he is a very active Deputy. I would go further and say—this is known to members of the House also—that it would not be possible, even if every member were to go before the commission to give a full return of all the expenses, both direct and indirect, that they have to face up to because of their position as Deputies. There are many indirect expenses that Deputies have to bear. There are many things that you have to do, many places that you have to go to, many expenses that you have to incur, simply because you are a Deputy, that you would not have to incur if you were not a Deputy.

I do not want to detain the House further. As I have said, I am going to vote for this Bill for the reasons that I have given. I am going to vote for it because I believe the Bill is necessary. I am going to vote for it because I have sufficient belief in the people of this country—this is my own opinion of them anyway—that they do not expect the members of this House to do the work that is to be done here without giving them whatever amount is necessary to cover their expenses towards the adequate discharge of their duties as Deputies.

Mr. Corry

I did not intend to speak on this measure because it is one that is rather distasteful to me, but in view of the statements made by Deputy Broderick and Deputy Linehan I think it only fair that I should give my views. I have been wondering as to the reasons that brought some of the Deputies opposite to their feet. I think one reason is contained in the statement made by Deputy Broderick, that the Government had a clear majority over all Parties now and could face their responsibilities, and that, therefore, it was safe to oppose this Bill. I think that is the real reason that brought them to their feet. I intend to vote for the measure, and I want to say that my services to the people of this country did not start at the same period as did Deputy Linehan's—in 1937. It started away back in 1914, and from 1914 onwards.

When I was first elected to this House there was no salary at all. I could hold on a few years more, I could last a few years more. But I do not think it just or fair to other members of this House that they and their families should be put to financial loss owing to the service they are rendering here. On no year since I came in here was I able to make ends meet on my allowance, I was not able to do it any year. Whether that was because I did more than the Deputies who have spoken or not I cannot say. Some Deputies, are, apparently, in the happy position of coming in here two days in the week and then going home and forgetting all about it until the Dáil met next time. So far as I am concerned, I find my work as a Deputy is a seven day week if I am to do my work well. It is not even an eight-hour day. I have to work 12 to 14 hours a day. I find that is the position at present and I have found it so for a number of years.

With regard to the allowance given I might, personally, be able to hold out but I know there are Deputies in this House who could not hold out on it. We have an increasing number of candidates going up for the Dáil at the present time. We have professional gentlemen who come in here to make a name for themselves, men whose sole object in life is to further their position in their professions by coming in here for a period and going from that position to a judgeship or something else. That is the case with men who take the long view, who look a long time before them. They come in here with that object in view. They make flowery speeches and all the time they are remembering the golden eggs that are to be theirs at a later date. I think it was Deputy Bennett who alluded to the position of Ministers. Yesterday he talked about the generosity of the House to Ministers. Now, I do not think the House was in any way generous to the Ministers.

If Deputies on the opposite side of this House have any qualms about this Bill, I would point out to them that they have the remedy in their own hands. They have the remedy the Ministers had when, in their opinion, the salaries voted to them were too great. That remedy is not to draw the full allowance, just as the Ministers here did not for a number of years draw their full salaries. On Committee Stage I intend to put in an amendment that any Deputy opposed to this Bill be exempt from its provisions. That would meet very fully the qualms of Deputy Linehan and Deputy Bennett, and in particular the Deputies who galloped up that Lobby four or five months ago overjoyed at the fact that they were forcing a general election in this country in order to give civil servants an increase of £500,000 a year. These Deputies forced a general election with the object of increasing Civil Service salaries. These Deputies now come along, and they talk of the waste, and they talk of the tears and the tortures that this £14,000 will occasion the people of this country. Deputy Broderick was very blunt and plain about it. He told us that one of his reasons was that the Government had got a clear majority, and therefore it was quite safe for some people to stand up in 1938 and call themselves patriots. The men who come in here make a great sacrifice. I know of Deputies of this House who were not extravagant while they were here. They were men whose personal needs did not cost more than any ordinary man. They were very careful men. When these men were defeated at the general election, they went home and found they were practically beggared. While they were in this House they had brought their families into penury. I have seen these people down in my constituency. They were not members of my Party.

Mr. Hickey

What about beggaring the poor people?

Mr. Corry

We hear a lot from Deputy Hickey about the poor people being beggared. In all honesty I suggest that the organisation of which he is a member has done a lot more towards beggaring the people of this country by its action in forcing up the cost of building houses for the poor.

Mr. Hickey

I know the mentality of Deputy Corry all right.

Mr. Corry

Yes, the Deputy knows it and he knows that I am in the habit of calling a spade a spade and some Deputies do not like it.

Mr. Hickey

Oh, go on, I like very much what the Deputy is saying.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corry might be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. Corry

I did not intend to speak at all on this matter when I entered the House to-day, but I speak in all honesty of what I know. This matter of allowances does not press so much perhaps on some Deputies here, but we have to consider generally whether Deputies of this House are to be at a financial loss and we are further to consider whether this House is to be turned into a happy hunting ground for professional sharks.

Mr. Hickey

Deputy Corry told me less than a week ago that he would vote against these increases. I expect he would vote except that the second one came on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must not interrupt.

Mr. Corry

I know the anxiety of Deputy Hickey. He is playing into the hands of those people who are the only people who can come in here and can afford to do without allowances. These are people with private means or people with a strong organisation behind them. They can afford to have the funds of that organisation used to supplement their salaries here.

Mr. Hickey

That is not the case at all.

Mr. Corry

I am speaking frankly here.

Mr. Hickey

If the Deputy is speaking frankly now he is not speaking along the lines he spoke to me last week.

Mr. Corry

From what I have seen, the general tendency of some people here is to drive men out of public life because they have not private means enough of their own or they have not an organisation behind them with sufficient funds to keep them here. That is what I find now. The representation of this House is going to be turned into two classes—half aristocrats who have a share of money to spend and who wish to use this place as a platform from which to air their views and exercise their hobbies; the others would be professional gentlemen who come in here and use this House to reach a judgeship when the scale of the tide turns the other way later on. That is an honest fact as I view it. It is sheer hypocrisy for Deputies on the Opposition Benches who drove this country into a general election a few months ago in their attempt to force up Civil Service salaries by £500,000, to come in here now and oppose this Bill. They are opposing it because as Deputy Broderick said they are of opinion that it will be carried anyway. Now on Committee Stage I will put in an amendment and I hope Deputies on the Opposition Benches will take advantage of it.

Mr. O'Donovan

I am opposing this measure and I am doing so for the reason that I think this is not the time to introduce a measure of this sort. Everybody knows that, owing to the action of the Government who introduced this measure, this country has gone through a terrible period of depression. It is not necessary to dwell upon that, as it has been discussed at such length in the debate carried on last night and at other times. That depression has been very evident. It has been admitted by everybody that the economic stress has been so severe that sacrifices have had to be made by everybody in the State, from the richest to the poorest. The ordinary man in the State has not got over these sacrifices yet; burdens have still to be met and the taxation is bearing so heavily upon him that this additional burden, although admittedly it is only a small amount, £14,000 might be the last straw. Had the Fianna Fáil Party's promises been carried out, had the promised Utopia materialised, had the election campaign promises of times gone by materialised, then there would be a possibility of my supporting a measure like this, because the time might be more opportune.

I have been in this House for 15 years, or perhaps a little longer. I may say that the £30 a month which I have consistently drawn through the whole of that time has not been of much advantage to me. I do not think it has paid my way, but, in view of the sacrifices that have had to be made by the people, I do not feel I would be justified in taking anything more and it is for that reason I am opposed to this measure. It is not the opportune time to introduce it. Deputy Corry says that any of us who are opposing this are merely hypocrites. I think he made use of the word "hypocrites." I, for one, feel I am quite consistent in the attitude I am taking up to-day. At a time when conditions in this country were much better than they are to-day, when there was a demand for economy in the State services—it was before Fianna Fáil came into this House—I as a member of a Party at that time—it was in 1925, I think— took up a definite attitude.

The Government of that day felt there was a necessity for economy. The Party I then belonged to put down a motion for a reduction of a certain amount in the salaries of everybody in this State, from the President down to the lowest and most humble individual. That was a very consistent motion at the time. I think there were only two parties, the teachers and the old-age pensioners, mentioned in the economy campaign that was on that time. I supported the motion for an all-round reduction. Later a member of the Centre Party in the House put down another motion to the same effect, and I supported it, and I think that to-day I would be very inconsistent if I adopted any other than the attitude I have taken up here during the time I have represented the interests I do represent, feeling that economy in the public services is necessary. I believe it would be inconsistent for me if I did not take up the attitude that I am taking up to-day in opposing this proposal. I do not think it can be thrown across the House at me that I am a hypocrite in doing that. I feel I am quite honest.

I feel that, had conditions materialised as they should have in this country, had we not had the unfortunate economic dispute with our nextdoor neighbour, had we not had the other unfortunate circumstances that occurred in this country and that raised taxation to a level that has gone beyond the capacity of the people to pay; in other words, had we a normal Government, a consistent Government, a Government interested in the concerns of the ordinary common people, a Government that would have brought taxation to the normal level, and kept social services going at a normal capacity—our social services at the moment are carrying the State, instead of the State carrying the social services —had we normality in the period during which this Government has been in power, I feel the time might now possibly be opportune to introduce a measure of help for Deputies who have made, and who are making, sacrifices, and possibly who will continue to make sacrifices.

The least Deputies may do is to reject this measure and continue to make sacrifices until such time as the country is in a position to meet demands, until we reach that happy stage when this addition can comfortably be made to Deputies' allowances.

Mr. McGovern

I also feel it is my duty to oppose this measure. Like the last speaker, I feel I am only quite consistent in doing so. Since I came into public life I have always held, and those I represent also held, that this country is over-taxed, that it is living above its means, and for that reason I feel we must begin to economise somewhere. Some years ago there was an economy measure before this House and I supported an amendment to begin in the Oireachtas. We cannot expect other people to make sacrifices if we are not prepared to make them also. I do not want to question the case made by those in favour of the Bill. I do not question the fact that Deputies are not making money by this; indeed, many of them are losing money. But what about the people we represent? Are they making money in their businesses? Is it not a remarkable fact that the people who represent agricultural interests are the people who are most opposed to this, because they know the sacrifices those they are representing have been and are still making, and because they know that while other people can shift the burden, they have no means of shifting the burden.

In the case of other people, if taxation, direct or indirect, comes, and if increased cost is imposed upon them for one reason or another, they simply increase their prices, their profits, their fees and so on, whatever line of business they may be engaged in. But the agriculturist is not in that happy position. The farmers cannot shift the burden to anybody else; they cannot raise their own prices when the cost of production increases, when the cost of taxation increases and when there is an increase in other overheads. They know there is no escape and that is why they are taking the only means possible to them to keep expenditure within reasonable limits. We are told this is only a small thing. Quite so, it is only a matter of some thousands of pounds; but little drops of water and little grains of sand make the mighty ocean and the mighty land. The individual items that go to make up the £35,000,000 of taxation and the £12,000,000 or £14,000,000 of local taxation are all small and the same argument might apply to them. That would be really no argument at all, because it is the principle of the thing that counts. Those I represent are opposed to this principle and they are right, and I agree with them. That is why I come here to oppose this Bill. There is not a Deputy in the House who needs the money more than I do. No one is fonder of money than I am.

Mr. O'Rourke

Will you give it back?

Mr. McGovern

I am not saying I am an archangel; by all means I would be glad to get money if I got it with a good conscience. But those I have the honour to represent do not wish me to vote for this thing or to take this money and, therefore, it is my duty to oppose the Bill. It is suggested by people that there is a disposition on the part of some people to regard thousands as a matter of more importance than millions. I know the difference between thousands and millions. It is not the amount that is involved here; it is the principle that is involved. This is a headline. We are looked up to by the whole State to set the headline, and that is why I regard it as so serious. There is no use saying that people strain at a gnat and they swallow the camel. We do not swallow the camel. The camel is forced down our throat, and if the camel is forced down our throat are we going to swallow a gnat that is going to grow into another camel? It is not a gnat; it is a germ. It is the germ of a greater camel than the one we have swallowed. It is the germ of a monster—a monster that would destroy this State. I do not want to exaggerate, but I can see how it will work, and I think any Deputy in the House can see how it will work. By making a beginning here, by increasing our own allowances, then we are setting a headline that will work all down. Once we swallow the germ of this monster we cannot control its growth. Every servant of the State, whether he is a servant of Dáil Eireann or a civil servant, a servant of a local body or a worker on a relief scheme or a worker in any department of Government or in any department of State will all want to have an increase. Are not they all entitled to it? Who can say a word against them? We will put a thorn in our own conscience if we accept it. We set the headline and cannot go back. Deputies are losing whatever moral authority and whatever influence they have either on public boards, in Dáil Eireann or anywhere else when they increase their own salaries. Therefore, I feel it is our duty to oppose this increase. Those I represent may be just as much opposed to any allowance made to Ministers, yet, because I felt that there was something to be said for that, I did agree to the principle of making some provision, although I did not agree to the full extent set out in the Bill. In this case I do not deny that Deputies have a claim for increased allowances if the conditions of the country would warrant it, as other Deputies have pointed out, but we who come from the people who are the real producers in this country, the people in the rural districts, know that the country is not in a position to bear a heavier burden. The Minister for Finance, in a few months' time, will come with his new Budget flourishing with £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 more of an increase, and there will be criticism from all the benches around here. Some particular benches that are supporting this measure will be very critical of the Minister's Budget and the Minister will come along with a challenge—"Where are we going to begin to cut? Where are the economies going to come in?" We have to begin somewhere, but Deputies will be silent when they are challenged as to where the economies are going to start. I suggest here and now that we should make at least a stand. Let us not increase. The first wisdom is to be fooled no more and the first economy is to increase no more. I think that we might make a beginning by deciding that if it meant sacrifices for Deputies they should be prepared to make those sacrifices until there is a change for the better in the condition of the country.

