This motion has given rise to a good deal of heat. I think that heat was engendered because of the manner in which it was proposed or spoken to at any rate. One does not like to be a member of an Assembly and to be told that the members of it are corrupt. If there has been objection taken to it by the members listening I think it is fundamentally the fault of those who set the debate on a particular line. This is a serious matter. Before I go on to deal with it I would like to say that I have on all occasions deprecated personalities, that I think they do no good whatever—none. I think that they tend to damage the prestige of this House and tend to turn away minds from the subject of the debate itself to something which is irrelevant. Having said that, I want to say with regard to this motion that it is a matter which is of great public importance. The whole question of whether public representatives are to receive payment from public funds, whether by way of allowance or salary, is an important one. If you say that there should be no allowances and no salaries, no sums paid out to the individual Deputies from the public purse at all, then it becomes possible only for those who can afford it to become public representatives. You put it out of the power of the person who is unable to maintain himself otherwise by business or from a private income to take part in the people's Assembly. Such a move would be fundamentally undemocratic.
It would mean that the Parliament would be a Parliament simply of those who are relatively well-to-do, hence I think that all in this House would agree that it should be made possible for any individual in the country, no matter of what class or what his means otherwise, to be returned if he is a fit and proper representative and can serve the country or the particular constituency that he has been asked to represent. I think we have that in common. We all agree on that. The next question is, what should be the amount that would be made available for a person who is in that way to be enabled to be a representative of the people? Surely we will all agree that the amount should be such as will enable that person to take up an independent attitude and act in his office with dignity and be in a position reasonably to be self-respecting in every way. That is the point of view, I take it, from which this question of Deputies' allowances, and that of Ministers' salaries when we come to it later on is approached. That is the way we would approach it if we were sitting down in a conference room considering it for the first time and trying to arrive at a solution of this problem. In dealing with the motion, apart from the question of economy, you do not want the allowance to be so large as to make it attractive, because of its money value. You do not want that, but it is clearly necessary to make it of such an amount as will enable the poorest section of the community to have their representative to come forward if he is elected and do the work which he is appointed to do without having the greater part of his mind concerned with the question of how himself and his family are going to make ends meet.
The next question that would arise is this: what should be its character? Should it be a salary or should it be an allowance? I did not think this motion was coming on to-day; otherwise, in preparation for it, I should have tried to get more details than I have been able to get of what takes place in other countries. I have certain figures, but I should like to know to what extent payments are tax free. It would be necessary to know if they are allowances, and to have a number of other particulars about them before they would really be of value in this debate. As far as I can see, the allowances here are not excessive. They are not on the high side at all. The principle is to regard them as allowances and to have them free from income-tax. Of course, nobody is going to make the mistake of thinking—though from the way it was expressed one would think it was the case—that T.D.s are exempt from income-tax. It is only these particular allowances that are exempt. If a T.D. has any other income, it comes under income-tax law. What is done here is this: a sum is set aside which is characterised as an allowance and that allowance is free from income-tax. Deputies realise that allowance is made for expenses in the case of the various professions. There is freedom from tax on certain expenditure incidental to the conduct of business. I take it that, in 1925, that principle was definitely accepted here, in accordance with the idea that the expenses which Deputies incur are incidental to their work as Deputies. I take it that that was the principle behind this matter all the time. Therefore, because they are expenses incidental to a Deputy's work, they should be tax free.
Now comes the question whether the amount is too large, regarding it from that point of view. If, as was suggested by Deputy Dillon, it is considered to be too large, I think the best way to deal with that is by a definite motion. If it is to be treated as an allowance, and if, as an allowance, it is too high, then you should reduce it. I thought myself that the allowances were deliberately put on the rather high side for a definite purpose, because Deputies come from different parts of the country. It was decided to have a flat rate. There was not going to be an investigation into all the differences in expenditure that would arise. A flat rate was decided upon so as to cover the cases of those who might be a good distance away, and who, owing to particular circumstances, might have more expenses than others. If it is suggested that the expenses should be vouched for, you will have a different system. The system was a flat rate system to avoid difficulties of administration. I believe that we set a reasonably high figure so as to cover these cases and so that Deputies would not be at a loss because they were doing their work as Deputies properly.
