He is under certain expenses arising out of his office. Is he to get an allowance in respect of these expenses? He told us he was not a man of means. We will assume that he subscribes certain sums to any number of organisations or bodies. Let us assume for a moment that there is a richer man than he representing that constituency, who is in a position to give much larger subscriptions than the Deputy. When the question of being allowed for these subscriptions arises, can it be conceived that an income-tax inspector, seeing in the one case a subscription of £5 and in the other a subscription of 5/-, will allow the man who gives the £5 subscription the amount of his subscription, whereas he will allow Deputy Flanagan only 5/-? There is discrimination there. If he does not allow the £5, obviously the Deputy who gives that subscription is being charged in respect of a sum in excess of what he has in income.
I thought we would have heard some case made when the motion was being introduced. No case was made for it. We are prepared to listen to a case. I would have much greater respect for the motion if it ran: "... shall cease to be exempt from income-tax, and that the assessment shall be at the rate of 7/6 in the £ in respect of every £1." We would know where we were then. We do not know where we are now, or what it means. For something like 20 years there has been criticism of the amounts paid as allowances to members of the Dáil. We had the Fianna Fáil Party, when it was in the wilderness, attacking it. After a while they dropped it, and a change was made some years ago. I took no part in the discussion of that change. I think that such a case as was made here by Deputy Flanagan is a case which would appeal to me. I should rather see somebody else getting off with perhaps a few pounds extra than to do an injustice to him.
The sum involved is not very considerable, because if we take the whole value of 7/6 in the £ on every £1 of the £480 paid here and every £1 of the £360 paid in the Seanad, it would not amount to 33,000. The best effort which can be made in respect of the rehabilitation and reinvigoration of this country by the Party responsible for this motion is to put down a motion to take up time talking about a possible saving, an exaggerated saving, a saving that would never be achieved. of £33,000.
Is it not nonsensical that, at a time when the world is rocking round about us, when we have problems to discuss here, when we have post-war conditions to envisage and present conditions to consider, the best gesture that can be made by the Party which has just come into existence is to save £33,000, on the assumption that there was added to their proposal the sentence I have suggested: "That income-tax shall be charged on every £1 of that allowances at the rate of 7/6 in the £1"? That is not there.
Some people want to get out of this without paying 1d., merely on the basis of indicating to the people outside that we are going to impose income-tax here "the same as every body else", when, as I have said, there are probably not two persons in the country assessed on the same basis of assessment. What is the matter with regard to this motion is that people outside, this being a poor country in certain respects, consider that whatever is paid here as an allowance or salary—whichever way you wish to regard it—is a large amount. It is a large amount to a person down the country who does not leave his neighbourhood, except for the purpose-of whatever business he is engaged in, going to the parish church on occasion and so on. A sum of £480 appears to him to be a sum which can be put in the bank. We have heard from one Deputy this evening that that is not the case. Will he be allowed any sums in excess of what he would spend if he were at home?
This whole matter would tax the ingenuity of income-tax inspectors all over the country, if it were to be interpreted as it is phrased at present. Its meaning is not perfectly clear to me. It says that these allowances "should cease to be exempt from income-tax". Is there to be any allowance in respect of one-fifth of earned income? Is it to be regarded as earned income? We are not told that by the mover. I wonder does he know. Surely when a proposal of this sort comes up, we are at least entitled to hear a clear and lucid explanation of it. Is the mover prepared to add to his motion that these allowances should be liable for income-tax at the full rate of 7/6 in the £1? He will get a very different reception in the House if he does. I suggest that, in the interests of public decency, a matter of this sort should be dealt with finally, and if there is no better way of dealing with it, a select committee should consider it. If the £480 now paid as an allowance is considered by a select committee to be excessive, then fix a figure, and let those who are best qualified to inform the committee as to what the expenses are set them out.
We had that procedure before. We had this matter subjected to examination by a commission. It was examined by a commission of mixed people, representing, I might almost say, a cross-section of the people. It is quite true that that committee did not make any recommendation for a change in the sum of £360 then being paid, and, no recommendation having been made, the Government, in its wisdom or unwisdom, brought in a proposal to increase the amount to £480, submitted it to the House, and carried it. There has been a general election since. It is quite true that a great deal of criticism was passed upon the increase then made, but if we take the change which has taken place in the representation as an indication of support of that criticism, there is no evidence whatever of it. As I said before, this matter has been dealt with very largely on the platform and in the Press, and, assuming that the motion means more than it says, the full and entire saving which would ensue amounts to £30,000. Is it worth it?
We are told that there is a question of principle involved. What principle is there in it? Does anybody know that, under the income-tax laws, allowances pass as free from tax? The only question that remains is: is it an excessive amount? I am prepared to have that discussed and settled by a committee which will take counsel with persons who have experience, and, in that case, those who live farthest away from Dublin and who have consequently to meet greater expenses than those who live in or around Dublin should get the opportunity of putting a case before the committee
I hope we are not going to be told, so far as our richer neighbours across the water are concerned, that there they pay only £600, of which £100 is non-taxable, being regarded as an allowance. Representation in the Parliament across the water is drawn from a section of people who are far better off than will be got for representation in this House. More than half of them would not require any allowance while the other half, if the necessity arose, would have institutions or other organisations which would enable them to take part in public life, regardless of whatever expense they might be put to. A very good case could be made for paying nothing whatever, but that was not considered advisable in any of the Dála elected since the inception of this House. That was the view taken by them. The only question to be solved is whether or not the amount allowed is excessive. I think whatever amount is paid, it should be the same to every person and that there should be no distinction made between one Deputy and another.