I know that the work of Deputies has been very much increased. I know that it is on those grounds that the claim for increases arises, but I think that the grounds are even worse than the proposed increase itself. I think it is not a good thing that the work of Deputies should be increased, because what do these works consist of? Deputies are asked to go around their constituencies and carry out a whole lot of duties that should belong to independent bodies. Deputies are elected to do a certain class of work, but new duties are being gradually imposed upon them, which means, to my mind, nothing less than poisoning the channels of administration. You may as well send Deputies into the law courts to influence the decisions of the judges as to send them to decide some of the things that they are asked to do now and which is raised as a justification for an increase in their allowances. I think that independent bodies and even independent and disinterested witnesses would be the best people to carry out administration in all schemes that are being administered. I think that is a very important point. I do not think it is the political Parties that should decide or have the principal hand in deciding what citizen is to get his right and what citizen is to be deprived of it. It comes to that. Two individuals may have an equal claim to a pension or a grant. One of them has some influential friend who has the pull and can get his right. The other, if he has not a pull with some political Party or at least some representative, will find he is likely to lose his right. I think that is not right. I believe that this country must get back to the position of administering all the schemes under the Government and under the various Ministers with absolute impartiality, and as free from political pull as the law is administered in open court. I am prepared to do my part as long as it is the custom. I try to do it as well as I can, but I am convinced in my heart that it is wrong, and that the remedy is not to increase salaries, but to lighten the work of Deputies and by lightening their work in this direction I believe it will improve the State's administration and purify it.

I think that on other occasions this may come up because the country is moving into a dangerous groove. I am convinced that this is the cause for the increase and I had looked upon this thing as only a temporary practice that should die out and that should be gradually dying out, but I am sorry to see that by proposing a measure of this sort now to increase the allowance for this class of work it is intended to make it a permanent thing and that this is only an instalment, the first instalment, of many other increases. Once we begin there is nothing easier than to expand. There is nothing more certain than that this is going to expand, and that after a certain number of years it will be £1,000 to every Deputy. Every Deputy will be drawing the allowance of a Minister and it will not be enough.

It is easy to make a start increasing, but if we start the precedent now where is it going to end? Deputies can still increase their allowances. With regard to the additional travelling expenses, I doubt very much whether all this travelling is going to help their constituencies. I doubt it very much. I think the way to remedy the grievances of Deputies is to relieve them of a lot of the work they are engaged in and let independent, disinterested bodies administer all these schemes, whatever nature they may be. Let them be administered in the same way as the law is administered, by independent judges, and judges above Party interest who have no connection and no interest in the thing— by disinterested people. That is the best way, I believe.

Another thing is that I do not think the allowances paid to Senators are justified. I think that Senators can afford to do with less than £30 a month. We have a fair idea of the amount of time they spend. They cannot make the same case as has been made for Deputies, and I did not hear anybody make the case for Senators that has been made for Deputies. I do not think there is any justification for paying Senators £30 a month. I know that it is not a big thing, but it is bigger than the State can afford, and when you put all these items together, the country and every stratum of society will be influenced, more or less, by looking on at what goes on at the top. They will be looking here for a lead. They will look to the Oireachtas to make a start if there is to be any relief from taxation, and I believe that if there is to be any relief of taxation it should start at the top. Otherwise the Minister and this House will be unable to make recommendations when the necessity may become more urgent than it is now. They will be able to make no recommendations that will carry weight with the people unless they make a beginning here themselves and face facts. I do suggest that the allowance for Senators can be reduced, and that Deputies can carry on with what they have at the present time without any increase.

Having regard to the condition of the people down through the country, it looks to me as if this meant that we are coming to the winding-up of the State; that this is a winding-up of the State and that everybody is going to get what they can from the spoils. That is really what the farmers think it is coming to. Perhaps the Minister does not understand the situation, but I am surprised that those Deputies who come from rural districts do not tell him what the difficulties are down the country and what are the problems and difficulties that the people down the country have to face. As I say, the Minister may not understand the situation, although I am surprised that he does not, but, if he does understand it, he should consider that the burden of taxation must be lightened, that he must begin somewhere, and that, when his Budget comes in again, he can say, "Well, at least we have not increased taxation," for the first time since they came into power. In conclusion, I wish to express my thanks to the Minister and my appreciation of his kind consideration in offering us this increased allowance, but none the less I have to say that I am prepared to vote and work against it in so far as I can.

Mr. Belton

I am opposing this Bill. I have not heard any argument that would convince me to vote for the Bill, even if I were ignorant of the conditions in the country, and even if I were ignorant of the fact, disclosed to every man and woman in this country who wants to think, and to think patriotically, that we in this country are facing a financial crisis. If the report of the Banking Commission disclosed anything, it disclosed that. Deputy McGovern, in his closing remarks, painted a rather vivid picture of how the country will look on our action here to-day when he said that it seems like a winding-up sale and that we are endeavouring to collar all the swag we can. That is what it looks like. Jibes have been thrown across the floor here to the effect that, if you don't want the increase, don't take it. My retort to that is that, if you are losing money, well, then, stay at home—resign—and you will find a thousand others to fill your place, people as good as you are or as good as I am.

A Deputy

Probably better than you.

Mr. Belton

Probably—but I do not put as high a valuation on myself as the Deputy. He wants an increase of £120. I do not. Let us survey the position. If an election were sprung on the country in the morning, not one of those who vote for this measure would stand down; they would all be going around to their cumainn to get delegates to vote for them. I do not say that that is their prime object in wanting to become Deputies, but if there were any bite in the argument they have been using here, namely, that they cannot afford to be Deputies, and that they have been losing money here— well, all I can say is that, if men who have been here for ten or 15 years have been losing money every year by being here, they must have had a terrible lot of money when they started. Who won the war in this country? The people won it. When certain people tried to start a little private war of their own, and the people did not support them, they lost that war, but the unfortunate people had to pay for both wars. The people provided the commissariat of the army that was fighting to keep out the invader, and provided the necessary sinews of war, and they have not got much appreciation of that sacrifice since, and what we have before us now is not an appreciation of it.

Then we had face-saving to a great extent. We had this country plunged into an economic war in 1932. I am not going to go back on past history. I am a farmer, the son of a farmer, and all belonging to me were farmers, but I am not going to burden this House with the woes of the farmers. I say, as a man who has done as much, and perhaps more, to organise farming opinion in this country as any other man in the country, and as a man who has spent more of my time and money than any man in this country in organising farming opinion here, that the farmers are getting what they asked for. They voted for the economic war, and I am afraid there were selfish motives behind their action. They thought they would get out of having to pay their annuities altogether, but they got a rude awakening; and the people who told them that they would provide industries here have one industry working in every county now, and that is the sheriff's industry.

That economic war had to be borne by the agricultural industry. I say, the agricultural industry—not the farmers, but the agricultural industry. In speaking nationally, we should not be concerned with classes, but with the industries that keep up the nation. The brunt of that economic war had to be borne by the agricultural industry. They had to pay the land annuities three or four times. They lost their market. Their wares were hawked around Europe. Now, they realise what they should have realised in the beginning, and what I believe they did realise, that there is only one market for our produce, and we have come back to that. There is no need for Roscrea now. There is no need for Barcelona now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think it would be a very good idea if the Deputy kept to the Bill before the House. Neither the economic war nor Roscrea has any reference to this Bill.

Mr. Belton

I submit, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that they have a reference to the economic state of the country.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Well, a passing reference in that way is no harm.

Mr. Belton

Well, I am passing away from it now. Last spring this economic war was brought to an abrupt conclusion. Why? Because we could not carry on any further. I challenge the Minister for Finance, when he is replying, to contradict that statement.

Mr. Meaney

The people spoke about that before.

Mr. MacEntee

I will stick to the Bill.

Mr. Belton

It was brought to an abrupt conclusion then, and the unfortunate people who were expecting some relief were called upon to foot a loan of £10,000,000 to pay a debt which we were told was not due. £10,000,000 was taken out of the savings of this country, and now the loss of working capital here is producing tremendous unemployment at the present time, and nowhere so much as in Dublin City and County. The money which is required to carry on the social services, particularly housing, in Dublin City and County, is conspicuous by its absence at the present time. Why? Because this had to be scooped out of the common pool that was here for the social services. Our national income has declined. Any analysis that you attempt to make of the national position now as compared with what it was five or ten years ago will show that the position now is much worse than it was then. In the face of those conditions it is proposed that we here should vote to raise our own salaries. A taunt was thrown across this House that certain actions of labour unions were responsible for increasing prices in certain industries. Surely, if those people who went out on strike had the power, by a simple vote of their own, to increase their wages there would have been no strike. They would simply increase their wages and pass on. We are in the happy position now that by a vote of this House we can increase our own salaries, and we want the people outside to believe that it is virtuous for us to do it. Well, let us do it, and let the people outside pass judgment on it.

I agree, too, with the point made by Deputy McGovern that Senators should not get an allowance of £360 a year. Does it not come strange from the Minister for Finance, who made points a couple of years ago about the saving that we would have if we abolished the Seanad, and taunted those who voted for the retention of the Second House with wanting to spend the people's money on a Chamber that was useless? The more we analyse this proposal to increase our salaries, the more we realise the hypocrisy of the whole thing. I agree that the amount itself, in itself, is not a great lot. I also agree that, if a Deputy does his job well, he earns every penny he gets, but if we all had done our jobs well, if we all had shown independence of mind and character, a lot of the humbug which has gone on for the last decade would not have gone on, and we would have a more prosperous State to-day. But the poverty of the State to-day has been produced by the Deputies who formed the Parliament of this country for the last ten years, and by their fruits we shall judge them. The national wealth of this country, which is less to-day than it was ten years ago, does not provide a sufficient margin to increase the salaries of the Deputies who were responsible for the diminution of that national wealth. I had no hesitation in supporting the measure which was before us yesterday in regard to Ministers and ex-Ministers, who had whole-time jobs, and were called upon to make more than the average efforts in filling those positions. I think that even though they may have filled them for only three years they are entitled to consideration from the community. I agree with every word said by the Minister for Finance in winding-up yesterday. A man who is called upon to be a Minister of this State for a number of years should not, nor should his family, be beholden to anybody when they vacate that office, for whatever reason, but it is different in the case of Deputies. I do not want to labour the subject any further nor take up the time of the House any longer, but if we could show a prosperous country to-day, if we could show that the national income is greater this year than last year or greater this year than five or six or ten years ago, we would be making a case for an advance in our allowances. If we cannot show that, we prove two things; first, that we are not worth an increase, and secondly, that the country cannot afford it.

Dr. O'Higgins

A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, having listened to this debate for the greater part of the evening, I am afraid that humbug did not entirely pass away with the last decade. When I first read this Bill my inclination was to oppose it. I have heard an amount of discussion in one place or another, and a number of arguments or alleged arguments against the Bill, and I do not mind confessing that the more I listened to the type of opposition that there is to it the more firmly I was convinced that there was justice in the Bill. Having listened with patience and attention to the speeches in opposition to the Bill to-day, I am firmly convinced that I am doing right in supporting the Bill. At least this can be said for those who have spoken in favour of the Bill, that they had made a case for the Bill and had justified their attitude in supporting it. But let us take the speeches in opposition to the Bill. We had a number of shrewd, clever, political speeches. We had a number of speeches that might be applicable to any Bill which proposed expenditure for any purpose. We had a contrast between times present and times past. We had a picture of the conditions of certain classes of the people, and we had an argument against increasing taxation by as much as the 1,000,000th part of a penny. If those same people were constantly on their feet in this Assembly, hour after hour, and night after night, then I would be more impressed than I am at the present moment by the sincerity behind their speeches.

