I understand, Sir, that you have ruled out my amendments to the section.
Committee on Finance. - Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Bill, 1938—Committee.
Question proposed: "that Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Brennan
As I have intimated to the Deputy, I have ruled out amendment No. 1, on the grounds that it would increase the charge. I presume that No. 5 is consequential— that the travelling facilities therein referred to are the facilities which the Deputy desires to have provided in amendment No. 1.
Mr. Brennan
That is right.
The provision of free rail and 'bus passes throughout Éire would obviously increase the charge on public funds; hence the amendment is out of order.
Mr. Brennan
What I should like to know, Sir, is whether any steps have been taken to ascertain whether the amendment would, in fact, increase expenditure at all. As I said on the Second Reading, the system is cumbersome, and entails quite a lot of accountancy on the part of the Ministry of Finance, the officers of this House, and the railway company. It is quite possible that if the railway company were approached they would be quite prepared to allow free rail and 'bus passes to members for, say, the same sum of money that they were paid by the Ministry of Finance last year.
We are dealing at present with the definition section. On Section 2, or any other section referring to travelling facilities —Section 4 would possibly be most suitable—the Deputy might raise the matter to which he is now referring. As to the question which the Deputy was discussing, that is not a matter for the Chair. It is obvious that unless certain outside approaches have been made which do not concern the Chair, the giving of facilities to Deputies throughout Éire would increase the charge on public funds. That is on the merits of the case.
Mr. Brennan
If the definition section is allowed to remain as it is, then of course my amendment goes by the board, because it would be cutting across the definition section completely. Is not that so?
There is some point in that. The Deputy might get an expression of opinion from the Minister.
Mr. Brennan
Well, I should like to know from the Minister what is the position between the Ministry of Finance and the railway company with regard to this question? Have they been approached to see what they might do in that respect? In fact, the main reason I wanted to get that done was that it might cut across the provision which is being made in another section of this particular Bill for Deputies' expenses in travelling into their own constituencies when they happen to live outside them.
If we got this bus and railway pass it would eliminate that. There is very much to be gained and nothing to be lost by the Department of Finance, and by the railway companies, by accepting what I might call this new method of dealing with travelling expenses. If the Department approached the railway companies they could find out their views. To a limited extent, I know their views, but I should like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Mr. Broderick
I wish to raise what is more or less a personal matter. On the Second Reading Stage certain Deputies took a decided action on the merits against this Bill and explained their reasons. Insinuations were made against those Deputies, and they were accused of taking the 30 pieces of silver. I want to know if the Deputy who made that charge will withdraw it.
The Chair has no idea of what the Deputy is referring to.
Mr. Broderick
I am referring to statements that were made on the Second Reading Stage.
Matters of that nature should have been raised when the statement was made. It would be an impossible position to allow such matters to be reopened at any time. Apparently Deputy O'Higgins knows something about the matter.
Mr. Broderick
The statement was made after I had spoken, and it caused a good leal of resentment. If you will permit me, Sir, I wish to say that I believe more has been read into the statement that the Deputy who made it intended, and this is an opportunity for the Deputy to give an explanation.
I assume that the Deputy was referring to me. I was not the first speaker in the debate. Four or five speeches had been made before I spoke, by Deputies supporting the Bill, and it had been suggested that they were in the position of vultures falling on the corpse of the country, that they were satisfied that the end of things was coming, and that they were going to join together by stepping in to get some loot before it was all over. In that atmosphere, and when an attempt was made to point out that there was something unclean about this latter £10 note, I wanted to paint the picture that, if there was anything unclean about this £10, the previous £30 was equally dirty. I did not at all intend to address my remarks specifically to any individual. It was to the money, that if one tenner was unclean, so was the other £30, and the other £30 would not seem to have dirtied the hands or the honour of any member of the House. If I was misunderstood or, if I hurt the susceptibilities of any member, I would be long sorry to do so, particularly the man sitting behind me. I advise all Deputies to do what I did early in political life, and that was not only to grow a thick skin but to grow a shell.
There can be no further discussion on the matter.
Mr. Broderick
I am sorry. I should like to reply.
Mr. Broderick
Then I will take no further part now. I will wait for another opportunity.
Not on the definition section.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Brennan, and my position as to the proposal in the amendment, "the provision of a free railway and bus pass for travelling inside Éire", we have not had any recent communication with the railway companies, but, on the whole question, we find ourselves, I think, faced with a constitutional limitation. Article 15, paragraph 15, says:—
"The Oireachtas may make provision by law for the payment of allowances to the members of each House thereof in respect of their duties as public representatives and for the grant to them of free travelling and such other facilities (if any) in connection with those duties as the Oireachtas may determine."
Unfortunately if we issue passes it would not be possible to ensure that they would be availed of by members of the House when travelling solely in discharge of their duties as public representatives. I am afraid the amendment would not be in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, but the Deputy may take it that while I am anxious to give members of the House every possible facility for travelling about the country which will assist them to better discharge their Parliamentary duties, I am bound, under the Constitution, to construe the section as binding me so far as possible, to ensure that these journeys in respect of which expenses are provided will be taken only on public business. I have gone, in this Bill, as far as I find it possible to go. I would rather that the Bill should go through in the form in which it was introduced rather than be amended, because a number of things in it are experimental. If we can devise some way of keeping inside the Constitution, I am quite willing, as far as I can, to ensure the fullest travelling facilities for Deputies.
Mr. Brennan
I am sure if the Minister has recourse to legal aid it would allay his fears. It would not be reasonable to assume that these facilities were being granted for other purposes, and then it could not be assumed that they would be unconstitutional. If the Minister did grant these facilities to Deputies, for the purpose of performing their duties, and if the railway companies gave them general passes, I do not see how the Department would be acting in an unconstitutional way. The travelling facilities are given to Deputies so that they may perform their public duties, and if the railway companies allow these passes to be used everywhere, I do not see how the Minister could be acting unconstitutionally.
There is something in what the Deputy has said. What we need to have is some further experience of the operation of this Act before we say: "Here is what a Deputy properly expends in the discharge of his public duties." If the railway companies are willing to give the extended facilities for which the Deputies ask, well and good. We would then be on safe ground and within the Constitution.
Mr. Brennan
That is the reason why, after 16 years' experience, we ought to tackle the question. The railway companies are aware of the position. Now that we are dealing with the matter, this is the time to finish it. I appeal to the Minister to deal with it on the Report Stage. If a saving clause could be put in, which would enable the Minister to do it at a later stage, without having to introduce a fresh Bill, that would do. I am not looking for extra expenditure or for extra travelling facilities as much as an easing off of the scheme under which we are operating. The present scheme is a clumsy one. If the Minister dealt with it now it would obviate what the next amendment refers to, the position of Deputies living outside their constituencies. That is something we ought to try to get over. There is a "snag" and it is still there. If the Minister approached the railway companies some reasonable arrangement might be made. At present the railway companies have an arrangement with travellers and dealers that does not necessitate the voucher system. I think that if the Minister sets out to do so, some system can be provided which will not entail any further expense on the Department of Finance.
I will consider what the Deputy has said, but I do not want to be taken as being committed to anything. The Deputy has given me an idea, and it may be possible to meet his point of view. I will look into the matter between now and the Report Stage. The matter could more properly be raised on a later section. Before passing from this section and the amendment, would the Deputy be good enough to tell me what purpose he hopes to serve by the insertion after the word "motor car" of "between such traveller's normal place of residence for the time being and Dublin"?
