Before we adjourned the other night, I had digressed for a short period to deal with the question of the dignity of Parliament. If it is conceded that Deputies should receive an allowance, the next question to decide is: What is an adequate allowance? Numerous commissions—I think four, to be exact —have considered this question. The commissions were varied in their personnel and varied in the time at which they operated. Each of these commissions decided that an allowance should be paid to Deputies and Senators. They all decided that that allowance should be free from income-tax. I agree on principle merely that it would be more desirable that the allowances should be subject to income-tax; but, if the allowances are subject to income-tax, even the present amount will very likely be found to be inadequate for the ordinary expenses of a Deputy. If the allowances are to be subject to income-tax, such as the Farmers' Party have mentioned, does it follow that one Deputy may escape with the whole £480, while another will probably have to pay every penny of it in income-tax? There has to be equality among Deputies, and if each Deputy is to be on an equal footing in this connection each must pay the same amount in income-tax.
It is quite easy for the Farmer Deputies to come here and say that the allowance must be subject to income-tax, knowing quite well that they will not pay a penny out of the allowance in income-tax, knowing quite well that they will be able to throw in farm implements or whatever property or stock they have, in order to escape liability under the income-tax code. It is generally conceded that each Deputy has the same privileges and the same rights. If that is so, each Deputy should pay the same amount, and should only be liable for the same amount, and if we decide that Deputies should pay income-tax on their allowances, then let it be at the full rate and let it be the same for each Deputy, with no rebates, because some Deputies may be able to throw in an ass and cart, a tractor, or something else.
It is not generally realised outside that Deputies do a certain amount of work, and some Deputies work extremely hard. I do not say every Deputy does. It is possible every Deputy is not expected to, and particularly where you have political Parties it would not be possible for back benchers in every Party to rise on every matter and join in the debate. If a farmer Deputy leaves his farm, particularly if he is a progressive farmer like Deputy Hughes, he has to pay someone to do the work while he is absent, or otherwise he will lose, largely by reason of the fact that in his absence the men may not be devoting the same time and attention to the work. Similarly, if a Deputy is a businessman, he has to engage a manager, or else chance the consequences; he may lose, or his business may not be run as efficiently. If a Deputy is a professional man, he is taken away from his business, unless he happens to be a solicitor who has a partner to conduct the business for him. If he is a doctor or a barrister, he is away from his business during the time he is attending to his Parliamentary duties. I do not want it to be understood that I think Deputies should make profit out of their positions as elected representatives. They should neither lose nor gain in so far as it is possible to estimate accurately what the losses or gains are likely to be.
The campaign against free allowances to Deputies, or to make the allowances subject to income-tax, has been proceeding for a long time. It started when the Deputies opposite were in opposition. The Farmers' Party, or the non-political gentlemen who masquerade as defenders of the farmers, now come along and, because it goes down at the cross roads, or because the Labour Party can harangue the masses in the cities, they believe it is the right thing to do. I think it is time in this country we realised that appealing to the lowest instincts of the people is not honourable or patriotic.
In my opinion the Farmers' Party and the Labour Party, on the last occasion that they voted on this question, acted dishonestly. They did so for two reasons: (1) they would not make the allowances subject to income-tax and (2) they could go to their constituents and say: "We failed to make the allowances subject to income-tax," knowing at the same time that they were not subject to tax. In my opinion that was dishonest on the part of the Farmers' Party. It was the very negation of patriotism and a mockery of truth. If that is the kind of benefit we are to expect from the entrance to this House of Clann na Talmhan the sooner they fade out of political life the better.