We have had speeches in opposition to this Bill from a long sequence of comparatively wealthy people, and two very able and very honest speeches in favour of it by two comparatively poor Deputies. As a democrat, speaking in a democratic Chamber, I believe it is the point of view of the poorest people that has got to be considered, as to what is desirable in the Parliament, and not the point of view in the main of wealthy people. The committee that was set the task of investigating this particular measure did not report for, and did not report against. They stated that they had difficulty in arriving at a decision, because they were not quite certain whether £30 a month was to be regarded strictly as an allowance, or partially as a salary; that if it was to be regarded as a salary or, in any degree, payment, then it was entirely inadequate. I am candid enough to face up to this, that the allowance or income that each one of us gets as a Deputy should properly be regarded as a kind of mixture, partly payment, and partly allowance, to meet out-of-pocket expenditure. The view of the committee was that if it was to be reckoned in any regard as compensation for time, labour and attention, then it was entirely inadequate. One would imagine, after listening to some of the speeches this evening, that the principle that is here, or the practice of making any financial allowance to Deputies or members of a Parliament, was somewhat corrupt, something criminal. Deputies that protest against the extra £10 a month, to my mind, at all events, never expressed or showed any reluctance to taking £30. If there is anything corrupt in the increase, there is equal corruption in the previous 30 pieces of silver.

Let us be honest. It is politically attractive to oppose this Bill. There is immense political temptation to oppose a Bill of this kind, and there is a feeling at the back of the minds of many that they will make sure of the £30, rather than come to grief by supporting any more. I prefer to listen to the voice of courageous, honest, comparatively poor Deputies like Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Keyes. The wealthier Deputies should consider the position of poorer colleagues. Some of us, by virtue of wealth, others by virtue of a particular trade or profession that we follow, are possessors of cars. It does not mean very much to those who possess a car to have to go from the heart of their constituency to the periphery, in perhaps two or three different directions, in order to interview constituents or to look into a case. But do we consider the position of a poorer Deputy, who gets perhaps five letters one morning from people in different directions, and who has no car? He has got to hire a car to go and interview each of these, or else neglect his job, or neglect constituents who are looking to him for advice. Do you think the Dáil would not be doing the proper work of a democratic State, by examining and inquiring into the difficulties of a person who is as representative of his supporters as any of us, by enabling him more adequately and more competently to look after his job, and keeping up more constant contact with his constituents?

Having listened to speeches here one would imagine that the only representatives of Irish farmers were a bunch of people in the Dáil. Every Deputy coming from a rural constituency represents just as many farmers as any other Deputy. Some may batten more successfully on the label, but every Deputy from a rural constituency represents as many farmers as any other Deputy, and when we endeavour to give more adequate representation to farmers, if the case is as poor and as hard as was suggested, then the first step towards alleviating it, and bringing every Deputy more in contact with all his constituents, is to see that the wheels are put under every Deputy, so that he can move around with greater speed, with greater ease, and with less financial worry and distress to himself. Then the case made will rapidly become clear, and something really worth while will be done speedily. I rarely find myself in agreement with Deputy Corry but, if there is a very pronounced conscientious objection, on the ground of high principle, to this appalling extra burden, which it is proposed to place on the backs of the taxpayers, then, I think, in all seriousness, it should be met by some clause, as in a previous Bill dealing with Ministers, and that the extra allowance should only be paid on application.

I would think it rather drastic if the Parliament in this country was to step in brutally and ruthlessly between any Deputy and his conscience, and that by a vote of this House we were to force any high-principled, clean-souled Deputy to do anything that horrified his conscience. I think a case of that kind should be met, and should be seriously considered, and unquestionably the way to meet it is to put a clause into this Bill, similar to the one in the other Bill, to the effect that this particular extra allowance should only be made after application. That would consider the position of every Deputy. Some, apparently, do not consider it is worth as much as others, but if any Deputy puts a smaller valuation on himself and on his services than on that of his colleagues, then I would always cater for that type of mentality, provided it is honestly urged. But I suggest to the Dáil that it is not a matter of principle. The principle has been generally accepted in this country and by practically every democracy, of paying a financial allowance to members of Parliament.

As the poorer classes of people became better organised, and when the poorer classes of people began to demand and expect representation, then one democratic country after the other adopted the principle of financial provision for members of Parliament. That principle has been generally accepted. That principle was accepted by every Deputy when he cashed his first cheque for £30. That being so, there is a responsibility on the Dáil now to decide in the light of 15 years' experience whether the allowance fixed back in 1923, when there were fewer Deputies here and those few were inexperienced, was adequate or otherwise. If, in the opinion and in the experience of the poorest Deputy it is inadequate, then the Dáil as a whole would be lacking in courage because of political unpopularity if they refused to be guided by that experience.

This country has had a long political history. Members functioned in outside Parliaments and here in our Parliament, and I challenge any Deputy, no matter what his views on this Bill may be, to point even to one man in that long history who has grown wealthy out of politics. Any of us can count by the score those that were financially broken and left destitute through their political activities and their services to the public. We cannot prevent that, but we can slow up the pace. I have heard Deputies of this Party, and useful Deputies of this Party, tell us fair and straight that they could not afford to continue in politics, that it was not fair to their families. I have heard it remarked here to-day by one speaker that if there was a general election to-morrow you would have every Deputy scrambling to be nominated again. I wonder how much experience that speaker had of that. Some of us at least know this, that as times become quieter and the demands of the constituents become more persistent, every political organisation has very great difficulty at every election—certainly for the last six years —in getting Deputies to stand again. Every one of the Parties has that difficulty. That should not be so. If those Deputies previously enjoyed the confidence of the electorate, and if, at the previous election, the electors considered that so-and-so was the most worthy man to represent them, then certainly the allowance made should not be of such a nature as to deprive the people of a representative in whom they had confidence.

This particular Bill has been discussed rather freely and without any Party control. Deputies have pointed out the difficulties of carrying on with the present allowance. Any Deputy can carry on, it is true, if he merely comes up to Dáil Eireann, goes home when the Dáil is not sitting, and attends to his profession, business or trade, and does no travelling within his constituency. Under proportional representation the constituencies are very considerably larger than in countries where there is no proportional representation. Before we lie down under a charge that we are doing something corrupt we have to take a picture from countries somewhat similar to our own. We have to take a picture from the Parliament, we will say, of Great Britain, or Australia, or Canada, or South Africa—real democracies as pure as ourselves, with representatives as patriotically clean as anyone in this House; none of the Assemblies made up of corrupt people or grafters; countries whose standard of life generally is similar to our own, where they have poor people just as we have—and examine the allowances made in those countries—£700, £800, £1,000. Yet you have Deputies sufficiently blind to stand up and hurl a charge at a colleague because he argues that the measure of the allowance should be the measure of the poorest man and not the measure of the wealthiest. The poorest people in every land were in a nice position when the Parliaments of countries were the monopoly and the hunting-ground only of the immensely rich, before the doors were opened to the ordinary plain poor person who had the confidence of his fellow-men and women. If there are hard cases in this country, and there are many, you will not alleviate their hardship by making it possible only for the wealthy man or the young enthusiast to come in here to Dáil Eireann to represent the cases of the people.

Deputy Linehan made a speech against this Bill—I have no doubt he had examined the Bill before he made it—a clever young man and an able man, and, I believe, a sincere speech. If he made that speech ten years hence, when he knows his way better from the letter-box of this Assembly, I would be more impressed. Any of us when we were here 12 months, before the real demand became clear on our time and on our attention, before all the constituents began to know of us and demand our attention, could subscribe to the principles and the theories of Deputy Linehan. But I would prefer in a case such as this to be guided by the long experience of a Deputy like Deputy Morrissey, and I believe the Dáil would be well-advised to listen to the voices of Deputies, such as Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Keyes, before they pronounce judgment on a Bill such as this, and that consideration must be given to the position of the poorest rather than listen to the arguments of the richest on such a Bill.

Mr. Cogan

I rise to oppose this Bill I oppose it mainly on the ground that the time is inopportune to increase the salaries or allowances of Deputies. I hold that, in the present economic condition of the country, it is not only unjust and unreasonable but, to a considerable extent, dangerous to proceed with this Bill. Deputies must remember that the people are passing through a very severe economic crisis and that there is a widespread feeling of discontent amongst them. I do not think that a measure of this kind is likely to allay that feeling of discontent. It is more likely to promote it than to allay it. The feeling amongst the majority of the people is that this is not an impartial or disinterested body to deal with a subject of this kind. This is, possibly, the one measure upon which this Assembly cannot pronounce impartially or disinterestedly. It is a difficult and invidious measure so far as the House is concerned. Some other means should be found to deal with questions of this kind than submitting them to the House for consideration. I think that measures of this type should be submitted directly to the citizens of the State. We all know that if increases of salaries, or wages, were left to the determination of the employees in any industry, the decision would hardly be regarded as disinterested or impartial. The same feeling must prevail throughout the country in regard to this measure. The people will not regard the decision of the House as absolutely impartial. If this Bill is passed, I ask the Minister, before it is finally enacted, to have it submitted to a referendum so that the people can decide upon the issue. They will be, at least, disinterested and absolutely impartial.

It is impossible for an ordinary member of this House to approach this question from an absolutely detached or disinterested standpoint. Members of this House are all human beings. It may be hard on some members to have to admit that they are not a choir of angels who are just marooned here for a short time. Nevertheless, we are ordinary human beings, with the feelings and faults of human beings. It is very hard, for example, for a Deputy who is in financial difficulties to approach this question from an absolutely impartial standpoint. It is hard for him to put out of his reach a considerable sum of money which might go a long distance towards relieving him in his financial difficulties. Deputies may say that I am establishing a case for the Bill by admitting that there may be, and probably are, a considerable number of Deputies who are in financial difficulties. We have got to remember, however, that these members may be in financial difficulties as a result not of their being members of this House but of other circumstances. Nearly every member of this House is engaged in private enterprise, such as farming, commerce, or manufacture. These are enterprises in which there is a certain amount of risk and any member may find himself in financial difficulties as a result of engaging in them. The fact that he finds himself in financial difficulties in that way does not establish a case for increasing his allowance, though it offers a very strong temptation to the Deputy concerned to decide in favour of the increase. This is particularly true in regard to farmers. Their occupation is not one which leaves a very big margin of profit in normal times. In normal times, farming is usually carried on at a loss and most farmers, even though they may be members of this House, have been carrying on farming at a considerable loss for the past few years. It is very hard for Deputies in that position to decide against this measure. For the reason that the plain people of the country will not regard this House as being absolutely disinterested or impartial on this question, a decision taken in favour of the Bill will be received with a certain amount of distrust.

A good deal has been said about the small amount involved in the Bill. I do not agree that the amount is so small when we take into consideration the consequences of the measure. It will be increasingly difficult for members of this House to resist the appeals made by servants of the State for increased allowances or to resist the appeals made for increased pensions if this measure is given effect. Every servant of the State will have a lever to support his claim for an increased allowance or an increased pension and that will have the effect of materially increasing expenditure. There is a more serious aspect of this Bill than the amount of money which it will involve. That is the demoralising effect which it will have upon the public life of the country. Those who are engaged in administering the affairs of the country and of representing the people in this House will be accused of being out mainly to improve their own financial position. That feeling, once established, will do a considerable amount of harm to the public life of the country. People of high ideals and high spirit will be deterred from entering public life. They will be told that they are out simply to get a share of the public expenditure. If allowed to grow, or if encouraged by the passing of a Bill of this kind, that feeling will do more harm than the amount of money involved in this measure. For those reasons I am opposing the Bill. The people should be given a lead in facing the serious economic difficulties which they are called upon to face at present. The people who are making the laws and those who are responsible for the government of the country should give a lead to the plain people and say that the condition under which the country is labouring requires considerable sacrifice on the part of every citizen. We as representatives of the people should be prepared to give a lead by making certain sacrifices in carrying out our duties as representatives.

I have not much experience of this House, and I think it would be regarded as an impertinence on my part if I were to assert that the allowance at present being paid to Deputies is adequate. On that question I cannot express any opinion, but I do know that the allowance is not sufficiently inadequate to warrant the passing of a measure of this kind at a time when the country is in its present impoverished condition. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not repeat the statement which he made in regard to the other Bill yesterday, that this measure has been before the people for a considerable time. As a matter of fact, this Bill has taken the people completely by surprise. It has even taken Deputies completely by surprise, particularly Deputies on these benches. I think in fairness to the people they should be allowed to express their views upon this measure by having a direct vote taken on it.

