An hour and fifty minutes remain for this motion. The introducer of the motion will be given 20 minutes in which to conclude.
Private Deputies' Business. - Oireachtas Allowances—Deduction of Income Tax—Motion (Resumed).
I felt that it was rather amusing to listen last night to Deputy Sir John Esmonde and Deputy W.T. Cosgrave reflecting upon our knowledge, or my knowledge, of the income-tax code and taking up what I would describe as the position of the kindly father to the prodigal son. They felt it was necessary to try to educate us with regard to the application of income-tax and the administration of the income-tax code. I am well aware that a substantial sum was spent—I assume, free of tax—to teach these Deputies the details of income-tax administration. That, of course, I had the privilege of enjoying. Nevertheless, it is not necessary for me to have to study—commonsense is sufficient— to know that income-tax, as we know it, should be applicable to the amounts received by members of this House. There is nothing tremendous or exciting about it and there is nothing which might be considered new involved. It is not a decision which the Farmers' Party are trying to bring about, but a decision which the people are agitating for. Deputy Cosgrave scoffed at the saving which would result from the adoption of this motion. It would come to only £33,000 per annum, he said.
No, he did not say that. He said that if every Deputy paid 7/6 in the £ on every £——
It would come to £33,000. That is what I am telling the House.
Do not quote the Independent.
I have no need to quote the Independent because I was speaking here last night before the Independent leading article was published.
It was often useful.
You would need some assistance.
At one time, Deputy Cosgrave was very anxious for economy. His administration once brought in a Bill to take 1/- from the old age pensioners—from poor people on the edge of the grave, as one might say. It is only a man with an economic mind who would have thought of that, only a man like Deputy Cosgrave, and in fact it would take men like Deputy Cosgrave's colleagues to psycho-analyse his mind and find out exactly what he meant. Old age pensioners were then described by one of his supporters as living in luxury on £26 per annum.
All of which is quite outside this motion.
And neither is it correct.
I am trying to build up an argument as to why income-tax should be applied to the sums received by Deputies and Senators.
We are not engaged in psycho-analysis of any man's mind 20 years ago.
Both big Parties stand for the means test. Both have agreed to a policy by which a standstill Order is put into operation in respect of the wages which a worker receives, but when a proposal is made that they should pay income-tax as ordinary citizens do, they unite in opposition to it. It is only necessary to read the debates on the proposal to increase Deputies' allowances in 1939 to know that they would unite to build up the salaries which they receive out of the people's purse.
Allowances.
I remind the Deputy that the Opposition were rather annoyed when they were described as allowances. They said we should describe them as salaries. If Deputy Esmonde is looking for dishonesty, he need not search far. Both the big Parties have displayed, and are displaying, dishonesty, and there is no need for them to look across at these benches, to point the finger of scorn at us and to say we are dishonest. We are dishonest perhaps because we have hurt their feelings, because we have moved something which the people desire should be moved. Members of the House fully realise that and know that it is a fact.
Our attitude to this question is going to have a marked effect on the regard of the ordinary man and woman for Parliament. Deputies know well that many people regard the present arrangement as unjust. It is not our Party which is demanding the change, but the ordinary citizen. The demand existed long before we came into this House. It is very unwise for Deputies to refer me or anybody on these benches to what appears in the Irish Independent. We are told that it has been advocating this. The present arrangement offends the ordinary man. The ordinary citizen is old-fashioned enough to believe that people who make laws for others should observe these laws themselves and should be prepared to accept them, no matter what trials or burdens the effect of such laws may have upon their ordinary lives. Deputy Esmonde mentioned last night that one newspaper was campaigning for this. No doubt, Fianna Fáil speakers will accuse us of taking our line from this paper. But have not the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Parties combined about this, although they differed over something that happened 20 years ago? Have they not read the programme that we put before the people during the last general election? I am sure they have. In that programme they will find that we advocated the application of the payment of income-tax to these allowances. I would remind the House that that programme came from the people and was not made up by what we as politicians may determine. Of course, the Irish Independent has been urging this. That does not prove that it is wrong. I remember when I was a young fellow reading a very clever statement that was made by the Taoiseach. It arose out of the Spanish War. One side of the House wanted to recognise Franco and the other side did not—that it would mean following England. “Well,” said the Taoiseach, “if I was on the way to Heaven with the devil that does not suggest that I would turn back.” I thought that was very clever. He would be very unwise to turn back if he was on the way to Heaven, even though the devil was in his company. Some people may look on the Irish Independent as being anti-Irish, anti-national or low, but this does not mean that we are following in its footsteps. I notice that some Deputies are smiling. They are smiling, I suppose, over their own pitfalls.