The amendment seems to the Chair to be of a restricted nature and, that being so, may be moved.
Mr. Brennan
As a matter of fact, it would not be of any use to me unless the new scheme was adopted.
Amendment not moved.
Section 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 3:—
At the end of sub-section (1) to add the words:—"provided that, where a member so applies in writing to the Minister, the allowance so payable to such member shall be at the rate of £30 a month."
I had two objects in mind when putting down this amendment. There are Deputies who are well-to-do and who consider that it would be unfair and unjust for them to accept £40 a month. I want to give these Deputies an opportunity to accept the original sum of £30.
That is the position on the one hand. On the other hand, I want to put an end, if there is any hope of doing so, to a lot of the hypocrisy that is going on in this House.
Including your own.
And a lot of others. You have the position of Deputies getting up here and opposing Bills just because they have full knowledge that there is a sufficient majority in this House to carry measures against their will. There are Deputies, some of them on those benches, who are 12 or 14 years members of this House and who never drew any salary.
Or allowance?
Or allowance. You have, on the other hand, Deputies here who, while admitting on the one hand that the allowances are not sufficient, on the other hand are objecting to taking more. I think the Deputy who adopts that attitude is placing himself in a very awkward and difficult position, and he is doing that because he knows very well, as was stated here last week, that the Government have a clear majority. It is for that reason I move my amendment.
I am more than interested in Deputy Corry's reasons for this amendment. The first reason, of course, is that he wants to give the wealthy people of this House an opportunity of refusing an increase in their allowances. His second reason is to expose the hypocrisy of members of the Opposition. Now I say that this is the most hypocritical amendment that was ever brought in anywhere. If the Deputy is genuine in his amendment let him bring the Fianna Fáil members into the Lobby to carry it. Then we will find out who is genuine and who is not. As one of those opposed to the increase of £10 a month, I am prepared not to take the extra £10 a month. I do not care what Deputy Corry thinks of my attitude on the Bill. The Deputy, when bringing in his amendment, spoke about hypocrisy. Now the bringing in of this amendment is purely and simply a whitewashing motion, so as to give him an opportunity of saying that certain people voted against the Bill because they knew it would be carried. Now there is nothing to prevent Deputy Corry from getting the Fianna Fáil Deputies to help us to carry this amendment.
I want just to say a word in reply to Deputy Corry. If the £10 extra is not given to me I am quite satisfied. I take great exception to the Deputy's statement charging the members against this Bill with hypocrisy. I want to say that all the hypocrisy is on Deputy Corry's side, because the Deputy told me not later than this week that he was opposed strongly to this Bill and that it was only when he got instructions from his Party that he had got to support it. If anybody is guilty of hypocrisy it is Deputy Corry. I know what it is for Deputies to live on their present allowances. But I cannot get out of my mind the great deprivation of thousands of poor families in this country. On a board of which Deputy Corry and I are members we had a case before us last Monday where a man and his wife and five children were in a terrible state of destitution. Rags were their only covering. The children were clothed in rags stitched together. I as one Deputy am prepared to carry on on the present allowance until such time as these destitute people are better looked after.
The speeches to which we have just listened show that some Deputies are not popular with other Deputies and that Ministers are not popular with anybody. We could not accept this amendment and I think no democratic Government could accept it.
And Deputy Corry knew that.
It would be very undesirable to make a statutory provision which would differentiate as between the allowance to be paid to one Deputy and the allowance paid to another Deputy, simply because one Deputy had more means than the other. In the past certain Deputies tendered, not merely to myself but to my predecessor, the paying order for the allowance which was issued to them every month. That paying order was invariably returned to them with the intimation that the Minister for Finance could not receive it, and that, of course, the Deputy could cash that order or not just as he wished himself. In most cases after a certain period the order was presented.
What about the man who looked for £7,000 back money belonging to a noble earl who said he would not take the money?
We are not going into these matters now. It would be most undesirable to differentiate between the allowance made to one member of the Dáil and the allowance made to another member, simply because the one member was in a better position to do without the allowance than the other. All of us have to be regarded on the one plane here, and there cannot be any question of choosing one man as a member of the Oireachtas who is to be paid less than the other. On behalf of the Government, I wish to say that I cannot accept this amendment.
The Minister calls this a statutory provision. There would be no differentiation made between one member and another in this matter. It is merely a question of whether Deputies writing to the Minister for Finance saying that they had a decided objection to accepting a larger allowance and taking the smaller allowance. Honestly speaking, I think that a Deputy should be afforded that opportunity. There were Ministers here for a certain period in the past five or six years who accepted a lower stipend than the stipend provided by the statute. What is good for the Ministers should be good for Deputies. Another thing I ask for is that the increase will be only provided on the application of the Deputy. I do not see anything impossible in that. I cannot see any grave difference between a Deputy applying for a certain amount and a Deputy applying to have a specific amount reduced. If there is a principle in one case, then there is also a principle in the other case. I think that the amendment should be accepted by all parts of the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Belton, Patrick.
- Broderick, William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Linehan, Timothy.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dav.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Pattison, James P.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corry and Linehan; Níl: Deputies Smith and Kennedy.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4.
At the end of sub-section (1) to add the words—
Provided that, where a member is in receipt of a pension from the State or is in the employment of a local authority, the allowance payable to such member shall be at the rate of £30 a month.
I wish to make an appeal to the Minister for Finance to accept this, as it will mean a saving, I understand, of about £11,000 a year. I understand the total cost is £14,000. That will mean a saving, I understand, of about £11,000 as there are, I think, 94 persons who are drawing pensions and who are employed by local authorities —94 Deputies. In view of the condition of affairs existing all over the country I think it is time we should begin somewhere to economise. Even last Saturday in Castlebar in the Co. Mayo, the county council had applications from the rate collectors in the county asking to have pounds for the impounding of live stock established all over the county. These pounds were disestablished, I suppose, about 30 or 40 years ago. Now, in order to collect the rates, that is the condition of affairs existing. I understand that quite a number of Deputies are whole-time officers of public authorities and they are getting substantial salaries. There is no reason in the world for giving them £150 a year. Some of them, I understand, are getting £1,200 a year from local authorities. In addition to getting £1,200 a year from local authorities they have substantial pensions also. With the pension and with the allowance, some of them have up to about £2,000 a year. There is no reason why the State should give these people £150 a year extra. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment.
Mr. Brennan
I would like to know from Deputy Nally, who has moved this amendment, which is an all-embracing amendment, what is his intention as far as pensions or payments from local authorities are concerned. We have pensioners in this country. They may not be Deputies to-day, they may be to-morrow, after the next election. Some of them are getting pensions as low as £8 a year. Are they excused according to Deputy Nally's amendment? Or, take the case of, say, a sub-sanitary officer or a warble fly inspector—are they excused?
It applies to Deputies only.
Mr. Brennan
We cannot direct the electorate as to who will be Deputies next year. We are legislating for the future as well as for today. We must not, in legislating, think that we are only dealing with the members of the House here present or those who are members of the House today. We must remember that we are legislating for the future. If this amendment is passed will not its reactions be that all those people will come under it? If that is not Deputy Nally's intention, I would like to know what it is. I am looking for clarity. I do not think it is Deputy Nally's intention that a Deputy who would be receiving £15 a year as sub-sanitary officer should be debarred in that way from taking his £10 a month extra. I do not think that is his intention. I am asking if it is.