Mr. Moran

I want briefly to put forward my reasons to this House for giving my support to this Bill. My experience as a Deputy in this House has been very short but, short as it has been, I have reason to know that the allowance made to Deputies is not, in my opinion and from my experience, sufficient. I speak as one who has been a very short time in the House, but I speak also as a member who has not been dependent upon the allowance paid to Deputies. For that reason, I feel all the more free to speak with an open mind on this question. I think, as has been stressed by some speakers here to-day, that it is essential, if we are to have clean public life in this country, that the doors of this House should be open to every and any individual in this country in whom the people place confidence and that that individual, no matter what his position in life is, no matter what his financial circumstances may be, when he finds himself elected to this House, should be in a position to discharge his duties as a member of this House satisfactorily and without financial embarrassment. I cannot understand the reasons which actuate people who supported the Bill yesterday, when speaking to-day or voting to-day against this Bill, because if there was a case made for the Ministerial Bill yesterday, then, a fortiori, there is a case for the Bill at present before the House.

I think, whatever criticisms may have been directed against the Bill that was before the House yesterday afternoon, that the position of a Deputy is much worse from a financial point of view, or the point of view of expense than the position of a Minister, in this respect, that the Deputy has to go amongst the people. He has to be in continual touch with the people and, as every Deputy in this House will realise, that involves a certain amount of expense. All the time he is the channel between the individual and the State Department. His duties are countless. He has to go around to look at bog roads and take particulars from everybody in his constituency who is looking for an old age pension or for anything from a State Department. If he fulfils his duty as a Deputy, that does not mean, as has been pointed out here, that he is merely to attend for a couple of days in this House. If he fulfils his duties properly, he will have to spend almost the whole week here, interviewing Departments and trying to do the best he can for his constituents.

I also know that there is no comparison between other countries and this country as far as the position of Deputies or members of Parliament is concerned. Even though the amounts paid to members of Parliament, say in England, are much greater, their duties as representatives are not nearly so onerous, nor have they nearly so many things to do as Deputies in this country. They are not in touch with the people in the same way as Deputies are here. So far as I know, many members of the British Parliament, or other Parliaments, are never concerned with the ordinary things, the little everyday things such as occur in our constituencies. They are not concerned with old-age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions, or bog roads. As a matter of fact, they may not have to visit their constituencies twice in the whole year. I think, owing to our unique position, our circumstances are very different from those of members of other Parliaments. Their conditions afford no criterion, and certainly, from the point of view of salary, their position is much better than ours here.

I wonder how much of the opposition to the Bill before the House is real, and how much feigned? I think there is much to be said for the suggestion made by Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Corry, that there should be some provision in this Bill—as there was in the Bill yesterday—that Deputies should not get this increase unless they applied for it. That provision would get shut of a lot of the suggestions that had been made here. I think if that provision were included in the present Bill, we would find that many of the Deputies who got up to take political advantage of this proposal, would soon retract the expressions of patriotism which we have heard here to-day. Some Deputies suggested that owing to the taxation of this country this is the wrong time to bring forward a measure of this kind. Surely, one of the first duties of our State, and one of the first concerns of our State should be——

Mr. Gorey

To look after yourselves.

Mr. Moran

——to see that public life is kept clean, and to see that public representatives are put in such a position that they will not even be tempted —I would not go so far as to say that they should be put in the same position as judges—but that they would not be open to any temptation or bribery, or anything of that kind.

Mr. Hickey

How can you expect an unemployed man to be honest, then?

Mr. Moran

We know what happens in some modern countries. Take America to-day. The position of public representatives in some of the States in America is a common joke. Politics there has become synonymous with graft. I think that it would be a very good thing not alone to bring Deputies' allowances to a proper level, but even to provide better travelling expenses for representatives on local authorities. You would then probably get a better type of man to interest himself in local affairs, and a better type anxious to enter public life.

There have been some sneering references here to-day as to the Government's making pensions available for certain people in the Fianna Fáil Party, and one Deputy mentioned that the train in which he came up here was full of people coming up to draw pensions. It was suggested that, in view of all the pensions being paid to-day, the country could not afford to pay this extra few thousand pounds to Deputies. I think that any reference to those pensions, which obviously are references to the I.R.A. pensions being paid at present, comes very badly from any Deputy, because it must be obvious to everybody that, but for the sacrifices of these men, neither I, nor any other Deputy, would be sitting in an Irish Parliament to-day. That suggestion, particularly in view of the way it was made, is one that should not be made here. If the people who made those suggestions to-day in opposition to the Bill want to vote against it, they are quite entitled to do so, and they are also quite entitled to go down the country and gain whatever political kudos they wish from their attitude. I hope, however, that the Minister will accept the proposition made by other speakers that the increase will be left free to every individual to draw if he wishes.

Mr. T. Burke

I came up from County Clare with the full intention of opposing this measure and the measure before us yesterday. We, in County Clare, made up our minds that I, as representing the people, should vote against this increased salary and it is no hypocrisy on my part to vote against it. I have been on public boards for about 32 years and I have never yet voted for an increase of salary on any of those boards. I am not going to do it now, even when it touches myself. I want no political precedent because of that, either. I will do what I fully intend to do and give satisfaction to nobody.

Mr. Brennan

I am supporting the Bill and I make no apology to anybody for doing so. If I wanted to make a case against it, I would make a totally different case from that which any Deputy here has endeavoured to make. I would try to show, firstly, that £360 per annum was adequate and, secondly, that £480 was too much. Not a single Deputy has tried to do that. It all boils down to a question of whether Deputies should be paid their expenses at all. It is a question of justice. If they should be paid their expenses, it is a matter for the judgment of the House as to whether £360 is sufficient or not. The case has been made that the present time, when the farmers are badly off, is inopportune. I am a farmer and I have to sell my stock and farm produce with the farmers who are badly off. I have to lose there. Do the farmers in my constituency expect me also to lose here? I think that is very inconsistent. I am one of the people who never believed that two wrongs make a right. If the farmers are losing—and I am one of them who has lost and is losing—it does not make the matter any better for them that I am also losing here. The farmer in this House who says that the farmers are losing, and who comes in and says that he is prepared and able to lose here, is taking the ground from under his own feet.

I have been ten years in this House, and I speak from experience, and I say that the one thing a Deputy can accumulate, while he is a Deputy, is debts. He certainly cannot accumulate riches or prosperity. Even if I were prepared to make a sacrifice, and I took my share of sacrifices when they were going and when sacrifices had to be made, is it fair to my wife and family? I have my responsibilities. Am I justified in coming in here and frittering away the means of my wife and family in doing so? I am not. What the people who are opposed to this ought to bend their minds to is this simple question of justice: Do the people expect us to come here and be at a loss? They do not, and I tell the people who oppose this Bill, and who are possibly putting themselves in the position of appearing to make a sacrifice in coming here, that the people will not believe a blessed word of it. Deputies are as well off in standing up and saying what is the truth, namely, that they are coming here at a loss.

Deputy Linehan said he does not know of any Deputy who would be able to put himself right with his conscience, or with the people down the country, in supporting this Bill. My opinion of the people down the country is that they do not know what our expenses are, or whether we gain or lose. They believe that we gain and, in fact, they believe that the position of Deputy is a gainful occupation. I think it is time we told them it is not. If you tell them once, as I have been telling them for the past ten years— and I am not going to make a liar of myself now—you educate them, and that is the best thing to do. Let us be straight about the whole thing. It has been suggested that a sum of £14,000 does not matter. Then what are we talking about? What is all the bother about?

I want to criticise the Bill in a certain respect, that is, the provision in regard to travelling facilities. I have always felt that the system in regard to the provision of travelling facilities was a cumbersome and awkward scheme. This business of having to get vouchers could, in my view, be met in another way which would be much more satisfactory to everybody. In the stress and turmoil of my own business I find it very difficult sometimes to remember to bring a voucher home with me, with the result that I have no voucher to travel back. I think Deputies ought to be supplied with a railway and bus pass. It is quite a common thing in other countries, and I think it could be very easily arranged with the railway company instead of the scheme we have in Section 4 of the Bill. It ought to be a quite easy matter for the Minister to say to the railway Company: "Now, you know what you have got from the Central Fund over the last three years to meet the travelling expenses of Deputies; take an average of that, and we will pay you a lump sum and for that lump sum let our Deputies travel over your railways and on your buses anywhere they want to go to." If the railway company agreed to that they would not lose anything by it. If I were a railway director I would go all out for that arrangement. My own experience, and I am sure it has been the experience of other Deputies who have been using their private cars, is that very often we give lifts to friends and others travelling in the same direction as ourselves: to people who ordinarily would be railway passengers. I would be glad if the Minister would take this opportunity of systematising this in some shape or form instead of having the present awkward and cumbersome scheme.

There is another matter which, perhaps, would arise more appropriately on the Committee Stage of the Bill, but it may be no harm if I draw the Minister's attention to it now. It is with regard to travelling facilities. I refer to the provisions in Section 4 for Deputies living outside their constituencies. This was a matter that needed to be rectified. Heretofore, Deputies living outside their constituencies were not provided with facilities between Dublin and their homes. I am glad to see that is being rectified. Further, in the case of Deputies living outside their constituencies, provision is to be made for them in future when travelling inside any part of their constituencies. In connection with that, I would put this case to the Minister. You have two Deputies for the same constituency. One is living immediately outside the constituency, say outside a bridge which is the boundary. He will be entitled to get expenses from the State any time he travels inside his constituency, while the other man, who lives in the constituency, will not be entitled to draw expenses. I live only five miles from the Galway border, so that if I want to avail of this provision, all that I have to do is to go and live in the County Galway. I can then have all my expenses paid while travelling over my constituency in the County Roscommon. I have no intention of doing that. I wonder if it is the Minister's intention to do what I have said. I do not think it is. I hope, as I have said, that the Minister will avail of this opportunity to put this matter of travelling expenses on a proper basis. I do not think that the system outlined in this Bill is a good one.

Mr. Fagan

I intend to vote against the Bill because I conscientiously believe this is not the time for raising salaries when the farmers and poor people of the country are in such a bad condition. Our Party has left this to a free vote. I did not think that those of us who propose to vote against the Bill would be publicly insulted in this House by Deputy Doctor O'Higgins when he said that there will be Deputies voting against it who know in their hearts and souls that it will be passed. I repeat that I am voting against it from conscientious motives. It is not long since I heard the Minister for Agriculture say here that he would be ready to do something to help the farmers if he could convince the Minister for Finance to give him the requisite sum of money. Here we are now with this Bill while numbers of farmers throughout the country are almost out of the door. Within the last few days I brought ten or twelve sale notices from the Land Commission to the offices of the Land Commission. I can honestly say that the farmers concerned are not able to pay their rents. I must say that I was fairly met by the Land Commission and was able to make bargains for them with a view to helping them. You have numbers of farmers through the country who have no stock on their land. The Agricultural Credit Corporation when approached in a few cases said that it was impossible to lend money to the farmers concerned: that it was not loans they wanted, but grants. The case of a man and his wife in a labourer's cottage was brought to my notice a few weeks ago. The man, who has been ill for the last two or three weeks, is getting 7/6 a week insurance money. His wife is delicate at the present time. He asked me to try and get them a few shillings a week home assistance. They were told that they would have to live on the 7/6 a week. What must people in their circumstances think of people here increasing their salaries? Deputy Brennan mentioned that he is a farmer and is badly off, but he is making sure now that he will be well off. The poor farmer living next door to him is also badly off, and has no hope of getting assistance.

Mr. Brennan

I can give him some of the £120.

Mr. Fagan

Deputy O'Higgins mentioned that he would put in an amendment to the effect that those who did not want the additional £10 a month need not draw it. I am prepared to say here openly that if the £10 increase is passed it can be sent to the sheriff's office to meet the case of some deserving poor farmer against whom the execution of a warrant is pending.

Mr. Brodrick

I intend to vote for the Bill. I do not want to give a silent vote on it. There has been a good deal of talk on the Bill, particularly from these benches. One of our members representing, I believe, Waterford, said that we should continue on making sacrifices. Those who talk about making sacrifices now had the opportunity of making them at a time when some of us on these benches and on the Government Benches were making sacrifices. It is easy to talk about making sacrifices now. We made them when they were called for.

We are all agreed that a Deputy cannot do the work required of him on the present allowance. That has been my experience during the 15 or 16 years that I have been a member of the House. If Deputies had been in closer touch with their constituents during the last five or six years the economic war, that there has been so much talk about, would have ended a good deal earlier than it did. But Deputies, like Minister of the Government, have been out of touch with their constituents, because they had not the means to go around to meet them. I have tried to do the best I could during the time I have been a member of the House. When I was first elected we had a House of 153, to-day the number is 138. I believe there is much more work to be done here to-day than there was 15 or 16 years ago. I agree with the statement made by the Taoiseach at the ArdFheis that it is the duty of Deputies to meet their constituents oftener than they do. That is their job. I say that any man who wants to do his job well must have a motor car.

