Later in 1922, when the Saorstát was formally inaugurated, there was a committee. In 1925 there was a committee, and, in 1937, there was a committee, and Deputy Keyes has reminded us that before the 1937 committee—and I am sure before the others, or some of them at any rate— members of all Parties appeared and gave evidence, discussed with the members their difficulties, told of their expenses and of their experiences of what it cost them. Let me remind the members of the Farmers' Party, and particularly Deputy Cogan, who insisted that this payment to members is a salary, that the law describes it as an allowance. Legally, we have no right to call it anything else. It is an allowance to members, and I can thoroughly agree with Deputy Dillon, from my own experience and my knowledge of my own colleagues who were T.D.s before becoming Ministers and members of our Party—and I am sure that what applies to the Fianna Fáil Party applies equally to other Parties in the House, or to those members of them who have had long enough experience—that there is not a man who was ever in the House who did his work honestly and conscientiously as a Deputy who was a penny the richer as a result.
I am entirely with Deputy O'Higgins that it would be a good thing nationally if this talk were ended, once and for all. We have had too much of it and I wish to goodness it could be ended once and for all. This motion will not help to end it. It will not get us one step nearer putting an end to that discussion. It probably will bring more fuel to the fire. That is my honest belief. Well-intentioned as Deputy Dillon was in putting down the motion and sincere as Deputy Anthony was in seconding it, with the desire to stop this kind of talk which Deputy Cogan and others —not Deputy Cogan alone but others at other times—have indulged in, of defaming members of the House and defaming the House itself, dishonouring our national Parliamentary institution and bringing discredit on democracy, for that is what it has resulted in, you will not end it by this motion. If I thought it would end it, I and, I am sure, the Government would be happy to accept it, but I see no hope of that.
None of the committees which met in the past succeeded in arriving at a figure which would satisfy everybody. What Deputy O'Higgins said as to the differences in relation to income-tax is quite true. You would have members of the House, some of whom are blessed with a fair share of this world's goods, paying practically all their allowances out in income-tax, if that issue were raised. You would also have those who are wealthy spending a great deal more than others who cannot afford it, and I am entirely with Deputy O'Higgins in saying that the wise course would not be to ask the inspectors of taxes or anybody with that mentality—the Civil Service mentality—to decide what should be allowed. That mentality is bound to be narrow, bound to have regard to the strict letter of the law and to keep inside the strict line. That would be the Civil Service mentality in a matter of this kind.
You could not have a Select Committee of the Dáil always in session to examine week by week whether Deputies are entitled to this, that, or the other expense. You would have to consider the expenses that would be allowed from time to time. You would have to have the committee probably in constant session and that would not be helpful. You would have disputes. Who is to settle these disputes? Would they have to be brought before the House? The idea of fixing an average allowance is not a practicable one and, in my opinion, should not be adopted.
Deputy Cogan is quite right in suggesting that it might be put forward as proper expenses, that a man had to go—I will not say to Paris, or Berlin, or Copenhagen, or touring on the Continent—but, say, to England and Wales and spend a month or two there visiting farming communities to see how their farms were worked. It would cost a considerable sum of money and, as a farmer, he might be entitled to ask that that would be allowed as part of his expenses. I would have been very happy at one time when I was in opposition if, by going to a committee of that kind, I could get allowed for the expense of running a newspaper which I paid for out of my own pocket. It would have been a considerable saving to me. According to Deputy Cogan, if his ideas are correct, I might have been entitled to do that, if we had such a body in existence to whom I could go and ask for consideration of that kind. But I do not think that any such expenses would be allowed.
The 1929 committee recommended a fixed allowance as the most satisfactory arrangement. Evidently they went into it fairly fully. If Deputies look up the report presented to the Dáil they will see the committee recommended a fixed allowance. Deputy Keyes said: "The same for everybody". We are all treated alike. I hope we are treated with the same respect in this House. We should be, at any rate. There should be no difference. One man should not be able to say: "I was allowed £250 for expenses and another man only £100." If this motion were adopted, some Deputies would be able to say: "That average that is agreed upon has cost me £100," and another man might say: "It has cost me £200 or £250." There would be differentiation.
In the 1937 committee report, which I read just before coming in here, I noticed that one thing that they said was: "No element of salary is included in the present allowance." I would commend that to the members of the Farmers' Party for consideration. That committee, after fully examining the matter and hearing Deputies of all Parties—the Farmers Party were not then in the House— stated: "No element of salary is included in the present allowance"— that was the allowance payable in 1937.
I think it is a right and proper thing that all reasonable expenses should be allowed. The sum of £480 may appear a large sum to Deputies who have not long experience. But anybody who has had even five years experience— and those who have had ten years' experience will know better—that the amount that they would have left, after paying expenses in some cases would be a poor salary for any working man. Of the professional men, the business men, and people of the working classes who have been here, I do not think one of them, as I have already said, is a penny the richer. Many of them are poorer men as a result of their membership here. If they had devoted their time, ability and energy to work other than the national work that they did for the people's welfare here a great many of them probably would have been richer men. This House should not be, as Deputy Dillon said, a preserve for the rich or the well-to-do. I do not think that I need say any more. I would commend the eloquent words of Deputy O'Higgins to all the members of the House and the public outside— that we ought to encourage and promote respect for the elected members of the Oireachtas; that we ought to encourage and promote respect for our Parliamentary institutions. By doing so we will do honour and credit to ourselves and to our nation, and we will help to preserve democratic institutions in this country and in the world.