On the principle of this, apart altogether from the points raised by Deputy Brennan, on the second reading of the Bill part of the Minister's case in favour of the Bill was made because he said that a number of people found it difficult to get through public life on the £360 a year. I challenged the Minister on the point as to whether there were many people in this House who received other monies from public funds. It is not a question of the amount of moneys; it is a question of the dual payment—the one employer paying two salaries, two pensions, or anything else. I am in favour of this amendment and, if the Minister's case was justified, that the £360 was not sufficient, he ought to be able to accept that where a person is provided for and has a large pension, or at least a substantial amount already, he ought not receive the increase under this Bill. That is the point I raised on the second reading and that is the point I make now.
I think it is a pity that this amendment was put in. The statement made by the Minister for Finance on the previous amendment, I think, was sound and it is as much as any Minister could do. It is what any Minister should do. You cannot have different types of legislation covering the same thing. What one member of the Dáil will get by way of allowance, every other member must get and while members of local authorities or employees of the State are allowed by law to become Deputies, then I think they should get the same allowance that any other Deputy gets.
I think this is a very short-sighted and, if I may say so, ill-considered amendment. What does it propose to do? It proposes to do this —first of all, I think, to regard what is an allowance as a salary. Some Deputies are under a complete misapprehension as to the purpose of the Parliamentary allowance which is made to the members of the Oireachtas. It is not a salary. It is an allowance towards the expenses which these Deputies necessarily incur when they do their duty to their constituents. I say necessarily incur when they do their duty to their constituents. There may be Deputies who do not do their duty to their constituents, and therefore, in my opinion, draw their allowance unjustly, but the authority for dealing with those Deputies is the electorate which elected them, and, as a rule, it does deal with them in due course. We are here considering, however, the position of a person who is a worthy representative of the electors who sent him here, a person who does look after their interests and who therefore does have to devote a considerable amount of time to that duty, and who, quite apart from that, does have to incur a considerable amount of expense under a number of various heads. I should like to emphasise that this is not a salary: it is an allowance towards expenses. What are we going to do, according to this amendment? We are going to single out two classes of people. First of all, we are going to single out the members of that class who, by past services, have been able to establish their right to draw a pension from the State. Now, a pension, in certain of these cases, if the man happens to be an ex-member of the Gardaí or of the Civil Service, is in the nature of deferred pay. If it is a military service pension it is in the nature of a recompense for the service which in circumstances of great danger the man concerned rendered to the State and the Nation. If it is a wounds or disability pension, it is by way of being some recompense for the physical disability which the person has suffered in the service of the State and the Nation. According to Deputy Nally's amendment, a person who has earned his pension as a Civil Servant or as a public official of one kind or another would be put in the position that if he is sent here to the Dáil to represent the people, he will be put under greater expense than the person who has not up to the present served the people in any way or has not earned anything from them. It means that the man who has earned his pension and who has served the people is going to have to pay some part of the personal cost of being a representative of the people out of his own pocket, whereas the man who has not served the people in any capacity is going to get £10 a month more towards the expenses of his office than the man who has served them.
That is what the first part of Deputy Nally's amendment proposes. The second part is this: that the person who is in the employment of a local authority is going to be put under the same disability. We have got to assume, however, that the person who is in the employment of a local authority and draws a salary from that local authority earns his salary, and that he gets it because he does his work well and properly. If he does not, of course, the local authority can object to his coming here, and there is another Government Department which will deal with that objection if it is made and if it is found to be well-grounded.
But the case we are dealing with is the case of a man who, we must presume, does his work well and is paid a salary for doing it, and because he does his job for the State or the local authority and does it well, according to this amendment, he is going to be put in a worse position than the man who might happen to be the employee of a private concern or who might be a shopkeeper, who might not be giving anything like the same value to the community as the employee of the local authority is giving and who, perhaps, might be getting very much more out of the community than the local employee was getting. According to Deputy Nally's amendment, however, we are not going to deal at all with the case of a person who, as a shopkeeper or as an employee of a private undertaking, might be getting a great deal more from the community and not giving half as good value for it as the employee of a local authority—and we are going to put him in the privileged position of drawing an additional £10 a month.
The fact of the matter is that there cannot be any discrimination of the sort the Deputy proposes if we are going to have democratic government in this country. If we are going to have a system whereby candidates are going to go to the electors and say: "Because I am in such-and-such a position, my expenses as a Deputy will only be so much, and because my opponent is in such-and-such another position his expenses as a Deputy, and the amount which the public purse will have to bear in respect of his membership of the Dáil, is going to be so much more"—then we are not going to have democracy at all in this country, but a kind of plutocracy in which a man's fitness to be a representative of the people in this Assembly will be gauged entirely by the amount which his membership of this Assembly is going to cost the country and the community as a whole. The principle which is enshrined in this amendment is a vicious principle, and those who believe in democracy and in equal opportunity for every section to be represented in this Dáil, ought not to vote for it.
I was interested in the Minister's adoption of a principle that he has not always held, and that is, that where a Deputy has a pension from the State, he has that pension because he earned it and there should be no deduction from his salary or allowance because he has that pension. I agree with that, but what about the poor civil servant who earns a pension, and it is deducted from his salary, or proportionately from his salary? On a previous occasion I had an amendment down, which the Minister would not accept, to allow a man who had earned a pension by reason of having gone out with a gun in his hand to fight for the freedom of the country, and who will not get it now. Many of these people are sorely in need of it, as a petition which was before the Minister recently showed him.
My thoughts in this connection have been centring around another class of people who do not get the full pension, or anything like it. I was thinking of that in connection with the sentiments expressed by the Minister. There is quite a number of people in this country, who, in recent years, have got a very small military service pension—£10, £12 or £13 a year —and immediately they got that pension they found that their unemployment assistance was reduced or, in some cases, entirely withheld. Not alone do they lose the opportunity of getting unemployment money, but they also lose the preference that that money carries with it for selection on local works. In view of that, I think a good deal could be said for the principle of this amendment, if the amendment could be more clearly defined. If we had a fair deal, as the Minister said, for everybody, we would know where we are, but when we find the people who are in the worst position in the country, who are in receipt of unemployment assistance, having their unemployment money withheld because they are in receipt of a small pension. I do not think there is any democratic principle involved in seeing that that principle is applied to people who are better off.
Amendment No. 4 put, and declared lost
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 3, Sir. Section 3 is the operative section of this Bill, and it is the reason why some members of the House divided the House on the Second Reading. As far as I am concerned, and as far as other Deputies of this Party are concerned, we see no reason to change our views since last Wednesday. As far as we are concerned, we are definitely and strongly opposed to the principle in this Bill of increasing the allowances of Deputies by £10 a month. The Minister used very specious arguments in connection with the Bill. He has been harping on democracy, and nothing else but democracy. I will make the Minister a present of all he ever thought of democracy if he is trying to provide a democratic Government by increasing the Deputies' allowance—or whatever he wishes to call it—to such a figure that, instead of getting in the type which quite possibly he wants in Dáil Eireann, it will become so attractive and the competition will be so intense that it will be the one post in the country which everybody will be dying to get, because it will cost them nothing to be a member of Dáil Eireann. The Minister on the Second Reading waxed quite sarcastic. He said we were afraid this would mean a more intelligent Opposition; that we might be afraid to cross swords with the more intelligent Opposition which this would bring in. I do not believe that, if he brought the allowances of Deputies of his Party up to £1,080 instead of £480, it would give a more intelligent Opposition in this House than we have at present.