I would remind some Deputies that on two occasions, on the Vote for this Department, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance asked for the co-operation of members on the matter of the need of relief work in their constituencies. I would like to know what sort of response his request met with from Deputies. I imagine it was not very much, the reason being that Deputies were not in a position to go round to meet their constituents to ascertain what their needs were in the matter of relief works. Within the past year a circular was addressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to every Deputy asking him for particulars as to the works needed in his constituency. That was to ascertain what useful works were needed in order to relieve unemployment in each particular constituency in Eire. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how many replies he got from the 138 Deputies or, leaving out the Ministers and the Secretaries, 120 Deputies?

Mr. Dillon

I asked him to-day to do one and he would not do it.

Mr. Brodrick

That was 12 months after. However, if we look back on it, the reason why these replies were not sent in would be interesting. We are prepared to criticise the Government. Certainly they need criticism; all Governments do. The reason why the Parliamentary Secretary did not get the replies is that if we are to do the work we were elected to do, we have got to be in close touch with our constituents, and remember it costs quite a lot of money to go round visiting each part of the constituency. I have heard it said here by Deputies—I suppose that applies to Parties on both sides of the House—that they never yet replied to a letter from their constituents. Is a Deputy of that kind worth £360 a year?

I certainly support this Bill. I have now been 15 years in this House and I know what it costs to attend here. I know when I was an ordinary back bencher, when my Party were in office, that the postage alone averaged 15/- a week. Then in order to deal with correspondence as a back bencher, I had to employ a typist. It is all right for Deputy Belton to come along here and tell us, who have been losing money here for 15 years, that we are to vote against this Bill. It is all right for Deputy Belton to come along at 4 o'clock after his day's work is done, reaching the House on a twopenny tram. It is a very different matter in the case of Deputies who come from Connemara, Donegal and Kerry. Many of them have to leave home the day before the Dáil sits. They are here from Tuesday to Friday, and most of these Deputies do not get back home until Saturday.

I also know what it is to be in business. I find after 15 years here that I would be much better off in my own particular business if I never became a member of this House. Certainly I would have very much less worry. All these years I have been trying to attend to my own business and to the public business. It is certainly a very difficult job. Were it not for the help that I have got in getting my correspondence done for me I would not be able to continue it. We have people coming along here talking about the state of the country and the position the people are in at the present time. I refer to Deputies like Deputy W. J. Broderick of Waterford. Two years ago certainly would have been the time to make that speech. We want representation for the people in this country. To represent the people we must have good workers, and unless these workers are paid well the work cannot be well done. This increase in the allowances of Deputies amounts to about £14,000 per annum. I do think that if this Bill is passed and the Deputies accept that increase of £120 a year the people will certainly have much better service and much better government.

Captain Giles

This Bill is one which I would have voted against on its merits. But, having been here for the last two hours, and having listened to the different speeches, particularly the speeches of the less wealthy Deputies, I have come to the conclusion that I will vote for it. I am myself a farmer Deputy. I represent a county where there is great distress. I consider that if I am to be of any use to those people who are in great distress, it is my duty to get around to help them, day after day and night after night. The present allowance given to me will not allow me to do these things. The result is that I am not in a position to meet these people, and to call around to them as often as I would wish. I am only 12 months a member of this House. When I was elected, I believed that £1 a day was a very handsome allowance. But now I find I have to keep a motor car in order to attend county council meetings and the meetings of other public bodies. I have to call on different Departments of State on behalf of my constituents. I find that, instead of saving money on my allowance, I have to spend some of my own money. I made sacrifices year after year in the fight for our own Government. I lay in prison in the course of that fight. To-day we have a Parliament of our own, a Parliament responsible to our own people, a Parliament for the direction of the affairs of the country. We are sent here to represent the people. I say that the few pounds which we are asked to-day to vote to help Deputies to carry on their work will not break this nation.

A worthy Deputy is worth a good salary. There are Deputies crying out against this Bill, and I take it some of them are sincere, but a good many who are speaking against it are not sincere. I know that there are active Deputies in the House, and there are also Deputies who give very little service. I myself give all the services I can to every constituent, whether he is a supporter or a political opponent, whether he is rich or poor. I have always believed in doing that. The people of my county elected me and gave me responsibility because they believed I was a good man, and it is my duty to do the best I can for them. I am satisfied that the allowances we have been getting up to the present are not adequate. I want nothing from the State funds to help me. All I want is that the allowances given be adequate to the needs of the Deputies. I believe the allowance we will get will be used for the good of the people and for the good of the State in general, and that it will enable us to do our work more efficiently.

I am not one of those who are afraid of the public. I faced them before. I did not want to be in public life. But the people asked me to stand for them. To-morrow morning, if the people do not want me I do not want any longer to remain in public life. I am not afraid nor ashamed to stand up and defend this Bill in the same way as I voted for the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Bill yesterday. I was not afraid to vote for that Bill. I voted for it for the reason that I did not want to see in hunger and destitution the relatives of worthy men of this House, men who spent their lives in working for the people. As one who was a colleague of these great men I would feel it to be the meanest act of my life if I had voted against yesterday's Bill. I would do nothing to injure the relatives of these men. I voted for it solely because I was doing a good turn to people who deserved a good turn from this State. If I wanted to be popular in my county I should vote against this Bill, but I want to be honest, straight and sincere, as I know every man should be. I am voting for it knowing full well that I am going to get plenty of hostility from people who are, perhaps, my best friends. But, be that as it may, it is my duty to be straight, and I believe that if the people are to get the best service from their T.D.s, then the T.D.s must be placed in the position to give that service. There is no person in this country, rich or poor, who expects any man, now that the administration of the State is in our hands, to work for the people and use the money out of his own pocket. If the people of the State want men to serve them, they will have to pay for them; if they do not, then they can do otherwise. Before the last general election there was talk of an increase of salaries and I certainly believed at the time that I would have voted against that, and I probably would have done so; but I observed that the people's eyes were open when they voted for Fianna Fáil very definitely and gave them a clear majority. That was after the Taoiseach and his leading Ministers, from public platforms, openly declared they were going to increase salaries. The people voted for them and by so voting they accepted certain responsibilities. That caused me to alter my opinion.

The principal reason I am voting for this Bill is that I heard the poorest Deputies in this House, the cottage type of men whom we are very proud to have amongst us and whom we all like to see here in the House, doing the nation's work, telling us that they are not able to do their work properly in their constituencies, that they cannot afford a motor car and they are unable to meet constituents in different parts of their counties because they cannot afford to pay the cost of travel. There are many here who can live without being T.D.s, but they must remember that some of our colleagues have to live on the £1 a day and it would be unfair to take from these men what they need to bring them around their constituencies and what they require to help the people who need their help.

I am voting for this measure because there are people here poorer than myself who need this additional allowance. I could easily vote against the Bill and I could easily do without the £10 increase each month; I can live on my private means without any consideration from the State, but there are people here who cannot do so and they have given long patriotic service. Those people desire that we should come to their help and enable them to give greater service to the State. For these various reasons I am voting for this measure.

Mr. Coburn

At this moment I do not find myself in the position of voting for the Bill. In saying that, I do not want to impugn the motives of those who say that they are prepared to vote for it. I am quite willing to give the credit to Deputies who have spoken in support of it that they are honest in their support. I hope and trust other Deputies will extend the same charity and consideration to those who are conscientiously opposing the Bill. Certain taunts have been flung across the floor by Deputies who seem to insinuate that those of us opposing the Bill are only doing it from the point of view of gaining political advantage. The suggestion is that we are voting against the Bill and at the same time praying to God that the Bill will pass. I can accept these taunts and I make Deputies a present of them. I am not one of those who are going to go down to their constituencies to make political capital out of these increased allowances to Deputies. In fact, I may candidly admit that all through my constituency I have not heard one word of criticism of this Bill.

I am not one of those in the habit of making political capital of the supposed wrongdoings of my political opponents. I always believe as a Deputy, and as one who understands his duty to the country, that it is my business to see to it that the Government gets every support, consistent with my position to safeguard the interests of the people whom I represent. There is no use in Deputies advising us not to be illogical and to take this £10. I have not asked for it. I have lived since 1927 with seven of a family on the £360 a year, and I do not owe £1 for my election expenses to any man in the Twenty-Six Counties.

I take my stand on this Bill purely and simply on a statement by the Taoiseach at the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis. It is a statement that I have made and have been making for the past 20 years, with this difference that when the opportunity arises I have the moral courage in public to say what I mean and to tell the people of this country what I mean; in other words, to call a spade a spade. I shall now read for the House the words used by the Taoiseach at the Ard-Fheis, words with which I entirely agree and the only words, when put into effect, that will have any effect in the solving of a problem which, at the moment, is the greatest problem that this or any other country is facing—that is, the problem of unemployment. I am not going to quote the whole statement; I will just give a short extract. "Could we," says the Taoiseach, "get the community generally to make a sacrifice, or the individual to make a sacrifice, too? Have that work done, but it has to be done, one way or another. It can only be solved by sacrifice by the community as a whole."

I base my opposition to this Bill on that one sentence. The words contained in that sentence I have stated, not yesterday, but for the last 20 years. I maintain that if you are going to make any progress in the solution to unemployment in this country, all the people have got to make a sacrifice. I may be taunted with being a hypocrite, but I can say that I have lived on my salary as a Deputy from 1927 to 1938 without earning one penny piece outside the £360 a year that the Dáil pays me. I can afford to smile at your taunts, at the taunts flung across the floor here. I am considering the position of thousands of people in this country who at the moment are on the verge of starvation. I am not going to twit or blame the Government with being responsible for that state of affairs.

I always held on the occasion of every general election that no Government could solve the unemployment problem, and I would not ask the Government here to solve it, because it would be an impossible thing unless they could have, as the Taoiseach has stated, the full co-operation of the people. The essential thing is to have the people prepared to make sacrifices. Is it not common sense? Do you not know that for the past 15 or 20 years we have been living here enjoying a standard of living which we reached by accident during the couple of years of the Great War, and since that war ended our income has come down practically to pre-war? I will put to you, as sensible men, this statement, which I have put to certain people who met under the auspices of an organisation called Muinntir na Tíre. When they were discussing the pros and cons of the many difficulties confronting the country, I said to them:—

"If you can prove to me how the people of this country can maintain a standard of living equal to that which prevailed during the Great War on a pre-war revenue, then you solve all the difficulties."

But until you recognise that fact, until you get the green field to keep up with the acquired taste of the people of this country, you are not going to make any appreciable inroads into the solution of the unemployment question. The Taoiseach never uttered truer words than the words he uttered yesterday when he said it must come one way or the other. It has got to be done, and it can only be done by the people as a whole making sacrifices.

I am not here to taunt or to twit the Minister for Finance with the introduction of this Bill. I do not want to gain political capital out of it. I have been elected on the occasion of every general election since 1927. I have told the people the truth in regard to many of the problems which to-day have not been solved and which you yourselves said you could solve. I am not going to twit you with that but I am here to state that I cannot conscientiously, with the knowledge that I have of the conditions of many thousands of people in this country and of their present position, take £10 or vote for £10 more to my salary—an increase of 33 1/3rd per cent.—even though, I suppose, I am the only member of this House that could conscientiously take it and say I could do with it. I could not do that with the knowledge that I have of the conditions of the people of this country.