There was probably another reason for making them all the same. It was pointed out that, if income-tax were charged on the allowance, a Deputy, who was married, with three children, and was taxed on earned income, would have to pay nothing, whereas in the case of somebody with unearned income, he might have to pay supertax or surtax, with the result that the amount available for the Parliamentary expenses of different individuals would not be uniform. This question has been examined five or six times since it was first raised. This is the first occasion on which it has been raised as a principle. I do not remember any other occasion. Deputies who were here before we came in may be aware if it was raised previously. I do not remember that, at any time, it was questioned as a principle. I think it was intended all through as an allowance. It was to be generous, to the extent that nobody would be deterred from doing the work of Parliament because of the expense which would be involved, and so that there would not be the excuse for not doing Parliamentary work that they would be too much out of pocket. The idea was to make the payment uniform, so that representatives, whether rich or poor, as far as their Parliamentary work was concerned, would be given out of the public purse an amount to cover expenditure so that there would be no justification for not doing that work.
That becomes very important in this sense, that we want here, I take it, representatives of all sections of the people. We do not want to do anything to deter people who have a particular type of experience—perhaps successful business men or successful professional men—from coming in here by putting too heavy a strain on their pockets. We do not want to have any obstacle to their coming here. If it is necessary to go into the matter, I can do so.
I question if we in this country have not suffered from the fact that we are beside a very rich nation with a world Empire, where they are more easily able to keep up a higher standard than we are. We suffer from that in a number of ways. I feel that, in our standards here, we are suffering from that, and that we would do very much better by adopting standards of a different type. They need not necessarily be worse standards. Judged by purely monetary standards, they would be lower. The fact is that, whether it is wages for workmen or salaries for professional men, or otherwise, we have standards here which are very largely the standards in existence across the water. I have never questioned Parliamentary allowances. When the matter was considered again in 1938, as Leader of our Party I made inquiries about Deputies' expenses. I spoke to a number of people. I had no reason to believe that they wanted to mislead me, but a number of them said privately what Deputy Dillon has said in public.
That was that, on the £360 allowance which Deputies were then getting, they were in fact out of pocket. We came to the conclusion that it was not good for the State that that should be so and there was then a proposal to increase the allowance from £360 to £480. I do not remember what the discussion was like on that occasion. I do not know whether there was much opposition, but this I do say, that we were not then the prophets that it has been suggested we were, and that we were not able to look forward to a world war and make provision then for the increased burdens that were likely to fall, particularly on those with fixed salaries or fixed allowances. I should like to have been able to see these things ahead; it would have been a very valuable faculty if I could do that. Unfortunately, we were not able to do these things. It is that type of suggestion, the type of suggestion made by Deputy Dillon on another occasion, that makes debates here run along lines quite different from those which they should normally or properly follow.
I pass away from that and say that my view is that, if this allowance is regarded as being too high, then there should be a motion here for its reduction. If, on the other hand, the view is that, in a democratic country like ours, we cannot have all sections of the people represented by simply having allowances that are cut to the bone, there should be a motion brought in here for the payment of salaries. I think in Britain they have the salary system. The salary is about £600 and out of that £600 there is definitely put aside, first of all, £100 for expenses. After that, secretarial and other expenses can all be claimed for through the local tax officers.
If you try to make a calculation, you will find that a salary of £600 for a single man with the allowances that are made here, will give him a net income of something in the neighbourhood of £480. If you were to regard this as the equivalent of a salary, you will find that it will correspond to the case of a single man without dependents, giving him all the allowances that are provided for but without taking into account the £100 for expenses, or any allowance for secretarial or other assistance which he might require. You will find on this basis that a net income of £480 is roughly equivalent to a round figure of £600 after deduction of ordinary allowances. A salary of £600, from that point of view, is about the salary of certain higher executive officers in the State. There are some hundreds of them.
I am not making any allowance in that calculation for the work which a Deputy has to do. I am making allowance only for the remission which he would get in any occupation for expenses in connection with his particular work. We have hundreds of officers who are receiving salaries at that rate. They come in here to offer their services to the State and to the community. They have fixity of tenure and they have pensions to look forward to. Deputies who come in here to serve for a period, if they hold positions which are incapable of being held at the same time as they are Deputies, or if they cannot get substitutes, may have to give up these positions. Later on when a dissolution comes, they may be thrown out and have to seek their old positions.