I am also opposed to this section. I take it that it is the most important section of the Bill, inasmuch as it proposes definitely to increase the salaries of Deputies. I hold that at the present time there is absolutely no justification for such an increase. There has been from various sides of the House a certain amount of criticism of those who opposed this Bill. It has been suggested that by opposing this Bill they definitely debarred themselves from drawing this increase. I do not pretend to be one of the wealthy members of this House; as a matter of fact, I think I can claim to be amongst the poorest, because I think that a man who is trying to live on a farm, and particularly on a farm of inferior land, can claim to be amongst the poorest in this House, and as far as I am concerned I am not prepared to avail of any part of this increase for my own use. I intend to devote it to the farmers' organisation, but I do hold that the suggestion which has been made that any Deputy who opposed this increase is thereby debarred from availing of it is altogether unsound, because after all that is introducing the personal element into the matter, whereas we were told we should approach all matters of public importance from a disinterested and impartial standpoint.
You voted for it five minutes ago.
The position is that, in opposing this measure, members of this House are opposing a piece of legislation which they consider to be unsound. If this measure is passed, a Deputy of this House comes into an entirely different position. If he refuses to accept the increase, he is actually refusing to accept money which is legally due to him. That is an entirely different position from opposing legislation which——
I should like to tell the Deputy that this does not arise at all in the section. In the section there is no question of refusing to accept the increase. The Deputy must keep to the section.
This section deals mainly with the increase in salaries of Deputies, and I was simply referring to that aspect of the question. I think that any Deputy who has opposed this Bill but who wishes to avail of the money for his own use is quite entitled to do so. After all, if one Deputy is entitled to an allowance of £480, every Deputy is equally entitled to it. I have mentioned that I am quite free to speak on this matter owing to the fact that I myself do not intend to avail of this increase. Again, there was a suggestion that there was something dishonest and unworthy in our opposing this increase. That suggestion, I think, came from two Deputies whom I was rather surprised to find of the same way of thinking, but it has been said that great minds think alike, and it might also be said with equal truth that mean minds think alike. It was not altogether surprising to find Deputy Corry and Deputy O'Higgins of the same opinion. It was not altogether surprising to find those Deputies endeavouring to discredit other Deputies who had the courage of their convictions and who opposed legislation which they considered to be unjustifiable.
That suggestion was put forward by Deputy Corry and Deputy O'Higgins, but I do not think that any Deputy could have had any clear knowledge as to what action the Government might take if there was opposition to this proposal. I think that the Deputies who opposed this increase were quite justified in the action which they took, and I think they were carrying out the wishes of the people of this State. At the present time everybody is agreed that the country is in an impoverished condition, and I think everyone is also agreed that it does not tend to encourage the people who are forced to face serious economic conditions to find that those who are making the laws in this country are concerned chiefly with their own interests. That is the only view which can be taken in regard to this proposal. There was no urgent public demand throughout the country for the increase of Deputies' salaries or allowances. I am not prepared to argue the point as to whether the present allowances are adequate or otherwise, but I do contend that they are not sufficiently inadequate to justify the initiation of legislation of this kind.
There is another point to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention. This is one of the Houses of the National Parliament of Ireland, and I think that some Deputies at least have convinced the Government that they are entitled to an increase and that they are working very hard. I think that they should give a more visible exhibition of their zeal in the nation's interests by attending the meetings of this House and by attending to the business of this House. Now, we find that it invariably happens that the majority of the seats in this House are empty. I think that it is not an edifying position in a National Parliament. It is a position which would unfavourably impress strangers from any other country coming in here. A foreigner coming into this House——
The Deputy cannot make a Second Reading speech. He must confine himself to the section with which we are dealing.
I am sorry, Sir, but I was just making a suggestion to the Minister.
The Deputy must keep to the section.
I was hoping that the Minister would introduce a further amendment at a later stage making it compulsory for members to be present during a certain percentage of Parliamentary time. As far as this section is concerned I should like to ask what case has been established for increasing the allowance of Deputies from £30 to £40? Many arguments have been advanced to the effect that Deputies have to devote an enormous amount of their time to their duties as Deputies; that they have to attend to a great amount of business on behalf of their constituents, and that, therefore, their job is more or less a wholetime one.
If we accept the view that a Deputy's position is an all time one, in the present depressed economic condition of the country, £360 yearly is sufficient. I believe that Deputies who lose most by being members of this House are not those who are dependent on this allowance for a living, but those who carry on considerable business, and who, by being away, have to neglect it, and thereby suffer considerable financial loss. The case made for increasing the allowances was that it would help to secure the return of representatives of the poorer section of the community. That argument is altogether unsound. As far as the working classes, or small farmers, are concerned, they would not be deterred from seeking election to the Dáil because of the inadequacy of the existing allowance. There is absolutely no ground for advancing such a reason for increasing the allowance. I think £30 a month will be sufficient to induce any representative of the working classes, or of the small farmers, to seek election.
This is really the vital section of this Bill. I suppose if this section were taken out, the Bill, in the main, would be valueless. I intimated my position with regard to this section, and to the Bill on the Second Reading, when I stated that in certain circumstances I would be prepared to vote for it. In other words, I said that if Deputies were as anxious to set matters right in other respects, as they are in this, it could be done. If Deputies were really as anxious, as some of them expressed themselves to be in their speeches, about the condition of the people, they could have mended matters last week. They did not do so. I intimated then that if there was any gesture from the Ministry, or from the Government Benches, of any intention to offer immediately some effective assistance to the majority of the people, and that it would not be put on the long finger, I was prepared to vote for this measure. Apparently any effective relief for the people I represent is to be put on the long finger, and accordingly, I cannot vote for any increase of my own allowance or in the allowance of Deputies generally. If this House votes the extra allowance, I will take it, and I shall not be ashamed to take it. I will be able to make as good use of it as any Deputies on the opposite benches.
I am opposed to this section, and I offer no apology for being opposed to it. I do not agree with what Deputy Bennett has said, that if a gesture of a relief was made towards another section of the community—I presume he meant the farming community—he would vote for the Bill. There are limits to gestures, and the economic condition of the country sets a limit to these gestures. It is because of the economic position that I am opposed to this section, and on no other ground. The Minister knows that we are facing up to a financial crisis at the present time. He knows that money cannot be got for the housing of the working classes, even with his backing, by the municipality of Dublin. We cannot get money at an economic rate to house the working classes. Why? Because of the economic position, and because of the position revealed in that terrible indictment of Government policy, the report of the Banking Commission. With that position before us, I cannot understand any Deputy wanting to increase allowances, or voting for increased allowances.
There has not been an argument put forward that could be said to be in favour of an increase. What was the argument put forward? That men should take up politics as a profession. That is the sum and substance of the arguments that were advanced, and that people should be well paid for doing so. There are things that I supported, and that I sympathised with, in connection with this and a previous Bill that I would not support in normal times. I realise that brilliant men gave the best years of their lives, at a time when they should be minding their own business or professions, to the revolutionary movement which brought native government, and I would be the last to oppose these people being rewarded for their services, that they gave when there was no hope of getting a shilling either as pay or as pension. When such people pass into honourable retirement they should not be forgotten by the country they served so well. But to the young brood that is coming along, what is being offered from the Government Benches, and I am sorry to say from our own Benches, is but a bribe to take people from productive work and make them professional politicians. If there has been any curse to this country it has been the curse of professional politicians. As a business man and a farmer I make no apology for my attitude, but this Government, which pretends to cater for the poor, is being laughed at by the poor outside. They have no faith in it. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech.