It has been stated here that you have got to visit your people, that you have got to do this and every other thing and that you cannot do it without an increased salary. I am here to tell any Deputy that I know as much about the condition of my people and have done as much on the £360—just as much as I would do if I got £1,000 a year. It would be a poor thing for the world at large if the services a man gives in public or private were to be measured in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. We would not be to-day enjoying the fruits of the sufferings of many of the great scientists who went before us, who died in penury and poverty in order that they might invent something to mitigate the sufferings of humanity. If you come to the musical line, we would not be to-day enjoying the great works of Beethoven, that bring joy and gladness to the hearts of millions of our people, if these men had said to themselves "I will not do this work unless I am assured of good financial gain as a result of my work." It would be a poor world if we were to look at everything from the financial point of view. As I stated, I am opposing this Bill conscientiously and I am not finding fault with the members who are supporting it. I believe they are just as honest in their support of this Bill as I am in voting against it. Therefore, we can agree to differ and there is no use in the sneers or taunts being flung across this floor, and even from this side of the House, to which I have listened this evening. I can afford to treat them with the charity of silence, so to speak, and to tell this House that, as far as I am concerned, I am not prepared to support this Bill simply and solely from conviction, because, No. 1, it is a most inopportune time; No. 2, the taxation already on this country is more than the people of this country can afford to pay; No. 3, beyond and above all, because of that fixed principle—because of the opinion I have held, an opinion which has been so admirably put by the Taoiseach at yesterday's Ard-Fheis, that to solve the problem of unemployment it is absolutely essential that the nation as a whole must make sacrifices. That affects me perhaps very much more than any Deputy in this House because of my close connection with the men who form the trade unions of this country, because there are times when I have to cross swords possibly, and have done, with men when they are threatening to strike—not for 33 1/3rd per cent., but 5 per cent. Many a time, in the interests of the country, I have occasion to advise them to hasten slowly, to be prudent and not to do anything that possibly might make their latter position worse than the position that existed before they came out on strike. I have got to consider these things. I have to consider, when it comes to a question of fixing rents for people, that in the interests of the community as a whole and in order not to sabotage or to blow up the foundations on which rests the financial and economic structure of this country, you have got to vote possibly for 3d. or 6d. a week more on the rent of a house of an unfortunate family that possibly is half starved. It is because of the knowledge of these things that have got to be done and because I have the courage to do them that I feel that I could not expose myself to the taunt of some unfortunate man getting up and saying to me "You took damn good care to vote £2 10s. a week more on to your salary of £7." I ask you to look at the thing straight and fair. Would you like to be placed in that position? At the same time, I am quite willing to agree with the sentiments and arguments as put up here by members on the other side and by some of the members on our own side. We can agree to differ, but for those who do not vote for this Bill let us not be impugning anything dishonest or anything mean about any member here in this Dáil who conscientiously thinks that by doing so he is doing his duty independent of what outsiders may say or do.

Mr. Gorey

It is rather amusing to hear Deputies addressing the House on this question and telling the House that only for certain things that were said in the House this evening they would have voted a different way. As far as our Party was concerned, this matter was decided last night week. There is no use in Deputies coming here telling us what attitude they were going to take up. I heard one Deputy say that it is because he had not a motor car in which to go around his constituency that they were unable to make any recommendations to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, and that that is the reason there was no work done in the particular county. The real reason was that for any work that required to be done in any county the labour had to be provided from the particular electoral division in which the work is to be done. In my own county the urban district of Kilkenny is the only electoral division that would qualify for having work done. I dislike to hear flimsy reasons flung across the Table of this House here. It is most disgusting to hear people giving excuses they know are not true. Another Deputy talked about doing his duty properly in connection with bog roads, old age pensions and unemployment grants. Is it anybody's conception, or the national conception, of a Deputy that he should be the sweeping brush of his constituency and should be chasing around? Why does he chase around? In order to make himself so much more secure for the next election and in order to get votes. That is the reason he does most of these things he should not be doing. One would think, listening to the speeches here in connection with this Bill and the Bill of yesterday, that this was the first round in this battle. It is not the first round, Sir, and every Deputy in the House knows it, and most of the public know it. The first round happened before the dissolution, certainly before the summer vacation, when this thing was fought out between the different Parties on the basis of the commission's report, and it was because there was sufficient opposition to the commission's report that the Bill of yesterday was watered down to meet the requirements of the House in order to get the Bill through. This Bill and the Bill of yesterday did nothing that the commission recommended and did everything that it did not recommend. The commission reported that Ministers should get £2,250 a year. The Bill of yesterday did not give them that. The commission did not recommend that Deputies' salaries should be increased and the Bill of to-day recommends that. I can come only to one conclusion. We know the mind of Deputies in our own Party. We know the mind of Deputies on the other side. We knew their mind three weeks ago—a month ago. Deputy Hickey has given expression to what is his personal knowledge. Something happened in the meantime. A sop was given to the rank and file in the Bill of yesterday. It had to be given, and it was given, and then we had the Bill of to-day.

My main objection to this Bill, my quarrel with this Bill, is not based on the amount of money that is involved, or the amount of taxation that it means, because I realise that it is a small amount. My objection to the Bill is because of the gesture that this House is giving to the country. To my mind, it shows an utter failure to realise, or a desire to shut one's eyes to, the actual position in the country—a total lack of sympathy with the people in the country. In fact, in my opinion, it shows a lack of sympathy amounting to callousness, knowing, as I do, and as every Deputy knows, the position in the country at the present time. I saw few smiling faces during this debate. The only time I saw smiling faces was at Deputy O'Higgins's jibes at the members of his own Party. I shall not comment on that. But they were the only smiles I saw on the Government Benches. When the position was put before them yesterday, and for the last month, there were nothing but jibes and sneers, and laughing faces; but there will be no jibes or sneers when their own position here is at stake.

Now, it is an extraordinary thing that, on one side of the House at least —the other side seem to be unanimous —the Deputies who are most in favour of supporting this Bill to-day are Deputies who have their homes in Dublin or in its immediate vicinity; and all who are in opposition to the Bill are Deputies who live far away from Dublin—down in West Cork, and from that up to Dublin—Deputies who live at great distances from Dublin, who have the greatest expenses to meet, and who, I venture to say, have the largest post and have the most correspondence to deal with. Some of them, I know, have to deal with 50,70 and 80 letters a day. These are the people who are in opposition to this measure. These Deputies, who live at great distance from Dublin, and who have to deal with so many letters per day, and who, as I know, reply conscientiously to these letters, are the Deputies who are in opposition to this measure. Deputies who were beaten in the last election, and who had an equal correspondence to deal with, are equally opposed to this increase, but it is an extraordinary thing that the people who are living here in Dublin, and to whom £360 a year is an income, as compared with a Deputy in the country who has to come up here, perhaps the day before the Dáil meets, then find accommodation in a hotel or some other place in the city, be away from his business during the period that the Dáil sits in the week, and then go back on Friday and, perhaps, not arrive at his home until Sunday, as is the case with some Deputies who live in parts of Clare and Cork, are the people who support this measure. As I say, it is extraordinary that some of the Deputies who are in opposition to this measure are those who come from the country, who know the people in the country, and are in sympathy with the people, while the people who live here in the city, and whose allowance must be regarded as an income, seeing that they are able to attend to their professions or occupations even while the Dáil is sitting, are in sympathy with the Bill.

I do not think I would have risen to my feet at all, were it not for some of the remarks that have been made—the mean way in which this Bill is being supported, or rather the mean way in which the people who are opposing the Bill have been attacked. We have heard about hypocrisy, carping criticism, humbug and so on. I say that that is a mean way to attack those who are opposed to the measure. The men of means have been referred to. Now, we all know that, at the nomination or selection of a candidate, at any of the conventions of any Party, the question of means has never entered into the matter. It is not the men of means who are the candidates, but the plain people in the various constituencies. Very often, the poorest men are selected at these conventions, and the poorest men offer themselves as candidates. There is no question of means or favouritism at all. Everybody knows that, and anybody who says it is not so is uttering deliberate lies and trying to cod the people of this country. When they are speaking of humbug and hypocrisy, I wonder who they mean?

I am against this proposal because I think the position of the people in the country who sent me here would not justify me in supporting it. If this House, as a House, had given any indication that they were going to put the economic position of the country right, to do anything for the people who have borne the brunt of the economic war, to show that they had any sympathy with these unfortunate people and that they were inclined to go into the melting-pot and mix their lot with the people who suffered the loss, then it would be time to consider this proposal, and, perhaps, we might have a different viewpoint; but while they are determined that the people who bore the brunt of the economic war will not be put right, that their wounds will not be healed, or that their wounds will not be dressed, or even any attempt made to dress them, then none of us will vote for this measure.

My opinion is that the time is not ripe for this measure. I have had long experience. I am here as a Deputy for a period covering about 16 years, since 1922, and I am not young either. I can go back over a period of 50 years, and I know that there was never a graver state of depression in this country in that 50 years than we have now. In that period of 50 years there were never men more in want or more anxious for the future, nor were there ever worse prospects for the young people in the country than there are to-day. In view of that, I oppose this measure, not because it means so much on the rates, but because I want to be with the people who sent me here and to represent them fairly. This is not a gesture showing that you have any sympathy with the people. It is the other way about. It is a gesture showing that you are utterly callous to the position of the people of the country. We have been met also by the taunt that we are voting against this Bill in the hope that it will pass, but it was only a few days ago that we heard there was such a Bill. Last July this question was being tackled before ever we heard of this Bill, and the bringing in of this measure does not matter two pins. I regard it as a bribe. I know the kind of mean taunt that has been made, and if the Bill becomes law we will draw the increase just as well as others, because we have earned it just as well as others, but that is just the sort of mean taunt I have heard before. I have heard it two or three times. However, I shall not make any reference to some of the offensive remarks that were made. I regard them as offensive, and very offensive, remarks, and I am glad that they have not come from the other side of the House. They have come from this side of the House. However, there is no use in my saying something, in the heat of the moment, for which I might be sorry. I do say, however, that every country Deputy must know the position in the country, and I do suggest that this is not the time to pass this measure. I believe that the passing of this measure amounts to a gesture to the country that you are utterly indifferent to the condition of the rank and file of the people of this country, that you are utterly callous to the life they have to lead and to the prospects in front of them. I ask you to reconsider what you are doing in supporting this measure.

Mr. Browne

I did not intend to say anything on this Bill, nor on yesterday's Bill either, but still I voted on yesterday's Bill. I was here from 3 o'clock yesterday, and listened to the whole debate on the Minister's Pensions Bill. When it came to the vote I was satisfied that there was a grievance. I was satisfied that a man who took up a position as Minister and remained in office for five years gave the best of his life to that position, and that it was made almost impossible for him to go back again to private life. For that reason I felt that he should be allowed a pension. That was the reason I voted for the Minister's Pensions Bill last night. In regard to the Bill to increase the salaries of Deputies, I am not going to vote for that; I am going to vote against it. This is altogether a different case. The remuneration for Deputies was fixed by statute. All Deputies elected to this Dáil knew exactly the remuneration they were to receive for the duration of the Dáil. We all knew it. We all knew the responsibilities. We accepted those responsibilities and for my own part—I can also speak for a great number of Deputies, but I cannot speak for them all—I did my duty, attended to all correspondence, and did anything I was asked to do. I am satisfied that the salary I am getting would not be sufficient to repay me for the trouble and time I am giving to the position, but I feel that at the present time, seeing the conditions which exist in the country as far as the poor people are concerned, I could not possibly vote for an increase in salary. I would be voting against my conscience if I did it.

As regards the remarks that were made here by Deputy O'Higgins, and, I think, Deputy Moran, to the effect that there should be some proviso put in to meet those people who were against the Bill, I think they would be quite justified in doing that, and I for one would accept it. If a proviso were put in that I am not to accept this £120, I would agree to it. I am not voting against the increase knowing that I am going to get it because there is a majority in favour of it. I am simply voting against the Bill because I feel that in voting for it I would not be acting according to my conscience. I took up the same attitude last night. My conscience directed me to vote for the Bill last night. I come from a district where the average valuation is under £5. I come from a district where the people have to go to the business concerns and seek credit from one end of the year to the other, credit for manures, credit for seed potatoes, and this year the majority of their seed oats has gone. It is wasted, it is no use. Some of the seed oats was taken into the towns and would not be accepted. They had to bring it home and crush it. They have no seed oats for the coming year in my district. The seed potatoes have rotted in the land. The potatoes have not been taken out of the land yet. Those people have to come in to the business concerns to get credit for seed oats and credit for manures. I know the circumstances connected with those people as far as credit is concerned during the last six or seven years. I know the amount of credit they got, and how far they will be able to meet their payments. I know their credit is finished. I know that the business people have stretched it to the last. I know that the business people have gone as far as they can as far as credit is concerned; they cannot go any further. The farmers' credit has gone as far as the business people are concerned, and as far as the banks are concerned. If a farmer to-day goes into the bank and wants a loan of £5 for six months he will not get it without security. The security has to be a man with a deposit. That is the condition of affairs which makes it impossible for me to vote in favour of this Bill.

Some Deputy mentioned the better class people on public bodies, and thought they should be paid. I cannot see where that comes in. I think the public bodies do their duty. I am a member of a public body and I do my duty. Our public body does its best to do everything right. I am voting against this Bill simply because the people cannot afford this increase in taxation, and it seems to me that for the last few years there has been a lot of this business of simply getting the job and afterwards looking for an increase in salary. That is the reason I am going to vote against the Bill.

Mr. O'Neill

A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, I did not intend to speak on this Bill at all, and I would not do so except for the fact that I should like to raise my voice in protest against the charges of political dishonesty, mean expediency, humbug and hypocrisy which have been levelled against Deputies on this side of the House who have spoken against the Bill. I should like always that it should be a feature of public life that any of us who approach a question from a conscientious standpoint would at all events permit to those opposed to us freedom to approach the matter from the same conscientious standpoint. Apparently that has not happened in connection with this Bill. Those of us who have opposed it are accused of doing so from very questionable motives. Now, Sir, I think I am one of those who have suffered most from entry into public life in this country. I have not very much behind me; I occupy no highly-paid position on a public board, nor do I enjoy any State pension for military service or anything of that kind. I run a small business in a very decrepit and depressed town, and in everything I have to do in public life I try to keep my end up, but it is a considerable sacrifice to my pocket, and a great inroad on my time, which should be devoted to something else.