I said last night that an increase in the allowances on which income-tax should be paid would be preferable to the continuance of tax-free allowances. Across there on the Fine Gael Benches I heard a very astute politician, a man with the law at his finger-tips, say:
"Ah, you have let the cat out of the bag." That remark was splashed in the Irish Press to-day, not that we get much publicity in “Truth in the News”. We have no cat in our bag to let out in the same sense in which Deputy Linehan describes it, or at least in the sense in which he would like to interpret this. What I meant by that statement was this: that if there is a majority of Deputies opposed to the application of income-tax to the allowances because of the fact that by assenting to it their allowances would not be sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties, then, in my opinion, it would be preferable to increase the allowances and pay income-tax on them according to the code that operates for those outside the House. As far as I and the members of this Party are concerned, we are opposed to any increase. We want income-tax to be payable on the present allowances, without any increase, but in order to satisfy those Deputies who claim that they do so much and work so hard that their allowances are not sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties to the constituents whom they have the honour to represent, I want to say to them that if they are in the majority they have got an alternative, and that is to increase the allowances and make them subject to the payment of income-tax. But, so far as the Farmer Deputies are concerned, we believe beyond any question of doubt—I am glad that Deputy Linehan is present to hear what I have to say—and we want it to be understood that we are demanding the application of income-tax to our present allowances. We do not desire any increase, and would vote against it. I am not advocating increased allowances. I think that the present allowances are big enough, and that the ordinary income-tax rate should be applicable to them after claims for expenses have been met.
I listened to the speeches made last night by Deputy Esmonde and Deputy W.T. Cosgrave. They wanted to know what exactly we meant by the motion. Deputy Cosgrave said that it would receive a better welcome if we had put down the figure of 7/6 on the £480. The position is that we want to be reasonable. We want to bring the members of this House into line with the outside public. In the case of the present allowance, the income-tax inspector will level up things for Deputies in the same way that he does for an ordinary citizen or for a civil servant who has a salary of £480. If a Deputy is a married man and has a wife and children he will get certain reliefs, so that the income-tax inspector will require him to pay what he considers just in accordance with the law. That is what we want. What fault can any Deputy find with that? What twist can they give it in order to suit their own political gains? As far as we are concerned, I want to make it quite plain that our Party is opposed to any increase. It was pure devilment on that side of the House, the side which instigated this allowance, to suggest that we were in here under some kind of a cloak, the cloak of patriotism or the cloak of trying to pull wool over the eyes of the people— to suggest that, while we were out to reduce our allowances by applying the payment of income-tax to them, on the other hand we were demanding an increase in the present allowance to make up for the deficit which the payment of income-tax would bring about. That is completely wrong. Any member of the House, apart from these benches, who stands up to make that statement is lying, and he knows that he is lying.
Last night I made my case on principle. It is not what can be saved by income-tax, not the amount of money you will put into the Exchequer but the principle. I want to ask this House: how do you expect people to abide by the laws of which we are the creators, if we ourselves are not prepared to shoulder them? That is the important question. It is impossible to understand the minds of the men who try-to make a case against it or the mind of the man who is so gullible as to say "there is no case", and merely smiles it all off, wondering why we discovered these pitfalls. I say it here and I stand over it, that if, prior to the increase of the allowance by £10 a month this question was put to the country: "I want you to return us on one condition, that you give us permission to increase our allowance by an extra £10 a month, but we are prepared only to give the worker in the field or on the road a halfpenny a week of an increase," I wonder what the answer would be to that?
I presume we will have a reply and I hope the reply will be an answer which will ease my mind and which will show us what they would think would happen if they had told the people honestly what they intended to do. I may be wrong, but I have no doubt what it would be unless the people were as foolish as their prospective representatives.
This is a salvage motion introduced by certain members of the Farmers' Party to try to salvage something out of that famous programme quoted by the last speaker, Deputy Cafferky, at the last election and published in different forms and with different items in different counties. In Mayo, the programme was as different from that in Meath as black is from white and the programme in Meath was as different as black is from white from what it was in Cork——
Produce the two.
I have copies of all of them. It is a salvage motion to get in by a pretence some little propaganda talk to enable them to represent themselves as giving effect in their speeches in the Dáil to what they said during the elections. I thought it was a motion which aimed at economy. I thought this Farmers' Party, which came in here to put this "madhouse" in order were going to start economising and would start at the root of things and really economise, but, according to Deputy Cafferky, they are prepared to expend more on our allowances, possibly, but leaving themselves in the position to say: "Hang it all, you are liable for income-tax."
Who is asking for any increase, Deputy O Cléirigh?