The Deputy has been doing so.
That is in the Bill.
The Deputy must confine himself to the section.
I submit that the section is the Bill. If this section is taken out, there is nothing in the Bill. All the other things must go with it.
The principle of the Bill was passed on the Second Reading. Confine yourself to the section.
We are now dealing with a section to decide whether the allowance should be £30 or £40.
There is just the question of £40 a month. There is no alternative question.
The section deals with £40 a month or nothing. I will vote for nothing. In reply to the charge of hypocrisy, my position is that when a law is passed here it applies to every citizen. If there is any discrimination in the allowance to Deputies I am satisfied with the discrimination if there is also discrimination in taxation.
If I am going to pay my footing in taxation, I am going to get my rights as a citizen if I am performing my duties. Why cannot Deputies do their work on a less allowance than £40 a month? I notice that a case was made on the opposite benches that £360 a year was a good allowance for a Dublin Deputy. Now it is strange that it is the far-away Deputies who are opposing this section. As a matter of fact, I am the only Deputy in Dublin City and county who is opposing this—the only Deputy of any Party. I am opposing it strenuously and continuously for no reason but that £360 a year is a very good allowance for any Deputy, no matter where he lives. No Deputy is expected to give all his time to his parliamentary duties. If he gives all his time to these duties, he is not as good an asset to the country as the man who gives part of his time to the public service and part of his time to his own business. We do not want the professional politician to predominate in this country. We want the productive man, the man who knows he has to make his way in business or in a profession. He is the most useful type of man in the Legislature in this country. No case has been made for an increase of allowances to £40 a month. The whole country deprecates the notion of making the office of T.D. attractive to the professional politician. We do not want the professional politician and for no other reason I would vote against the allowance in order to keep out the professional politician. No case has been made for the increase and, consequently, I am voting against it.
I only intervene to contradict a statement made by Deputy Belton.
I beg Deputy Kelly's pardon. I made a mistake in his case.
Mr. Kelly
Deputy Belton, according to himself, did not make any mistake. But I want to put him right. He made a statement a minute ago that money could not be found to improve housing conditions in Dublin. I repudiate that. We are getting all the money we want up to the present, and we are going to continue to get money for that purpose. The credit of the City of Dublin was always high and it will remain high. I have been asked by people in Dublin, "When are you going to issue the next corporation stock—we are anxious to take up a good deal of it?"
When?
Mr. Kelly
When we have our arrangements made and when the City Manager puts forward his scheme.
This is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the section.
Mr. Kelly
I will only take one second to explain. I do not want to make a long speech, but it is a dangerous thing to make an attack on the credit of the City of Dublin when I am here.
As a matter of explanation, I want to say I made no reflection whatever on the credit of the City of Dublin.
Mr. Kelly
The Deputy said that even with the Minister's backing we could not get the money.
And it is true.
Mr. Kelly
It is not true.
It is true, and I defy contradiction of it.
Mr. Kelly
I contradicted the Deputy in the Corporation and in the Housing Committee, and I contradict him here again.
Deputy Kelly was not there. He knows nothing about it.
This Corporation matter has nothing to do with this Bill.
The Deputies on this side of the House who opposed the Bill opposed it because of this section. We have no objection to the provision of travelling expenses, but we strongly oppose this section of the Bill. When one takes into account the economic state of the country, he must strongly object to this section. If we want to prove our sincerity to the people we represent, if we want to show our honesty in attempting to improve conditions in this country, we should first of all think of the people who sent us here, and not of ourselves. On principle I object to this particular section. Never in the last 50 years has the primary industry in this country been in a worse position than that in which it is to-day. It is only in the present year that the reactions and repercussions of the economic war have struck us in full force. This, together with the disastrous weather, has placed our agricultural people in a desperate plight. When an appeal was made and a case was proved for having an examination of the agricultural position, when Deputies here made an attempt to illustrate the real position of agriculture, there was no help whatever from the opposite benches. These Deputies simply smiled and leered, and treated the matter with contempt. There was no one here who denied that a case was made by Deputies on this side of the House for better treatment for agriculture. What was said then truly represented the position, but the primary industry got no help and no assistance from Deputies on the opposite benches.
Now we have Deputies coming in here and telling the House of the enormous duty of a Deputy and his responsibilities to his constituents. These speakers have insisted on showing how necessary it was for a Deputy to go round and inspect lands and bogs and that sort of thing in order to make himself conversant with the requirements of his constituents. I submit that that is essentially a matter for a Government inspector. While it may be necessary for a Deputy at times to be conversant with matters of that kind, it is not his primary duty. The primary duty of a Deputy in this House has not been adverted to at all. The primary duty of a Deputy is to sit in this House and legislate for the people and for the country; examine Bills presented by the Government and try to help in the shaping and moulding of legislation that will be useful to the country. Some of the Bills presented here are presented with the intention of benefiting the community. But the majority of the Bills, in my opinion, are only piling up expenses and increasing the burden and the load upon the people. As Deputy Cogan has already pointed out when important legislation is being discussed here most of the seats are empty and a good many from the opposite benches are out in the lobbies interviewing people whom I might call prospectors—men who are looking for a reward for the work done at the last election. That is the kind of duty that is done here. One will find more of the Deputies in the bar. If Deputies want to do their duty they should sit the whole time in the House as far as possible at all events. That is their duty. The majority of the people down the country are very indignant over the introduction of this Bill. They are in a white heat about it. The disastrous effect of the economic war, coupled with a desperate year for the farmers right on top of it, is forgotten by Deputies and a Bill of this nature is presented to the House. Deputies should consider the welfare of the people. People tell us that the parliamentary system is passing. I am not expressing any view on that. One thing that is going to help to destroy the parliamentary system in every country is the neglect by Deputies to do their duty and examine the Bills and legislation presented to them as these ought to be examined. Quite recently, even within the last fortnight, after the adjournment of this House and as I was about leaving I found an envelope on the seat in one of the benches opposite. I recognised it was the envelope that contained the Orders of the day and the business before the House that day. But the envelope was not even opened. That Deputy was so utterly and so completely indifferent to the important business done in this House, business of great moment to the welfare of the people who sent him here to represent them, that he failed even to open the envelope. He had not as much curiosity as to try to find out what was the business of the day.
If it contained a paying order for £40 he would open it.
That is the sort of thing and that is the sort of indifference that is going to kill the parliamentary system. It is ordinarily understood that Deputies come here to legislate for the country and to examine Bills presented by the Government. I say that, so far as a number of Deputies are concerned, the business of this House is a sham, a farce and a fraud.
The Deputy may not refer to the business of this House as a farce. The Deputy must withdraw that word.
With all respect, I did not say the business was a farce. I submit I said that, so far as some Deputies are concerned, it is a farce. I did not say the business of the House was, and I do not say any such thing. I said that so far as some Deputies are concerned, the business of the House is a sham, a farce, and a fraud. If I am not in order in saying that, I shall be glad to withdraw, but I think I am in order. I never cast any aspersions on the House, on the business of the House, or on you, Sir.
What about the section before the House? This is not the time for reviewing how Deputies attend or do not attend to their duties.