In opposing this Bill, I should like to say honestly and openly that I believe there is a very good case for the Bill. I appeared before the commission. I was one of those members brought in to give an idea as to what was the working of a remote rural constituency. Having a very good knowledge of the big and difficult constituency of West Cork I was able to put before the commission some ideas as to what cost was involved, personal and otherwise, for a Deputy in looking after the affairs of the 63,000 electors comprising the constituency. I told them definitely and plainly that a lesser sum than £500 per annum would be inadequate to meet the out-of-pocket costs of a Deputy who did his work conscientiously and well, who stood by his people, and looked after their interests. At the same time I stated that I did not think the present was an opportune or right time for having this question raised. When I was asked for my reasons I said I did not think that the fiscal policy which had been carried out by Fianna Fáil, or the condition to which this country had been reduced through the pursuance of that fiscal policy, was such as to warrant any of us voting money to ourselves. It is all very well to say that the country can afford it. The country can afford it; the sum involved is not very big. I believe it is only a matter of about £14,000, but if it were only 14,000 pennies I would feel myself in the same position as I am in now. From time to time during the last four or five years I have had to rake the Government over various matters. I raked the Government in connection with the difficulties we had in getting a miserable 10/- a week, and the difficulties of the means test that were applied in connection with old-age pensions and widows' and orphans' pensions.

I also raked the Government about the cost of schemes that had put a great deal of hidden taxation on the country. I cannot very well see myself coming along now, even where a miserable £14,000 is involved, and applauding the Government for giving this increase, while other burdens remain on the backs of the people, not alone in the way of direct taxation, which has gone up very seriously, but in other ways. Before Fianna Fáil came into power the productivity of the soil represented something like £67,000,000 a year, and taxation, £20,000,000; so that taxation was roughly one-third of productivity. To-day productivity represents about £43,000,000, and direct taxation, national and local, is something like £40,000,000; so that the whole productivity of the country is practically absorbed by direct taxation. That is a very serious state of affairs. Soon we will have the position that expenditure will exceed income. While we are in that very precarious position, I feel that I would not be justified in taking my stand in support of this Bill. As I stated before, I believe it is well justified from the point of view of being necessary, but that does not absolve me from the position I take up. I do not think I could go back to West Cork, go to the escallop fishers in Bantry Bay or the poor fishermen in Clear Island and tell them that I had voted myself an extra £120 a year, while these unfortunate people cannot get 6/- a week by way of dole. I could not justify myself while there are something like 95,000 people on the home assistance books. It may be said that they would be there anyway. They might and they might not, but I could not contemplate getting £480 a year while they have no hope. Persons who receive home assistance, as we know, usually have no hope whatever left to them.

Furthermore, this Government has done a great deal to cause labour disturbance and unrest amongst the people, owing to the increased cost of living. That has been brought about by wheat and other schemes that are in operation. The wheat scheme has put 2d. a pair on the bread of the people. Various other schemes have increased the cost of living, for instance, the sugar scheme. The other day we voted £500,000 for the production of industrial alcohol which, I believe, will cost about 10/- a gallon to produce and will be sold at 3/-, while petrol can be bought for a much lower figure. All these schemes will cost money. Accordingly, I do not think I would be justified in voting for this Bill when I cannot approve of Government policy generally. It is said that by increasing the allowance to £480 we will have a more independent type of man in the Dáil. No man can ever be said to be independent in the Dáil. If he is to go according to the wishes of his constituents he must have some regard to the conditions under which they live. He must at all events be circumscribed in his actions by considering their feeling. If the conditions under which they live are going to be affected seriously by the Government's fiscal policy, he must consider their position. My attitude may look very strange, but with me it is a matter of conscience, and I protest against the charges of hypocrisy and humbug that were made. No Deputy could do with this increased allowance better than I could, and no man could turn it to better advantage in his constituency than I could amongst the poor people I represent. At the same time, I will not be led away by catch-cries, about the condition of the farmers. Many of the farmers would think that if we got 10/- instead of £1 a day, we would still be overpaid. That sort of empty catch-cry does not appeal to me. Every man in the Dáil gives good value, and perhaps many give much more value than the money is adequate to repay.

I am looking at this in a purely personal way. My mind is my own, and I have not been worked into my present position by any Party, but simply by relation with the position in my constituency, and on that account I do not think it right that I should support this Bill. I will not vote for it, but I give every man credit for honesty who votes for or against it. I feel that everyone is imbued with the same conscientious feelings as myself. Before sitting down, I should say that we did not expect to be jibed at for opposing the Bill. I feel very much the dishonest allegations that have been made, that we are opposing the Bill because we know that it will be passed. If there are any further allegations of that kind, I might consider making a present of the salary to the people in my constituency, and also of the seat.

Mrs. Redmond

I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but I intend to oppose the Bill for the same reasons that I opposed the Bill to provide pensions for Ministers and ex-Ministers that was before the House yesterday. I want to make my position absolutely clear. As certain allegations were hurled across the House this afternoon, I want to say that I do not want any political kudos for voting against the increase in salaries. I do not expect any kudos. I am opposing the Bill for the reasons I mentioned previously, that I think this is not the time to do it. I do not think there is any right in Deputies to take unto themselves the decision to grant pensions and increased salaries when the country is on the down grade. I am not going into the woes of the farmers and businessmen, or the woes from which a very large section of the people suffer. The eyes of the people have been opened, and they want to know the truth. I want to say sincerely and honestly that I oppose this Bill for the same reasons as I opposed the previous Bill. It is not our money we are handling. It is the money of the taxpayers. This is not the time to make grants to ourselves, or to give pensions to ex-Ministers. While the income of the people has gone down, taxation has gone up, and we will be increasing it if we vote for this Bill, even if it is only a matter of £14,000. In my opinion, that is not justifiable. I do not mind if I am called a hypocrite. That does not affect me. I want to protest against this proposal, and to say that I believe that those who are opposing it are as sincere and as convinced as I am that this is the wrong time, and that the people are not getting a fair run for their money. We should think twice before passing this measure.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I should like to begin by referring to a statement which Deputy William Broderick made in opening his speech against this Bill. It was to the effect that the Government has a majority in this House and, as he implied, can carry its own burden.

Mr. W. Broderick

Over all Parties, I said.

Mr. MacEntee

Very well. The Government is responsible for bringing this Bill to this House. Why? Because the people have charged this Administration with the task of ensuring that the government of the country will be carried on well and efficiently. We are satisfied that, in the existing condition of affairs, it is not possible for every Deputy—it may be possible for some; it may be possible for those who have few family responsibilities; it may be possible for those who have private means; it may be possible for those who are fortunately situated in regard to their constituency—to do effectively, efficiently and economically the work which his constituents sent him to do, upon the present allowance for expenses.

The extraordinary thing about this debate is this, that while the Government, as I have said, has acted on its own responsibility, its action has been justified in this House, not merely by those who have spoken in support of the Bill, but, most of all, by those who have spoken against the Bill. We had several Deputies getting up to oppose this Bill, and all those Deputies— Deputy Bennett, Deputy McGovern, Deputy O'Donovan, Deputy O'Neill and, as far as I know, other Deputies, when I was absent from the House— admitted that their allowance is quite insufficient to cover their expenses as a Deputy. Deputy O'Neill before the committee stated, in his view, no less a sum than £500 would be required in order to cover adequately the expenses which a Deputy must necessarily and unavoidably incure if he is going to do his duty to the people who sent him here. Yet, Deputy O'Neill opposes this Bill. Deputy Bennett, who made the same sort of statement, opposes the Bill. So does Deputy McGovern. He said he could do with this money as well as any man and that, so far as he was concerned, the allowance was quite insufficient, and he also opposes the Bill. Upon what ground? Deputy Bennett's suggestion was that the time was not opportune. Yet, the allowance is insufficient, as he admitted himself, to enable Deputies to do the work for which they are sent here.

We spend £46,000 already in getting the work of the Dáil done, ill-done, perhaps half-done only; at any rate, on the admission of Deputies who opposed the Bill, not as well done as it ought to be. Yet these Deputies, who all want to see the condition of the country improve, who all want to see an effective and efficient Administration here, a strong Administration here, administering this £30,000,000 of public money which the Government is called upon to disburse and control in one way and another, are jibbing, though they are quite prepared to spend £46,000 in getting the job ill-done, or half-done, or not as well done as it ought to be, at spending another £14,500—£14,500 which at least, will put, not merely themselves, but every one of their colleagues, no matter what their private circumstances may be, in a better position to do the country's work and to serve the people who sent them here.

Deputy Bennett said that he was torn between two minds and between two duties—his duty to himself as a Deputy and his duty to the farmers who sent him here. He was sent here, he said, to seek justice for the farmers. How does the Deputy propose to ensure that the farmers will get justice? His remedy for the farmers' grievances— for the farmers who want men here who can look after their interests without having to make such heavy sacrifices as will permanently disable them from taking an effective part in public life, the farmers who want active and efficient Deputies here—is to hamstring the farmers' representatives in the Dáil.

Deputy William Broderick's ground for opposition against this Bill was even more extraordinary. He was prepared to oppose it because he does not want intelligence or too much intelligence in public life. That was what the Deputy said. I carefully noted his words. Indeed, that motive seemed to make the burden not merely of Deputy Broderick's speech, but of Deputy Linehan's as well. Deputy Linehan attacked me because I said, when speaking on the measure before the House last night, that one of the things which we hoped that measure would do would be to attract a better type of person into the public life of the country. Deputy Linehan thinks that is something that a Minister ought to be ashamed of. If a Minister wants to see not merely as good types as there are in public life at present, but better types in public life, if such be available; in fact, if he wants to see the best type in public life and the best type in the Government of the country and in charge of the concerns of the State: That, according to Deputy Linehan, is a crime. One of the disadvantages of the present Bill, just as it was one of the disadvantages of the Bill before the House last night, in Deputy Linehan's eyes, is that it is going to attract a better type of man to the public life of the country. Does Deputy Linehan want a worse type? Is that why he is opposing the Bill? Is that the intelligent and rational ground upon which Deputy Linehan bases his opposition to the Bill?

Mr. Linehan

I say that, if they will not come in without that financial inducement, they can stay out.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is a very young man. I would say that the Deputy must know very little of the history of the public life of the country and of the personal history of the men who participated in it in the past. As I say, perhaps Deputy Linehan does not want a better type of man in public life. Perhaps, he would be afraid to measure swords with a better type of man in this particular arena. He is an able man, a young man, an ambitious man, and perhaps he does not want any rivals in his Party. I am dealing with the grounds upon which Deputies based their opposition, and one of the arguments with which they propose to justify their action in voting against the Bill is that they do not want a better type of man in the public life of the country.

What is the record of the men who have taken part in the public life of Ireland? We heard last night about the plight of those who served in the days of the Parliamentary Party. The sad history of many able men who joined that Party is not unique. There are men in later days about whom the same story could be told. What, therefore, is going to be the position of the young man in this country who may be attracted to public life because he is conscious of the talents which might bring him to a high place in the service of his country? Every urge of prudence, every consideration of self-interest, will deter such a man from entering public life here or trying to serve the people; because he will have before him a long gallery of pathetic figures who gave of their best to the people of the country, but who have been left to die in the gutter, or the workhouse, or in penury, or to beg their bread, or send the hat round amongst their friends so that they might not, at least, have the final humiliation of a pauper's grave. That is what the young man of to-day looking back on the past can see. That is what the young man of to-day looking at the immediate present can also see. He can see many men who have served in the public life of this country poorer—every one of them—because of the service they did our people.

We are a young State and we must, therefore, look to the future. We must attract our young people to political life. We must attract the best and ablest of our young people, those who might be able to make brilliant careers for themselves in other avocations. We must get these young people to turn their minds to the problem of government in Ireland and we have got to make it easy for them to enter into the service of the State. We want good men in the Government of the country. Is not that what everybody has been saying? What have those who have been crying out about the plight of the farmers been saying except that they might, if they were to be found, in the judgement of the people, put better men in our places than we are?

Therefore, we want good men in the government of this country. How are we going to get good men in the government of the country unless we make it easy for such men to enter and take their places in the Dáil? Remember, they must be men of every class and circumstance. They must not come only from the leisured class or from the wealthy class. They must be men from every class. They must include young persons from the ranks, workingmen's sons who are conscious of talent and ability which, if the applied to other walks in life, would bring them to the top. These men have got to get their chance in the Dáil as well as the rest of us, as well as the brilliant young professional man or the son of the wealthy merchant. This Bill seeks to enable men of that type to come into public life and not those only who have behind them private means or the resources of large vested interests. We want to secure that if the people elect a man of that type and place their confidence in him, his financial circumstances will be such that he will be able to devote all the time that his constituents require to their concerns and the concerns of the country.