We thought they were all for economies. I presume the change of attitude is because of the sensible outlook of members of the Party like Deputies Halliden and Cogan—men who know what it is to be income-tax payers, who are here for some years or in other capacities as professional men elsewhere. The difficulty is that all members of Deputy Cafferky's Party are not farmers, including himself, and when he gets up to make himself heard here, he has to be in harmony with the chairman of his Party, Deputy Halliden. But he sees a chance here to bring in a motion asking for income-tax while at the same time he can accommodate the members of his Party who say that Dáil allowances should be increased so that they would suffer no loss.
This is not a motion to ensure any economy or saving for the State and I must assume, therefore, that it is only a salvage motion. The Irish Independent now finds them as the advance agents of its policy to discredit members of the House. The Irish Independent says that if this motion were passed it would make all men equal as far as this House is concerned, and as legislators we would have a better outlook in imposing income-tax on others because we paid income-tax ourselves. This motion will not achieve that object, because if it were passed it would leave many members free of income-tax, including the Leader of the Farmers' Party, and if we are not going to have all members of this House paying income-tax will not the Irish Independent take the view that we are not equal because some members pay income-tax and some do not? Can we hold that Deputy Donnellan, who is not an income-tax payer, will take a different view if the motion were passed? Can we hold that the others who do pay tax will take a different view also? Can we hold that Deputy Cafferky, if this motion is passed, will then be honest in legislation? He is not honest now, according to the Irish Independent. Are we to fall for the ramp that if men here, as Deputy Cafferky said, are corrupt and crooked, if they are battening and fattening on the poor they will become honest legislators even if they did not pay income-tax? Can we follow that doctrine and vote for this motion before the House to please those who want to salvage something of their programme at the last election? Why not have a motion to reduce the allowances of Deputies?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
Then you will hit everybody. You will let the Leader of the Farmers' Party out. We would all be at one, and we could have full argument and debate, and such a motion might be carried in this House. Thousands might be saved although, personally, and speaking with experience of expenditure for a longer number of years than any member of the Farmers' Party, I would vote against the reduction and so would Deputy Cogan. His only objection when the increase in allowances was voted on in 1938 was that the time was not opportune. He stated that the allowances were not then sufficient, but the farmers' Deputies do not want to save in that way. The aim of those angels who come in to put this "madhouse" in order is to make us just like all other people in the country. Why not third class travel for Deputies? Deputy Cafferky travels down to Mayo at the expense of the State in a first class carriage.
So do you.
I do not deny it. It is at the expense of the State. Why not suggest that we travel at our own expense and save the country the money? If they are not prepared as pluto-democrats to go at their own expense, why does he not suggest that we all travel third class?
There should be one class.
Then why not? There are many ways of coming down to the level of the ordinary people and proving they are honest. I do not see why those members of the Party should be worried about what people think of them as Deputies, why they should make loud speeches and try to pass salvage votes that to show are honest. They should surely forget a lot of the things they said at the last election. They should have forgotten them by now because they knew they were never real. If they did that they would not be so worried now about politicians. They say that we Deputies are a privileged class. Some Deputies are. Deputy Donnellan himself is privileged. He gets an allowance for his car. We have to pay hire. Why not say: "I will foot my way as an ordinary Deputy. I will pay a taxi-man to carry me around. I am like the ordinary people—I do not want to be privileged." Would it not be a much better and a more decent gesture to the people than to bring in a salvage motion here?
On a point of order, that statement that I get an allowance for my car is incorrect.
And known by the Deputy to be incorrect.
I ask that the statement should be withdrawn.
Has the Leader of the Labour Party not got an allowance?
He pays for his petrol.
But he gets the coupons. However, I am very sorry.
You would not be sorry for anything.
He gets the coupons to enable him to go around to make speeches.
How many coupons went to your Party?
I am going on the argument of Deputy Donnellan last night that we are a privileged class and that that should not be. Deputy Donnellan accepts privileges.
I came here to smash them.
He accepts the privilege of getting coupons to enable him to go around the country to political meetings and to save himself the expense of having to hire a car as I have to. I suggest that if there is any sincerity in the Farmers' Party he should not accept that allowance.
The word "allowance" is out of order in that case.
I apologise. I did not mean it in that way. Everybody knows that. I may add that other Deputies get travelling vouchers. I am not objecting to that, but why should we not pay our own expenses on the trains? Why pretend this is to make us all as ordinary men and state that we are crooked, self-seeking and unprincipled, as Deputy Cafferky said last night——
Undoubtedly.
He says "undoubtedly". He should be very careful when he talks about corruption and unprincipled people. He said last night that if this motion was not passed the House would be brought into disrepute, that it would lose caste, or some other strong word he finds it easier to use. Heaven help the country if it took the example set outside——
And Heaven help the Deputy.