This Bill provides allowances for Deputies, and, if a Deputy is going to get an increased allowance, he ought to make some attempt to earn it. I hope that if this Bill is passed we will see more seats occupied in the House. I join with other Deputies in opposing this Bill strongly, especially when the plight of the people could not be worse, and I suggest that we are showing utter and complete indifference to that situation.
I wish to oppose this section. I think Deputies are entitled to know who is behind this Bill. What deputations did the Minister receive? Who put forward the claims of Deputies for increases of salaries? Did the Minister receive any requests from this side of the House or from the Fianna Fáil Benches? According to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, the great majority of the delegates there were against it. Deputies on these benches and all over the House are entitled to know who has been behind this Bill, who has been asking for it. What memorials or deputations did the Minister receive? Did he get a deputation from the Chamber of Commerce or the Salvation Army? Where did the promotion of this measure originate?
There were a couple of statements made in connection with this section upon which I must comment. There was, first of all, Deputy Cogan's statement that he does not intend to avail of this increase. If that is the Deputy's firm and fixed intention, it may be some consolation to him to know that he may have some difficulty in carrying out the intention. He has already announced it in the House, but it will be my duty to send him a paying order, and I shall await with interest the action which Deputy Cogan takes in respect to the first paying order which I send him and all those which I shall send subsequently. I think this House is not the place to make such statements as Deputy Cogan has made here to-day. No Deputy has a right to single himself out as being better than his fellows; no Deputy has a right to put himself on a superior plane, holding himself out with a sort of purse-proud air, bragging that he is not going to do as other Deputies who, because their means may not be as good or their circumstances as good, are compelled to do.
I shall await with interest to see the steps which Deputy Cogan intends to take to carry out his declared intention here to-day. I cannot see how I can facilitate him. I much prefer the manly attitude of Deputy Bennett or Deputy Belton. They have announced that they are against the Bill but they intend to take the allowance. That is the correct attitude. If any other Deputy wants to put himself in a superior position to his fellows, he will find under the statute, the law and the Constitution that it is a rather difficult thing to do.
It has been said that, coupled with the proposals in the Bill, there should be some condition compelling Deputies to sit here. It may be easy to sit here when some members of the House are speaking. I do not think I am one of the easy ones to listen to. There are some Deputies to whom it is a pleasure to listen, but does Deputy Cogan or Deputy Hughes or some other Deputy suggest that when he gets on his feet other Deputies are going to be compelled to sit and listen to what is said, day after day, hour after hour? If that were to be the position, then I should imagine that £40 a month would be little recompense.
We have listened to lectures here this afternoon about the duties of Deputies. It is quite true that the main function of a Deputy is to assist in framing legislation. I will concede that at once to Deputy Hughes; but it is not to be supposed that his duties end there. If one were to ask a member of the Government or of the Opposition Front Bench what is the primary purpose of Deputies who sit on the respective benches, one would be told that the primary purpose was to satisfy their constituents that they were fit and proper representatives of the constituencies for which they had been elected, and that they should so fulfil the multifarious duties which those constituents have imposed upon them as to be returned at the next general election.
I think there is a great deal that can and must be done for constituents outside this Chamber. It is not necessary in order that a man may be a good Deputy that he should listen when the Minister for Finance or Deputy Cogan or Deputy Hughes is speaking. There are other things which have to be attended to, and if a Deputy is going to take an effective part in the debates here he will spend, not merely a good part of his time here, but also a much greater portion in the Library trying to make up the material for the discussions in which he is going to participate. It is not by sitting here hour after hour, watching the clock and jumping up to speak when the spirit moves him that a man makes a good Deputy or participates in the debates intelligently. It is the common experience that Deputies who sit here, getting up when the spirit moves them and talking, are the Deputies who contribute least to the framing of good legislation. Such a Deputy often talks not out of knowledge but out of ignorance on the problems which are under discussion.
I wish to protest at the charge levelled against an unknown Deputy by Deputy Hughes. Deputy Hughes said he found an unopened official envelope addressed to a particular Deputy and, because of that, he concluded that the man who had not opened the envelope was utterly and completely indifferent to the business of the House and the welfare of his constituents. I think that is a very serious charge to base upon such slender evidence. Perhaps the Deputy might have mislaid the envelope, but because he has mislaid it and it is found unopened, that does not indicate that he is completely indifferent to the business of the country or that he is unaware of the business that is being transacted here. The Deputy knows it is quite possible to go to the General Office and get another copy of the Bill or whatever official document may have been in the envelope.
It is all very well for Deputies to criticise the Government, very often indeed upon a very slender basis. It is the duty and the privilege of the Opposition to slate us because of our fancied sins of omission or commission; but I think it is not fair to give the public outside the general impression that Deputies of this House are lax or indifferent to the interests of their constituents. On the contrary, if Deputy Hughes ever occupies ministerial office or even joins the ranks of those Parliamentary Secretaries who are regarded with so little esteem by certain members of this House, he will very speedily change his opinion as to the amount of attention which Deputies devote to their constituents when he is bombarded day after day with letters relating to the affairs of the different constituencies.
Is the Minister speaking from experience?
I am. I get an enormous number of letters from Deputies of all Parties every day and I try to attend to them because I know these Deputies are trying to do their duty to their constituents. I can certainly say this, that the amount of correspondence and the number of matters which the average Deputy has to attend to day after day is very much greater than he is generally given credit for. I think it is quite unfair to allow the public outside to believe that the general mass of Deputies are indifferent to the concerns of their constituents. There are in every Party Deputies who are—we have to admit that—but they are the exceptions and they do not remain very long here. They pass out. They are found out by their constituents and they pass out at the next general election.
I was going to say nothing about what Deputy Belton has said in regard to the affairs of the Dublin Corporation, but I think it would not be relevant on this Bill. I can possess myself in patience. I do know that if people find difficulty in getting money very often it is because they do not know how to ask for it.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:— Tá, 76; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Benson, Ernest E.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- 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.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- Munnelly, John.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George C.
- Broderick, William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Linehan, Timothy.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Smith and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies O'Neill and Linehan.
Question declared carried.
Section 4, amendment No. 5, not moved.
Mr. Brennan
Amendment No. 5, Sir, stands with the other?
Or falls, if the Deputy likes.
Mr. Brennan
Falls, exactly.
SECTION 4.
(1) The travelling facilities to be granted to each member of the Oireachtas under this Act shall be—
(a) in the case of a member of Dáil Eireann who does not reside in his constituency, travelling facilities between—
(i) Dublin and any place in his constituency,
(ii) Dublin and his normal place of residence for the time being,
(iii) such normal place of residence and any place in his constituency;
(b) in the case of a member of Dáil Eireann who resides in his constituency, travelling facilities between Dublin and any place in his constituency;
(c) in the case of a member of Seanad Eireann, travelling facilities between Dublin and his normal place of residence for the time being;
(d) in the case of any member of the Oireachtas travelling facilities from and to his normal place of residence for the time being or from and to Dublin or from and to any place in his constituency when undertaking journeys—
(i) to attend, on the invitation of a member of the Government, State functions, or
(ii) on the invitation of a member of the Government, to inspect important public works or visit institutions, or places, or districts.
Mr. Brennan
With regard to amendment No. 6, standing in my name, Sir, I should like to ask the Minister about the construction of that particular section Is it necessary to put in the word "member" there? After all, the Oireachtas, according to the Constitution, consists of the Uachtarán and the members of both Houses. Was that contemplated, or are travelling facilities provided here for all members of both Houses? It seems to me that "members of both Houses" must be inserted.