If you want people to serve the country and to get as wide a representation as you can, do you suggest that Deputies who come in here are doing less public service than, say, a higher executive officer? I do not. The representatives of the people are here because they have been chosen by the people. Nobody can come in without a very stiff examination, namely, an examination by their constituents, as to whether they are or are not worthy to represent them. I know that no type of examination will get you exactly the man best fitted for the post; therefore we cannot always assume that because we have been elected we are first-class. At any rate, Deputies come in here after having passed the test of acceptance by the people. They devote themselves from the period of one dissolution to another to the public service. If they do their work well, they are advocates for every individual in their constituencies.
Deputy Dillon spoke of what would be their charges if they were, say, solicitors. It seems to me that a Deputy is an agent practically for every individual in his constituency who feels that, in any particular respect, administration is pressing heavily or unequally on him. He has to correspond with these people. He has to come here to town to see the various Government Departments, etc. In my opinion, merely from the point of view of service, if Deputies do their work, the work which a very large number of Deputies, if not all, are doing now. I do believe they are working in the public service and they are doing work which is, at least, as important to the community in general as the work done by higher executive officers. Yet they have not got anything like the security of tenure of such officers. I do not think that the sum of £480 net, if you regard it as the net result after a salary of £600 has been given—and it is treated as a salary—is at all on the extravagant side; that is, if we keep the other standards up.
I once made a very big mistake in that connection. We came in here at one time and we accepted lower salaries—that was from 1932 to 1937; we accepted considerably lower salaries. When you went into it fully, it worked out that they were lower, by some hundreds of £ in individual cases, than the salaries that obtained before. I thought that we could similarly bring down the scales in the Civil Service, but I found I had made a mistake. I found that there were certain rights which civil servants had and, if these were interfered with, it would cause them to leave the service. You might say: "Let them go," but, at that time anyhow, whatever the position in the future may be, you were going to lose the most experienced and the best of your public servants. Next, I found I was going to be most unjust to a number of men, because they could point out to me: "Look here, I was at school with so-and-so; they were my companions at school. I chose this particular career and they chose other careers. I had as much brains as they had, and I showed as much ability as they did, but they are outside now as professional men and they are able to have, as such, much higher salaries than we have. Why will you cut us down, why will you treat us as the one section of the community who are to be reduced in salary, whilst the other people are let free?"
It is quite obvious it would be wrong and, therefore, if anybody is out to lower the salary scales, he will have to try to do it by quite a different method from that which I tried. I tried as honestly as I could, but I found I lost sight of certain things, and I think some of the farmer Deputies, when they get experienced, assuming they are approaching this subject somewhat from the point of view that I had when I approached it originally, will learn that it cannot be done in that particular way. One result would be to endanger the quality, generally, of public representation. They will be trying to deal with one particular set of people, namely, those who are public representatives—trying to deal with them in a way which would be quite different from that of the rest of the community.
It is an honour to be a public representative. Why should we all the time try to demean them, to lower their prestige in the eyes of the people? They occupy honourable positions. I cannot see any reason why we should try to demean them or lower them in the eyes of the people. I believe if you want to lower standards and salaries here, if you want a simpler living here, you will have to approach it in a different way, in such a way that it will apply all round. When you vote here your £480, or whatever may be the amount you will vote as an allowance, you are saying: "Here is a net sum given to all alike, a net sum given to enable you properly to carry out your duties as a Parliamentary representative. What is wrong about it?" In my own case, I made an arrangement at the beginning and I said: "Give me what will meet my needs. Do not ask me to pay back afterwards something you have given me." What I get at the present time is arranged so that they can keep the income-tax. If there is an extra charge put on next year, I have to put up with that. I simply try to get the net amount the State will give me.
That brings me now to the salaries of Ministers. I was talking about this on other occasions. From 1932 to 1937 we voluntarily accepted lower salaries. By 1937 I was satisfied, from experience, that it was not in the best interests of the country that that should be continued. Some months before the election—the election was in June, or about that time—I pointed out to the people that we would have to revert to the old scales, and the reason we had to revert to the old scales was that I was satisfied that the proper position which the Ministers should occupy, a position of independence and freedom from debt, could not be maintained if that was not done.