He started out last night in the kind of voice that he would use from his "hot gospelling" stool in Hyde Park——
I was in Hyde Park and I was in England. I left England and I held my character.
These personalities have nothing to do with the motion before the House. The Deputy must return to the motion.
I may mention that it comes very badly from the Deputy to talk about bringing this House into disrepute.
You tried to smash it with a gun.
We heard a further statement that there would be no respect for the State if this motion were not passed. Deputy Cafferky, who was amazed to find young men in this country with patriotism enough to join the Defence Forces, stated last night that he was not a politician. With that I am in thorough agreement. In the sense in which it is accepted by every decent-minded man, he is not a politician. He is a politician in the sinister sense. His standard is that of accusing everybody in public life of being corrupt and being crooked and being a self-seeker. That is Deputy Cafferky's idea of a politician. He talked throughout Mayo and Galway about the crooked politicians and the self-seekers in Leinster House who only thought of themselves and forgot the interests of the people. He said it was a scandal that they should be drawing £480 a year, a salary which he now draws himself and which he says should be increased to enable him to pay income-tax. Furthermore, he stated to-night that we, as law makers, should respect the law and should carry out the law. Will Deputy Cafferky apply that to himself?
Certainly. Will you tell me when I broke the law?
Will he admit that not so many weeks ago he pleaded guilty in the District Court to trying to evade the law and was fined £50?
If the Deputy does not refrain from personalities he will have to resume his seat. Such abusive language is quite, irrelevant.
On a point of order. He has accused me of being fined in the District Court. Will he tell me in which court I was fined?
In the District Court at Kilkelly.
I beg your pardon. I was not fined £50. I was fined £25 for running a dance before the election without dance tickets; but I knew nothing about that, although I was secretary.
The House is not interested in any squabbles originating in Mayo.
The Fianna Fáil Party have a lot to be proud of in their advocates.
The Deputy stated last night that if we do not pass this silly motion we will be trotted out as being corrupt, as being self-seekers, and being unprincipled. What right has the Deputy to say, because we do not vote in a certain way, that we are corrupt? What right has he to use a campaign that was started by a certain newspaper to say that, when they came into this House, they came into a semi-madhouse, with people on both sides of the House fighting and quarrelling about past differences and not about the people's needs? There is no such thing happening here. I think it can be said—and this is probably new to Deputy Cafferky who has not been long in this country and who is without his wisdom teeth—that no country on earth, having gone through the times this country has gone through in the past 25 years, with men as divided and as bitter as they were, has a House of representatives that observes such decency in public life as this House. That can be said for members on all sides of the House. Why try to pretend by a motion of this kind that these angels of peace came in here to try and quench fires of disunion, disruption and abuse that never existed? There are, naturally, differences between members on the Opposition Benches and those on these benches. But men who are not long here should not try to cover up their own uselessness both in debate and in policy by saying that it is shocking to hear the language used here. Deputy Cafferky said recently that the awful language and abuse he heard in Leinster House amazed him. There was no such language used. We passed decent legislation here, although the arguments it times may have been hot enough. Those men who are new to the life and do not know what a decent politician's life should be, should realise that this House gives a decent lead despite the very bitter differences there were years ago between Parties in this House.
This motion, of course, will not be passed. It is deliberately put down to bolster up the propagandist tactics carried out against decent men of all Parties in public life in the past couple of months. They will go back to their constituencies and say: "We told them what we thought about them. We told them that they should pay income-tax. We were prepared to do it ourselves even to the extent of increasing our allowance to enable us to do so." If this motion is passed in the way they want it, they can be accused of being paid hacks, paid politicians, coming within the income-tax code. Deputy Cafferky suggested that a law should be passed so that everybody would come within the income-tax code. I suppose he will agree to that?
Read the motion.
Does he agree that every farmer who buys and sells cattle and who, in addition, may have a little shop or business should be queried by the income-tax officials as to what he should pay in income-tax? Is that the suggestion which is to follow from this motion? Is it the suggestion of Deputy Cafferky that everybody in this country should be queried by the income-tax officials as to his income and as to the money he has in bank or as to his investments? If he continues in that strain he will find quite a lot of farmers, who had some hope of the Farmers' Party some months ago, saying: "We will watch those fellows. They are bringing the income-tax inspectors on us to search our accounts and we must try to hide away some of the deposits that we have."