I do not think so. I should be reluctant to accept the Deputy's point of view, in view of the fact that this has been drafted by experienced legal draftsmen, and I assume that they have not overlooked the point he has made. As a matter of fact, I understand that the specific point raised by the Deputy was referred to the Parliamentary draftsman, and that he said that, having regard to the Long Title of the Bill, the use of the term "Member of the Oireachtas" in the body of the Bill is appropriate and not open to question.
Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Mr. Brennan
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1) (a), lines 40/41, to delete the words "who does not reside in his constituency" and to delete sub-paragraph (iii), lines 45/46 and substitute the words:—
"(iii) such normal place of residence (being outside Dublin) and a selected and agreed centre in his constituency, provided such normal place of residence is more than 20 miles from the nearest point of such constituency,"
and to delete paragraph (b).
I referred to this on the Second Reading. Amendment No. 8 is to replace paragraph (iii) of sub-section (a) of Section 4, which reads "such normal place of residence and any place in his constituency," by substituting therefor "such normal place of residence, being outside Dublin, and a selected and agreed centre in his constituency, provided such normal place of residence is more than 20 miles from the nearest point of such constituency." My object in putting that in is this. Let us take the case of a Deputy who lives convenient to his constituency, but right outside the boundary mearing—outside the bridge, let us say. If we are to allow that section to remain as it stands in the Bill, that man, since he is living outside his constituency, will have a right to get his expenses for travelling into his constituency on every and any day he so chooses to travel, or, in other words, the Deputy living outside his constituency may organise his constituency at the expense of the State. I am sure that that was not intended or desired. Consequently, I think that any Deputy living, say, within 20 miles of his constituency, is practically in as good a position to travel his constituency as the man living inside it.
If he is living further away than that, however, I say that he ought to be entitled to get into his constituency on equal terms with the man living inside and that, for that purpose, there ought to be an agreed centre, fixed as between the Deputy concerned and the Minister for Finance, to which he can always claim his expenses. I think it would be unfair to the Deputy who is living inside his constituency not to have the right to get travelling facilities within his constituency while the man outside the mearing should have those facilities. I do not think it is desired by the House or by the Minister that the man living outside should have those facilities. Consequently, I think he ought not to have them, and that we ought to guard against this in some way.
I think that No. (iii) of (a) does need either amendment or deletion. No. (iii) of (a) puts a premium on a Deputy living outside his constituency, a definite premium, and I think that is not what any Deputy in this House would wish for or ask for. Deputy Brennan's amendment certainly would provide a way out. His amendment would allow a Deputy living away from his constituency travelling facilities to one specific portion of that constituency, just like an ordinary Deputy going home to a place of residence in his constituency. As the section stands, a Deputy living outside his constituency can travel to any portion of that constituency and have his way paid. For instance, if one Deputy in my constituency lived in Cork City he could travel through any portion of his constituency free, whilst a Deputy living outside the borough boundaries of Cork would have to pay his way about the constituency.
That would not be fair to Cork!
It is ridiculous. I do not think this House should put a premium on an absentee Deputy and give him facilities which are refused to the Deputy living within his constituency. I think it is unfair and unjust. It is the most ridiculous clause I ever saw inserted in a Bill. It is a clause giving definite rights to a Deputy who does not live in his constituency, and who has not the same amount of work to do that a Deputy living in his constituency has to do. I was hoping that the amendment to the section would be accepted. That would place both Deputies on a level footing. Since, however, it would be against the rules of the House to increase expenditure I think that No. (iii) should either be deleted altogether or that Deputy Brennan's amendment to No. (iii) of (a) should be accepted.
Mr. Brennan
Perhaps I may say at this stage that that was an alternative to my original suggestion with regard to rail and bus passes. If that could be done, then there would be no necessity at all for that particular section or for my amendment either. My amendment would go out because every Deputy would have a bus and rail pass.
I wonder whether there is any use in appealing to the Minister to have the whole matter of Section 4 reconsidered. As it stands, it is unfair and unjust to Deputies living amongst their constituents and doing their work there. It is unfair and unjust, and I would appeal to the Minister to have the whole matter reconsidered on the Report Stage.
I should like some further expression of opinion on the part of other Deputies before I would be prepared to accept the principle in this amendment. There may be something in it, but it does seem to be restrictive of the travelling facilities. As against that, most of the Deputies, and particularly the two Deputies who are in favour of the proposal now before the House, have been advocating that we should rather enlarge the travelling facilities than otherwise.
Mr. Brennan
I have not.
There may be something to be said for it, but I think it would be rather impulsive, if I may put it so, if the House were to consider this merely from the point of view that a Deputy who resides outside his constituency has some fancied—I think it is fancied—advantage over a Deputy who happens to reside inside the constituency. Perhaps there is a great deal of advantage to be derived from the fact that a Deputy does reside in his constituency. I presume he is in more constant touch with his constituents, and that while he may, as the section is worded at present, have to incur larger expenses purely on the head of travelling, as against that by reason of the fact that he resides in his constituency he is relieved of hotel expenses at any rate, and perhaps his postal expenses may be diminished also. It may be that there is nothing in that point. On the other hand, there may be something in it. A Deputy who resides some distance from his constituency, and who wants to go into his constituency, while he may get an advantage on the head of travelling under the section as it stands, on the other hand he may lose by reason of the fact that he has to provide himself with lodgings for the night at his own expense, so perhaps one thing may balance out the other. This is a matter on which I should like to get some guidance from Deputies. It is really a point upon which there is something to be said for a more general participation in the discussion than has taken place. If I were satisfied that the anomaly which undoubtedly has been produced by the section as it stands should be removed, I would be prepared on the Report Stage to try to meet the point of view which has been expressed; but I should hesitate to do so until I was satisfied that the general opinion of the House was that that was the line we ought to take.
Does not the Minister think that a man living in his constituency can be 100 miles from a given point in that constituency, whereas a man living outside his constituency might live less than 100 miles from any point in it? I think the section is unfair to the other Deputies.
I think there is an unfair distinction—an unintended one, I am sure—contained in that provision. A Deputy living outside his constituency would have an unfair advantage over those who reside within it. He can travel free to the various places in his constituency, whereas the Deputy who lives within it has to bear all that out of his own pocket. There is an unfair discrimination there which I am sure is not intended and certainly ought to be remedied. There is no use in labouring the point. It is quite clear that there is an unfair advantage given to the man who resides here in Dublin as compared with the man who lives in his constituency. My constituency is not a big one—it has only three members—but still you can do a journey of 40 miles in any direction. In the bigger constituencies it must be considerably more. It is perhaps up to 60 or perhaps 100 miles. The man who resides here in Dublin has free travelling facilities to every part of his constituency, whereas the man who lives in it has to bear all those expenses himself, and hotel accommodation does not arise at all. Those provisions are unfair and ought to be put right.
I should like to give the Minister an example of how it works out. West Cork was split up, yet, while I live in the constituency, Castletownbere is just 100 miles from my house. By living in the constituency I can only get travelling facilities to my own house. Another member of the Dáil, living outside, could get free facilities as far as Castletownbere. I have to bear the personal expenses of getting over the 100 miles. I do not hold for the principle that a man living in the constituency should only get travelling facilities to his home. The discrimination is very unfair against men who live in their constituencies as against those who live outside them. For instance, a man living in Cork could get free travelling facilities to Castletownbere. That is one example of the difficulty of arriving at a decision in this matter.