When the new Constitution was going through, I pointed out that the time had come when there should be a new examination of the salaries of Ministers and of allowances for Deputies. A committee was set up. That committee consisted of representatives of farmers, labour and all sections of the community—certainly, the main sections of the community. They considered the position and they arrived at certain decisions. These decisions were in every case, I think, to recommend higher salaries than the salaries that were then being accepted, that is, higher salaries than those in the scale to which we reverted.
I felt it was not necessary to do that, and that the T.D.s' allowance, which Ministers get as well as other T.D.s should not be taken into account at all. I had calculations made—I will not worry the House with them, but I can give them if they are required—a repetition of some calculations made before. When we brought in a Bill, we did not implement the findings of the committee; we reverted to the old scale, and in every case the net amount is less than that recommended by the committee, in some cases by some hundreds of £.
This question has been examined time after time by people who had no end whatever to serve, except to get amounts in the way of allowances or salaries which would enable the State to be decently served, to be served in the best way. One does not like, in these things, to be talking of oneself. I believe I live as simply as most people. A number of expenses that the average person has, I have not got. I do not smoke or drink; I do not entertain to any extent. I do not believe any person who succeeds me on the present salary will be able to do better than I do from the point of view of economy. I assure everybody here that I am not going to be a rich man— and I am a long time in office now. If I were leaving it as a testament to other people who come after me I would tell them: "If you want to have the work properly done, do not bring the salary of the Head of the Government lower than it is", and I would say, with regard to the salaries of Ministers, that those salaries are not sufficient.
That is my own belief. I have been able to manage, because it happens to suit me to live in a simple way. Other people would say that I should do things, as Taoiseach, which I do not do, which I am not doing. If other people should think it was their duty to the public to do these things, I say that they will not be able to do them on the present salary.
Taking this question of salaries and allowances all round, I do think they are reasonable. They enable decent dignity to be preserved, but it is only a frugal dignity, and there can be no extravagance in it. I think we ought to be satisfied—I am satisfied, for one —that, in the public interest, the allowances and salaries being paid are right, fair and proper, and that they are not extravagant, but, as I have said, if anyone thinks that a salary should be paid—and that position can be defended—to public representatives while they are acting as such and puts that case forward, it can be fully considered here; or, if it thought that there should be no salaries but merely the barest allowance that will do, there should be a motion to reduce the present allowances. These allowances have been treated in that way over a long period of time, and I think that on the whole they have justified themselves.
The position which has obtained in this country has been one in which there has been no suggestion of anybody, because of being in debt or for any other reason arising from not having sufficient to enable him to do the work he has to do, being made subject to anybody. There has been independence here and there has been no hint of corruption. It is detestable to hear people flinging that word around. I do not know whether they know what they are talking about when they talk about corruption. I think it wrong that that should be done. When a person talks about corruption, if there is corruption, it is his duty as a public representative to nail it directly and definitely, and not to fling wildly general charges about corruption around, leading people who do not know to think that there is something wrong about the administration here.
My attitude with regard to this is: we vote against the motion. With regard to the suggestion for a committee, I do not think a further committee would be of any use. We have had this matter examined time after time and the circumstances are not very different. The proposal made here is in fact a proposal to reduce the allowances, although it is hidden. For instance, in the case of some Ministers, it is a proposal for a reduction of a couple of hundred £.
People say: "You, the Ministers, do not pay any income-tax." I have no other income but what I get from the State, and I pay in income-tax between £500 and £600. If it is suggested that, because one does not pay income-tax, one is likely to impose income-tax on others, it can also be said in the opposite direction that, if one does pay income-tax, one may not be prepared to impose income-tax where it should be imposed. That sort of argument cuts both ways. So far as we are concerned, we will vote against the motion. If there is a suggestion to reduce the amount, let it be a straightforward motion to reduce. If there is to be a question of an alternative, that is, a salary with allowances which will be regarded as allowances are regarded in other professions, as amounts necessary to enable certain expenses to be met, well and good, but let us have it in that way and not in this.
Mr. Davin rose.