I must congratulate Deputy O Cléirigh, first of all, upon the warm applause which he received from the Opposition Party. For the first time we have brought about unity between the two big political Parties in this House, unity to preserve privileges to which Deputies know in their hearts they are not entitled. I know that the Taoiseach must bitterly regret having to experience such an exhibition by a member of his Party in this House. I did hope that this motion would be considered in an atmosphere of calm deliberation. I did hope that the exhibition of ill-temper which we have had from both sides of the House would not have been so obvious. What are Deputies losing their tempers about? If this question concerned any other section of the people but members of this House, there would not have been such exhibition of heat; there would not have been any attempt to drag the dust and the dirt of the District Court into this House.
Let us consider this question calmly and objectively. I quite agree that an independent organ of the Press has advocated that members of this House should be subject to income-tax like everybody else. I think the Leader of the Opposition Party repeated that phrase "like everybody else" very frequently. But why should Deputies be put in a different category from everybody else? Why should not an independent organ of the Press, which is not tied to any political Party, bring to the notice of the public an evil which exists in our democratic system.
It is all very fine to attack the Press in this House. But we must remember that the liberty of the Press and the freedom of the people demand that, in addition to having a free vote, and a right to exercise that vote freely, there should be a right on the part of any citizen who wishes to set down in writing what his views are in regard to political matters, and that freedom should be exercised by the organs of the Press to correct any evil tendency that might show itself in the administration of the laws, in legislation, and in the Government of the country. Any attempt to curb or restrict that right is fraught with danger. It is always possible for the limited number of political Parties in this House to co-operate together in order to secure, by mutual co-operation, some advantage for all the members of this House, and, owing to the fact that those advantages are shared mutually by all members of the House, to stifle competition. But as long as you have a free Press, I do not care whether it is ultra-national or anti-national, it is at least some safeguard for the rights of the plain people of Ireland.
An amendment put down to this motion seeks to confer a smaller privilege upon the members of this House. It seeks to exempt a portion of the allowances of Deputies from income-tax. That amendment is absolutely unacceptable to this Party. We hold that the Deputies of this House should be on an exact par with the ordinary citizen in this country. They should have no special protection. They are neither infants nor innocent babies. They are just as capable of defending their rights against the income-tax inspectors, or anybody else, as the ordinary citizen, and they need no special protection from the law. That is why we do not accept that amendment.
Every Deputy can claim that a certain portion of his allowance is in respect of out-of-pocket expenses. Well, he can make his case before the income-tax collectors in the same way as the ordinary citizen is forced to do. A suggestion has been made that some members of this House may escape income-tax even if this motion is passed. But no member of the House will escape having to make his case before the income-tax authorities the same as the ordinary citizen. And why should any member of the House be allowed to escape, or why should any member claim such privilege over the other citizens of the State? If we calmly accept the position that Deputies who impose income-tax upon the people of the State are entitled to be exempt themselves, why should the principle not be extended, so that Deputies of the House would also be exempt from paying duty upon their tobacco or alcoholic liquor, if any of them indulge in such a luxury? Why should they not enjoy other privileges similar to the privilege which they enjoy in respect of income-tax?
You might go further and ask why should not members of an urban council or a county council who impose rates upon the ordinary ratepayers be also, themselves, exempt to some extent from liability for rates. Those who make the laws for the people ought not claim any special privilege or exemption from those laws. That is why this motion is put down. I put down a motion similar to this more than two years ago relation to Deputies' salaries, but it was not accepted because it was not in order. I had to wait until we had a Party in the House to bring the matter to the forefront.
The case that has been made by some Deputies is that this allowance, which they receive in respect of their duties as members of the House, is not a salary—that it is purely an allowance to the extent of 100 per cent. of the £480 paid. Can anybody sustain that argument for one moment. Take the members of this House who have no other source of income but their allowance as Deputies—are we to take it that if the £480 is purely an allowance to cover out-of-pocket expenses, those Deputies must, since they have no other sources of income, apply to the local relieving officer for home help, because that is what is implied in that suggestion?
Of course, the fact is that it is partly an allowance for out-of-pocket expenses, and partly a salary paid to the members as public representatives for their services to the community. And just as the doctor and the surgeon who receive an annual income must make a case to the income-tax authorities that portion of it was in respect of out-of-pocket expenses incurred by reason of their profession, Deputies should be compelled to make a similar case. It may cause us some headaches in dealing with this matter, but they are the headaches which every citizen in this country who has a taxable income is compelled to face, and we should face them boldly, and courageously.
We did not come in here considering ourselves superior to any other Deputies or Parties, and we have advocated this policy throughout the country. Deputy O Cléirigh has great confidence in the shortness of the memories of the electorate. He believes the electorate has forgotten everything he promised. It may be satisfactory for him to think that. But whether the electorate forget the promises made to them at election times or not, there is certainly some obligation on Deputies who give a solemn assurance to the people, to carry out their promises to the best of their ability. That is exactly what we are doing. I do not think there is any Party in this House which gives the motion a fair, impartial consideration and faces the question coolly and calmly—not as a question that concerns their own protection but as a question of right and wrong—that will not decide that this motion is worthy of support, and support it.