What was the third argument against this Bill? Those who are opposing it, while admitting—every one of them— that they found the present allowance insufficient to meet the purpose for which it was intended, while admitting they could not do their duty adequately to their constituents upon the present allowance, nevertheless were prepared to continue to make sacrifices. Deputy Linehan was bubbling over with self-sacrifice. Deputy Linehan was prepared to get up and brag that he had not got a pension and that he had not got this, that and the other thing. I was going to ask Deputy Linehan what he had ever done to deserve a pension, what claim he could establish to a pension, if he meant his observation as a gibe to the men on both sides of this House who, in the words of Deputy William Broderick, "gave this country back to the control and management of the Irish people." At any rate, seeing that they are prepared to make sacrifices, let those who oppose the Bill on that ground ask themselves just what the sacrifices they are prepared to make mean to them. Let them answer that.

Most of those whom I heard talking about being prepared to make sacrifices—I am not aware of their personal circumstances and I am speaking only of their common reputation—were men who could afford to make these sacrifices. Let them ask themselves, if these sacrifices mean little or nothing to them, what they may mean to those of their colleagues in the Dáil who have no resources behind them, who have to depend upon what they earn by the sweat of their brow—most of them—and who have absolutely no margin. Even those who are prepared to make sacrifices have admitted that, even then, they are unable on the present allowance to do the honest work of a Deputy. There is no merit in being ready to make a sacrifice if the sacrifice means comparatively little to you and if, by your sacrifice, you are going to exact other sacrifices altogether out of proportion from other men who can ill afford to make it, if, as a result of your sacrifice, you may drive out of public life—as men have been driven out—some persons who, the electors think, is fit and worthy to represent them in the Dáil, some person who has shown by his record here that he is a good public representative. In all this talk about being perfectly willing to continue to make sacrifices, there is an element of purse-proud bragging which, I am sure, those who have used that sort of argument here will, on reflection, very much regret. So far as most of those who used it are concerned, it was altogether unworthy of them.

Then, there was Deputy O'Donovan's argument that while £30 per month— the present allowance—had never been quite sufficient to cover his expenses, he would not vote for this Bill now but he would vote for the principle of the Bill if we had a normal Government. How are we to get a normal Government—at least what Deputy O'Donovan would consider a normal Government?

Mr. O'Donovan

You are being educated.

Mr. MacEntee

I consider that the best way would be to put Deputies, particularly those on the opposite benches, in a position to discharge more fully their duties to their constituents. One of the reasons why Deputy O'Donovan is sitting over on that side of the House, and not sitting on this side, is perhaps that he found £30 per month insufficient to enable him to serve the interests of his constituents as well as he ought to have done, or as well as he might have done if the allowance had been sufficient to cover his expenses. It would seem to me that one of the reasons why Deputy O'Donovan is prepared to oppose this Bill is that he does not want to have any change of Government, that he wants to continue to hamstring the Deputies in his own Party in the same way as Deputy Bennett wanted to hamstring them, lest they might get justice for the farmers. He wants to fetter and spancel Deputy Bennett, Deputy Broderick, Deputy McGovern, Deputy O'Neill, Deputy Linehan, and all those enthusiastic and zealous Deputies who are telling the people that all their ills are traceable to this Government. Why, gracious me, if your allowance were sufficient, think of the hullabaloo you might kick up in the country! Think of the many opportunities you would have to convert the people to your point of view. Mind you, I am not going to say that you are going to succeed, but, at any rate, you would have a better chance if you were able to move more freely around your constituency, and have more public meetings. If you could only find some sound arguments—mind you, that is the rub—you will have a better chance of turning out the Government after this Bill is passed than you have had up to now.

Mr. Linehan

No whitewashing!

Mr. Bennett

Nobody wants that.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has confirmed my suspicion that the real reason he is opposing the Bill is that he does not want to be put in a position to enable him to do the work that is necessary in order to procure a change of Administration in this country.

Mr. Bennett

The Minister knows I said no such thing.

Mr. MacEntee

What was Deputy Cogan's objection to this Bill? His objection to it was its demoralising effect. Perhaps before I deal with that particular objection I might deal with the suggestion which Deputy Cogan made that, after all, the House should not consider a Bill of this sort at all, a Bill which is going to impose an annual expenditure of £14,500 on the country if it passes. He suggested that the right thing to do with the Bill was to have a referendum on it, to send it to the people. That would be a case of the cure being worse than the disease from the point of view of expense. I wonder if the Deputy has considered what a referendum might cost? I suppose £100,000 would not cover the expense of a hard-fought referendum when you take into consideration the expense which various Party groups would have to incur, the expense which the State would have to incur and the losses due to dislocation in business which would arise. I am perfectly certain that the cost of a referendum on this Bill would go far to defray the whole cost of the Bill for a considerable number of years, and yet Deputy Cogan says that he wants, of course, to spare the farmer all this expense. His proposal for dealing with a problem of this sort is to have a referendum.

Mr. Cogan

You could leave it over until the next general election.

Mr. MacEntee

In the meantime here we have a Dáil, for the next four years, at any rate, which is going to be hampered, as I said, in doing its work because the opposing Deputies cannot, according to themselves, on their present allowances, fully discharge their duties to their constituents.

Mr. Linehan

Nonsense.

Mr. MacEntee

Let me go back to this great argument against the Bill— that it is demoralising. One of the reasons why Deputy Cogan is prepared to oppose the Bill is because of its demoralising effect and the Deputy who used that argument at the same time said that he assumed— I think he assumed it; I do not want to carry his statement further than that—that there may be Deputies in this Dáil who are in debt because of the attention they have given to public affairs. I am not saying that any Deputy in the Dáil is in debt, but I do know that many Deputies are in straitened circumstances because of the attention which they have given here to public affairs. Deputy Cogan thinks there are some of his colleagues in debt. Which is likely to be the more demoralising—either that Deputies should get into debt in trying to do their duty to their constituents or that they should not do that duty because, with the allowance at its present figure, they cannot afford to do it? Which of these two things is going to have the more demoralising effect on the people? I think they are equally demoralising.

The Dáil does not do its duty because a number of Deputies cannot discharge their duties on their present allowances, unless they get into debt. On the other hand, there are some who do their duty on their present allowance but find themselves in straitened circumstances or find themselves in debt. If that were going to be anything like the general position here, what would inevitably develop out of that? What happens when a man gets into debt and gets into the power of a group of creditors, perhaps an unscrupulous group of creditors? Can he be considered a free agent any longer? When a public representative who gets into debt trying to do his duty to his constituents—gets into debt because his allowance is insufficient—what is going to be his position if he gets involved with some sort of moneylender? The Deputy may laugh but the Deputy last night made that case when he spoke about mediocrity and of mediocrity being followed by corruption. What applies to Ministers applies also to Deputies. What is going to happen when a member—I am not saying every member—or group of members of this House gets into the power of some sort of vested money interest? Remember what happened here before at an acute stage in the country's history. A great deal of pressure was brought to bear on some individuals to do one thing rather than the other thing. Is that not going to have a demoralising effect on the public life of this country?

Mr. Linehan

Was that what happened last June?

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps, as I say, the Deputy is young. There have been occasions even in this House when, in regard to certain measures, a great deal of pressure was brought to bear on Deputies on all sides of the House. It was not last June nor was it at any time during which the Deputy was here. I am talking about the demoralising effect of having Deputies in this House who are unable to do their duties without getting into debt I am saying that the one thing you want to avoid is placing a Deputy in a position in which it would be impossible for him to do his job and keep out of debt, that is if you want to keep the Government of this country, or any other country, clean. You cannot, of couse, deal with the exceptional case. There are men who will get into debt and who will not do a hand's turn for the country. But take the position at present of a poor man who has to keep up two establishments, who has to maintain a household down the country, who spends three or four days a week in Dublin and who, when he does get home, does not get an hour to look after his own business, a man who has always a number of suppliants on his doorstep. A man like that in public affairs is inevitably bound to come up against this dilemma, that he must either go on and get into debt or else retire from public life. That is a very hard choice to make. For one thing his colleagues may tell him that he is quitting and leaving them in very difficult circumstances. For another thing, he will have to eat humble pie. He will be involved in humiliation. He will have to give up a career to which he has devoted the best years of his life. That is the choice which honest Deputies will be compelled to make if the allowances are left at their present figure. If they do not make that, you may have the danger looming up to which I have referred, that persons may fall under the domination of certain interests and that, in critical matters, they may not be free to do their duty to the people who sent them here. That is what you have got to avoid. It is to avoid that demoralising situation cropping up that the Government, which is charged with the primary duty of keeping administration clean, has taken the responsibility of putting this Bill before the Dáil.

Deputy Coburn would not vote for this Bill because, as he said, we had musicians, great painters and men of science who worked in poverty and, therefore, why should not he? But Deputy Coburn proved too much. He claimed, if I did not misunderstand him, that for a number of years he had supported himself and his whole family upon his allowance as Deputy. As I say, he proved too much, because this allowance is not meant to sustain a man and his family. It is not meant to be the sole source of livelihood of any Deputy. It is given as an allowance towards the expenses which a Deputy must necessarily undergo in fulfilling his duties to his constituents, but Deputy Coburn boasted and bragged that he had lived on this allowance all the time he was in this Dáil. Perhaps I misunderstood him, but that was what his words conveyed to me. If that was what he meant then, I should say, in Deputy Coburn's case, that he ought to surrender some part of this allowance.

Even though I did not hear what he said, I cannot quite believe that he meant it, because I am perfectly certain that Deputy Coburn, who is a man of great energy, has a number of other activities. He is not, I am sure, in politics merely as the term is, as a professional politician, that he has some other occupation or avocation than that of merely being a Deputy. I am perfectly certain he has and, therefore, if he has found his allowance more than sufficient for his needs, it has been due to the particular circumstances of Deputy Coburn's constituency. It is a constituency which is compact; it is quite close to Dublin; and it is very well served with transport services. The Deputy's position is altogether different from that of a Deputy who represents Donegal, Galway, Kerry, or some of the more remote constituencies, where there are not these good transport facilities and which are not in the neighbourhood of Dublin.

In considering this Bill, Deputy Coburn should not relate it simply to his own case. He has to think of the position of every one of his colleagues in the Dáil and to ensure that not only is he in a position to do his duty as a Deputy without involving himself in too great sacrifices, but that every other representative of the people will be in exactly the same position and will be able to do his duty with the same sort of liberal margin that apparently Deputy Coburn has enjoyed.

I think there is nothing more I can say in reply to the arguments advanced against the Bill. I think it is a Bill which, if placed before the people of the country, will be approved by them when they grasp the significance of it, because they will see that you cannot have good government, you cannot have the best type of government in this country, unless you make it easy for good men, for men of capacity and character, to come into the Dáil and, by serving in the Dáil, rise to the headship of the various Departments of the State.

Question put.

The Dáil divided:— Tá, 81; Níl, 23.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Benson, Ernest E.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Brian.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Brennan, Martin.
Brennan, Michael.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Brodrick, Seán.
Buckley, Seán.
Cleary, Mícheál.
Cooney, Eamonn.
Harris, Thomas.
Hogan, Daniel.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kelly, James P.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Keyes, Michael.
Killilea, Mark.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Loughman, Francis.
Lynch, Finian.
Lynch, James B.
McDevitt, Henry A.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
McGilligan, Patrick.
Maguire, Ben.
Meaney, Cornelius.
Moran, Michael.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Morrissey, Michael.
Moylan, Seán.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Corish, Richard.
Corry, Martin J.
Cosgrave, William T.
Costello, John A.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Everette, James.
Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Friel, John.
Fuller, Stephen.
Giles, Patrick.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Mullen, Thomas.
Munnelly, John.
O'Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Loghlen, Peter J.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
Pattison, James P.
Reidy, James.
Rice, Brigid M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Martin.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Tubridy, Seán.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Níl

Belton, Patrick.
Broderick, William J.
Browne, Patrick.
Burke, Thomas.
Coburn, James.
Cole, John J.
Cogan, Patrick.
Fagan, Charles.
Gorey, Denis J.
Hickey, James.
Hughes, James.
Hurley, Jeremiah.
Linehan, Timothy.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McGovern, Patrick.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Nally, Martin.
Norton, William.
O'Donovan, Timothy J.
O'Neill, Eamonn.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Ryan, Jeremiah.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl, Deputies O'Donovan and Coburn.

Motion declared carried.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, the 30th November.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 24 Nov 1938