I live 18 miles from Dublin, but if I lived in the city I would be allowed expenses to other portions of my constituency. I have not been allowed anything for 15 years. I have also to travel to the borders of County Carlow and I am not allowed anything. If I resided in Dublin I could get travelling allowance as far as Cork.
No matter how we do it, when a principle or a general rule has to be applied to particular cases it is bound to raise numerous anomalies. We cannot avoid that. We are up against this position, that, because one person cannot take an advantage of the section, arguments are put up that no person should be allowed an advantage. I am anxious to get opinions from other quarters of the House and from Deputies who have not yet spoken. If the amendment is withdrawn I will try to limit the terms of the section in such a way as will overcome most of the serious grievances which have been advanced. I cannot do any better than that. It must be understood, however, that the amendment will limit the privileges extended to some Deputies. This is a one-way street for the purposes of the amendment.
I wonder if the Minister could reconsider the whole issue. There is an issue in the section that should be straightened out once and for all. If a Deputy was a rogue he could get over it, if he wanted. If Deputy O'Neill, for instance, wanted to get to Castletownbere he would have to go home and come back to Dublin, and then he could get a ticket to Castletownbere. He can do that according to the Bill. If Deputy O'Neill wanted to speak in Castletownbere next Sunday, he could get a ticket home to-night, or he could stay in Dublin and get a ticket, but he would have to pay his way back here. Sub-section (b) allows a Deputy travelling facilities between Dublin and any place in his constituency. Dublin would have to be the centre. If the Bill is left as it is the inducement is there, rather than hire a motor-car, to travel from Dublin and get a ticket.
I hope Deputy O'Neill has something more to do with his time.
I put it to the Minister that the Bill contains anomalies of that description. If paragraph (a) or sub-section (3) stand they put a premium on Deputies living outside their constituencies. That is ridiculous. Deputy Hurley represents South Cork, but he or I would have to go to Cork to get full travelling expenses in the constituency. I suggest that the whole matter needs revision. Surely there is intelligence enough in the Department of Finance to deal with the matter. At the Public Accounts Committee we hear frequently all about those who spend 2½d. There should be some reasonable way of finding a way out of the difficulty. I intend to move the deletion of sub-section (3) on the Report Stage, on the ground that a premium should not be placed on Deputies living outside their constituencies. The next matter concerns the extra hotel expenses.
A Deputy living in Dublin can come to the Dáil in a bus, and go perhaps once a month to his constituency in the country. A Deputy living in Dublin can do his business, and then come to the Dáil at 3 o'clock. Whether he is better off or worse off than other Deputies, if he goes once a month to his constituency, he has to pay a hotel bill for one night only, while other Deputies, who have to come up to Dublin, and in many instances leave home on Monday, are not able to get back until Saturday. I have a decided objection to putting a premium on absentee Deputies. When I go home I have to receive deputations at the train, and perhaps another deputation the following day. Deputies in the rural districts have to interview these people and to take up their cases in order to look after the interests of their constituents. That is our job. On the other hand, if the constituents of the Deputy who lives in Dublin want to see him, they have to pay their way up. The advantages are all with Deputies who live in Dublin. We do not want to have a Dáil where all the Deputies are living in Dublin, and where the constituencies are let go pot.
Would you like to see them all living in Cork?
In Cork we look after our own business, and I am sure the Deputy's fellow members would welcome him amongst them.
There is room for difference on this question. I am not resident in Dublin, but I do not think this question is worth all the discussion that has taken place. The only point made was that some were getting advantages that others were not getting. There appears to be no question of a revision upwards of the general facilities for Deputies, but rather of limiting facilities for a particular section. I do not think there is much in the point. If Deputies who live in the country feel that Dublin men, who represent rural constituencies, have advantages because of the facilities available for them, I would not agree. As far as I can trace, a Deputy gets facilities from Dublin to any point in his constituency, and back to Dublin, but, if he wants to go to any other point he has to come back to Dublin to get there. Men resident in their constituencies travel to their home and are more in touch with them than those resident in Dublin. If those living in Dublin do not keep in touch with their constituents they will suffer at the next election. I do not think there is any great need for revision if there is not going to be a general increase of facilities for Deputies. In all the circumstances, a man who is doing the work in a rural constituency knows the conditions there and is deserving of a certain amount of sympathy. If there is no other point in this, except to limit someone getting some advantage, I do not think the matter is worthy of consideration.
Mr. Brennan
The Deputy must not have read the amendment. People living in Dublin have a definite advantage. Before I withdraw the amendment I suggest that the solution lies in having more extended facilities in the way in which I endeavoured to have at first—rail and bus passes. I think that could be achieved. This is an alternative, so as to try to get the other point emphasised, I have no Deputies and I have no persons in view at all except now that we have an opportunity to level it out and devise a better scheme, we should try to do so.
My general line would be to extend these facilities if I could, only if I have to reconsider this at all it would be with a view of restricting the facilities which the section as it stands would give to some Deputies. I will do that because I feel that the House is equally divided and that it is my job to save the money if I can. I will look and see if I can deal with the anomaly which has been mentioned here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9.
In sub-section (1), page 3, line 55, to insert after the words "Dublin or" the words, "in the case of any member of Dáil Eireann."
The section as drafted covers any member of the Oireachtas. The words "from and to Dublin or from and to any place in his constituency", only refer to members of Dáil Eireann. This amendment is necessary to clarify the position. The amendment is purely a verbal one.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10.
Before sub-section (4) to insert the following new sub-section—
(4) Where a member of either House of the Oireachtas is, under the preceding provisions of this Act, entitled, by way of travelling facilities, to repayment of travelling expenses, no payment in respect of such travelling expenses shall be made unless the claim therefor is, within one hundred days after such travelling expenses were incurred, lodged with, in case such House is Dáil Eireann, the Clerk of Dáil Eireann or, in case such House is Seanad Eireann, the Clerk of Seanad Eireann.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that claims will be made for a refund of travelling expenses within a reasonable time. The limit is within one hundred days. A considerable amount of inconvenience has been caused to the Department, and indeed in some cases questions of doubtful issue have arisen because of the fact that a time limit was not hitherto embodied in the regulations by the Minister for Finance. We have not been able to insist that claims for refunds will be furnished within a reasonable period. I think no person will argue that if a Deputy does not make a claim for a refund within 100 days his claim should be allowed.
Agreement agreed to.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Deputy Kennedy has an amendment to Section 5. It is out of order, and he has been so informed.
My amendment is:—
In sub-section (2) (a), line 43, to delete the words "that date" and substitute the words "the date of nomination".
I have in mind that from the dissolution of the Dáil to the signing of the roll by Deputies no allowance is paid. We must bear in mind that in the last 16 years we have had eight general elections, one on an average every two years. That involves a hardship on Deputies like myself who have little or no means. In addition, the personal expenses in a general election are very heavy. The object of this amendment is to ensure that Deputies who are elected would be paid from the date of nomination.
The Deputy has been informed that the amendment is out of order.
No, Sir, I was not so informed.
I understood that the Deputy had already received that information. I allowed him to make the statement he has made.
Would the Minister consider it on Report Stage?
I am afraid I could not consider this amendment. The Bill only provides for allowances towards the expenses of a member of the Oireachtas. A person is not a member of the Oireachtas until he has been elected a member. He has only been nominated.
He has justified his nomination if he is elected.
Amendment not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Section 6, 7 and 8, and the Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
Next Wednesday 7th December.