I want to say, if I may, that Deputy Cafferky need not be dismayed because he was sprayed with filth by Deputy O Cléirigh. He is not the first man in this House who has been sprayed with filth by that Deputy and he will not be the last.
I wish to thank the Deputy.
The Taoiseach is a remarkable man. He rarely indulges in personal abuse himself but he is always very careful to keep in hand a couple of bloodhounds which he can let loose.
Is not that a very nice suggestion?
I have had ample experience of it. The Taoiseach very rarely indulges in abuse——
Will the Deputy accept my statement that I had not the slightest idea that the Deputy who spoke was going to speak?
I am quite sure that the Taoiseach was not so indiscreet as to connive at what was done, but the fact remains that those who differ from the Taoiseach will rarely receive personal insult from the Taoiseach—though there are exceptions to that rule—but you may depend on some warrior being found in the back benches who will be afforded an opportunity of getting up and pouring out all the filth he can put his tongue to and very rarely will anybody occupying a seat on the front bench of his Party stand up and disown him. I shall be interested to hear if the Taoiseach, when he comes to speak, adopts the line of controversy adopted by Deputy O Cléirigh. Does he approve of Deputy O Cléirigh's references to Deputy Cafferky? With a lot of the things that Deputy Cafferky says, I disagree and I deprecate them, but there are ways of rejecting his representations without resorting to the filth to which Deputy O Cléirigh resorts.
Let us get this matter clear. Deputy Cafferky worked in England. Does anybody want to make anything out of that? Hundreds of thousands of decent men in this country went to work in England, worked honestly there, came home and founded good families here. Deputy Cafferky has spoken in Hyde Park. So did Abbot Butler. So did my uncle. Any number of distinguished Catholic laymen have spoken in Hyde Park. Does anybody want to make anything out of that? If it would suit Deputy O Cléirigh or the Fianna Fáil Party to get a placard and hang it up stating "Deputy Cafferky worked in England and spoke in Hyde Park," so that we could see it as we passed along and, perhaps, hang a garment on it as we moved into the Lobby, it would save a lot of time. I am sick listening to this sort of thing. It does not cut any ice here and I can assure Deputy O Cléirigh that it will cut no ice in County Mayo. The people of Mayo know Deputy Cafferky. They know his father and mother and all belonging to him. They do not claim to be great people, but they claim to be honest people and decent neighbours and nothing that Deputy O Cléirigh can say will alter that.
That does not mean that I agree with everything that Deputy Cafferky says, because I do not, but I am sick listening to men being sprayed with dirt and filth from the Fianna Fáil Benches They have got to the stage when they are afraid to spray me because they know that they would get back as much as they gave but they like to get somebody who is comparatively new to this House and try to fuss him into playing into their hands. The time will come when they will get as good as they give from Deputy Cafferky and, perhaps, Deputy O Cléirigh got that to-day. Let him put it in his pipe and smoke it. Yet, I hope that we shall not have a recurrence of this conduct. I disagree with much of what Deputy Cafferky said about Deputy O Cléirigh but, God knows, I sympathised with him when he said it.
A very good case could be made for this motion but the Farmers' Party have made about the worst case they could make for it. The whole question boils down to this: Do you regard the £480 that we receive as a salary or as an allowance for expenses? If it is a salary, then, of course, the motion proposed by the Farmers' Party is unanswerable. If we are salaried servants of the State, then we ought to return our salaries on our income-tax forms and pay tax, same as if we were earning the £480 as a result of being doctors, lawyers, farmers or engaged in some other occupation. Deputy O Cléirigh shakes his gory locks at Deputy Cafferky and says: "Do you want all the farmers to have to fill up income-tax forms?" Of course, the farmers have to fill up income-tax forms if the Revenue Commissioners think they have a sufficient income. Farmers are not exempt from income-tax. They pay it under one schedule or another. If they are liable, they have to pay. Nothing that Deputy Cafferky has done will make them any more or less liable than they were.
It is a new doctrine to me that I am getting a salary from the State for being a Deputy in Dáil Eireann. I lose money by it. When I have paid my election expenses, when I have attended to my correspondence, spent my time going around to Departments and have done the various chores that an ordinary Deputy has to do for his constituents, I have lost money at the end of the year. If anybody offered me £9 a week for doing the work I do as member for Monaghan, I should spit in his eye. The work I do as member for Monaghan is worth infinitely more than £9 a week.
No solicitor would take £9 a week for doing the work I do for my constituents in Monaghan. I venture to say that the same is true of most of the active Deputies in this House. If you take into account the letters you write, the interviews you seek and the time spent in attending to your constituents' private business and cast it up on the basis of solicitors' costs, charging a fee for each letter you write, you will find that you would be entitled to remuneration far in excess of £480.
My friend, Deputy Flanagan, would get £20,000.
He would not take it.
Deputy Flanagan is not the only Deputy so situate in this House; I could name other Deputies within 100 miles from here. It would be invidious to mention names but there is a Deputy present and if you put a fee on every job of work he did for his constituents—Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael—he would earn considerably more than £480. I labour under no illusions as to why we are here in Dáil Eireann. Some of us are here because we like to be "big shots". It is grand to be a T.D. That is the plain fact. Some of us are here because we have got politics in our blood. It is just the same with us as with the man who climbs mountains or undertakes some task which he conceives it to be his duty to do without reward. Some of us are in public life because we believe we can do some good in it. I suppose there are some imperfect souls amongst us who are in it for what they can get out of it. Do not let us imagine that Dáil Eireann is any more perfect than any other Parliament. We are made up of all sorts of men but, if the man who goes into public life in this country has a business or profession or farm of his own and if he thinks he is going to make anything out of the £480 which he gets for attending Dáil Eireann, he is a fool. If he casts up the accounts of his business or profession and sets out against them whatever surplus is left, after paying his expenses, out of the £480, he will find that he has lost substantially on the transaction.
I cannot honestly feel that this £480 a year is payable to us as a salary. If that is the belief of the Farmers' Party, then I think the Farmers' Party are rightly putting down this motion But surely the Farmers' Party might have reflected more carefully on what they were doing. It is all very well for Deputy Cogan to tell us that he was actuated only by the loftiest motives in putting down this motion. Is there any green in our eyes? Does he expect anybody to believe that this motion was put down only with the loftiest motives? Surely, there was some little thought in the back of the minds of the movers that it would be a popular thing to do? Of course, there was. We all know there was and it would be much more honest to admit it. The fact that a thing is popular does not necessarily mean that it is wrong——
A Deputy
Or right.
Or right. But if a thing is popular and right, you should do it. If a thing is popular and wrong, you ought not to do it. When Deputies of the Farmers' Party say that income-tax should be levied on our £480, what is really going to happen? Every poor man in this House will be put in very much the same position as he was before. He will not pay 1d. in income-tax. I do not suppose that any member of the Farmers' Party claims to be a plutocrat. Like Deputy Flanagan, I suppose they are all poor men and, at the end of the year, will have very little left out of the £480. So far as they are concerned, whether this resolution is passed or not, it makes no difference.
If the farmer was getting enough for his produce, it would be a different matter.
I am assuming that the members of the Farmers' Party, according to their own statements, are all poor men and, therefore, I think we may assume that the farmer would be paying income-tax according to the farming schedule, and that if that farmer is in receipt of an allowance, as a member of this House, of £480 per annum, his income-tax would be increased proportionately. A case may be made for doing that, if you regard that allowance as a salary, but, if you do not regard it as a salary, I do not think there is any case to be made.
I think that this allowance is to defray our expenses, and if, in the judgment of the House—as has been suggested, by, I think, Deputy Cogan —the allowance is substantially more than would pay the expenses of a Deputy, I think that every Deputy in the House would agree that that payment should be reduced; but, if not, I cannot see what case is to be made for this motion. I am sure that Deputy Cogan is as industrious as any other member of this House, but I am equally sure that he does not do anything more or less than any other member of the House. Now, with regard to this matter of the allowances given to Deputies of this House, I am bound to say that, in my experience, there is a great amount of expense involved. Perhaps I do not manage my affairs as well as Deputy Tunney does; but that has been my experience, and it does seem to me that the proposal to levy income-tax on the allowances given to Deputies is irrelevant, because the money paid to us is not actually to be regarded as income. I do not want to think that I am a servant of the Government, or that I am accepting a salary from the Government just because I am here as an elected representative of the people. I am here as a critic of the Government, and I want to be absolutely free and independent of the Government in that respect. I do not want anybody to say that I am dependent on the Government for any part of my income. I never was, and I hope that I never shall be, dependent on the Government, whether as a member of the Opposition or not. I would not like to be in such a position. I believe that this money, which has been voted by the Dáil and which has been accepted by the members of the House, is merely intended as something to enable us to defray our expenses. Now, bear in mind that if you follow a system whereby the members of this House are to be provided with a sufficient salary by the State to enable them to live, independent of what they earn outside, you will have to increase substantially the present allowance of Deputies, and that would mean turning the whole 138 members of this House into professional politicians. The result would be that the efforts of a great many people in this country would be directed towards becoming professional politicians, and nothing else. Now, I do not know of anybody in this House who engages in politics just as a profession, and who does nothing else. In my own case, I have my business to attend to; other Deputies have their farms or businesses to attend to, and they can only devote a certain amount of time to their Parliamentary duties.
The only persons in this House who can devote their time exclusively to Parliamentary duties are the Ministers or their Parliamentary Secretaries. Deputy Flanagan has said that he began as a solvent man but that, since he became a member of the Dáil, he is living on an overdraft for the first time in his life. Well, that may be so, but we cannot have the whole nation living on an overdraft, because, if so, the banks giving us the overdraft will, necessarily, play a very considerable part in the operations of this House or of the country. I think that the members of this House should be able to stand on their own legs, so to speak—that they should be independent of anybody. After all, if a married man finds himself in difficulties, he is likely to find pressure of a very acute kind brought to bear on him, and I deprecate most strongly the ferocity of the assault that was made on members of the Farmers' Party in connection with this motion, because I think that it is purely a matter of considering whether this payment is to be regarded as a salary, or an allowance to meet expenses. If it is to be regarded as a salary, then I would agree, but if it is to be regarded as just an allowance, then I think it ought to be left as it is at the present time. However, in view of what one of the sponsors of the motion said with regard to the inadequacy of these allowances for the provision of Deputies' expenses—if that is the case let us have an inquiry into it at once, and I am quite sure that the Taoiseach would agree to have such an inquiry. If it is found, as the result of an inquiry, that £480 a year is too much, then let us go back to £360 a year, or whatever will be regarded as enough for our expenses. It is understood, of course, that we cannot legislate for exceptional cases, but if I am to judge from Deputy Cogan's speech, one would have to make exceptions in particular cases. I can say that my expenses in connection with the last general election were very much heavier than they would have been if I had been a member of a Party. Deputy Cogan, however, says that in his experience the allowance given to Deputies is excessive.
Well, then, if we feel that the allowance is excessive, let us give it back. I do not want to be acrimonious, but I do think that the members of the Farmers' Party are in a slightly invidious position in this regard. According to them, it would appear that we are all getting too much, and that this is a question of high principle, but surely they are bound to consider this matter on its own merits? If they feel that the allowance is too high, surely it can be left to their own discretion, without reference to any other tribunal, to return to the State the amount of the allowance which they think is excessive? Will Deputy Donnellan undertake to do that? After all, I am sure that any contribution that could be given to the Government at the present time would be gladly accepted. Not only would the widow's mite that might be contributed by the Farmers' Party be regarded as a glorious contribution, but I am sure that any such contribution would be very acceptable to the Government. Deputy Cafferky spoke at length about the necessity for setting a good example and a good headline to the whole community. What more appropriate headline could there be than that those who are receiving more than they need should return it to the community from which they got it? That seems to me to be the unavoidable consequence of the argument of the Farmers' Party here to-day. Surely, until and unless they do that, they will find themselves in some difficulty if they continue to point the finger of scorn at their colleagues. I say that, in my judgment, this is an allowance for expenses. Therefore, I am opposed to laying income-tax upon it. If the House thinks that it would be a desirable reform to turn Deputies into salaried public servants then let an equitable salary be determined and let it be liable to income-tax as anybody else's salary is.
If any experienced Deputies think that £480 is excessive for the expenses in which the average Deputy is involved, then I suggest that we forthwith put our hand to the task of ascertaining what the expenses are and reduce the Parliamentary allowance to that figure without more ado. I regret that it would be beyond the limits of order to put down an amendment to that effect but I propose a verbal amendment to the Farmers' proposal. It is that instead of going in for the abracadabra of levying income-tax we define it to be an allowance designed to defray expenses and that we reconsider the expenses and reduce the Parliamentary allowance to that level which the average Deputy experiences in the ordinary discharge of his duties. I want to say that if I am called before that committee I will be constrained to say that a sum of £480 is not excessive but there is no reason why, in this matter, we should try to legislate for the exception any more than we do in any other case. What we have to do is to try and find the average and make the allowance conform to that. That will undoubtedly result in some advantage to the peculiarly economical Deputy and further disadvantage to persons like myself of whom there may be a number but the substantial majority who stand in the position of Deputy Cogan may find a surplus in their hands. Let Deputy Cogan set an example by returning to the treasury in anticipation of the reform I suggest the surplus that they find in their hands. I invite the Farmers' Party to join with me in pressing upon the Government as a substitute proposal to their own that we should open an inquiry into the average expenses of the average Deputy and bring the Parliamentary allowance down to that. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.