I move that leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Presidential Establishment Act, 1938.
Presidential Establishment (Amendment) Bill, 1947—First Stage.
This proposal is opposed. Does the Minister wish to make any statement on the matter?
The Deputy knows all about it.
How did I learn?
I do not know. He is opposing it. He must know. If he does not, he does not know what he is talking about.
There are Standing Orders that deal with opposition to measures on the First Stage and if the Minister has any statement to make on the matter we would like to hear it, Sir.
This Bill, the Presidential Establishment (Amendment) Bill, is being introduced for the purpose of making an increase in the allowance for expenses of the President. There is no change being proposed in the personal remuneration of the President but it is proposed to increase the personal allowances by 30 per cent. over the figure that was fixed in 1938. As Deputies are aware, increases have been granted in salaries and wages generally throughout the community. Deputies have agreed from time to time to certain increases in salaries, ranging from a minimum of 25 per cent. to 60 and 70 per cent. Last week they agreed to increases for judges of 30 per cent., 25 per cent., 20 per cent., and so on. We are not asking, and do not propose to ask, the Dáil in this Bill to increase the personal remuneration of the President which will remain as fixed in 1931. It is considered necessary, however, to increase the allowances that were given to the President in 1938 for running his establishment. Since that date, as Deputies know, the expenses of running any establishment have gone up and, particularly, as the President has duties to perform which he cannot avoid and as it is necessary to have certain staff, the Government thought it wise to propose that his allowance for this purpose should be increased by 30 per cent.
We regard the proposal to increase the expenses of the Presidential establishment at the present time as a piece of inflammatory folly. In announcing their intention as they did, first and only to the Press on Wednesday night last, we consider that the Government were guilty of an outrage both on Parliamentary practice and manners. Only through the Press did any Leaders or any member of the House here learn that the Government had intentions in this matter and since the announcement was made by the Government to the Press no Leader or no member of the House outside the Government Party has had the courtesy of any intimation in the matter from the Government. We know of no circumstances that would warrant the expenses of the Presidential establishment being increased to-day. We know of no inquiry having been made into the matter that would disclose the necessity for such increase.
The Presidential Office is supposed to be above and beyond Party. The prestige of that office may be of importance. That has not yet disclosed itself. But in the country's present circumstances that the Government should on their own initiative agree to or propose or suggest that the expenses of the President's establishment should be increased, can do nothing but injure the prestige of that office and, perhaps, degrade it in the minds of the people who are suffering very serious disabilities at present.
So far from proposing an increase in the cost of such establishment to-day, the present general circumstances of the country would rather suggest that an attempt should be made to reduce the expenses of that office, if not as a relief to the people bearing the burden of present-day taxation, as a headline inducing people to a certain amount of commonsense and a certain amount of economy in the carrying on of their affairs. We consider that the proposal is quite unwarranted, unreasonable and thoughtless. We oppose a Bill that would do these things. Again, we protest that the only information we have of what is in this Bill that enables us to object to it at this particular time is that a communication was made on last Wednesday night by the Government to the Press without any reference to any other Party in the Dáil, although the Presidential Office is supposed to be above and distinct from any Party question here.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 36; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick (County Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Sheldon William A. W.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and B. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Second Stage ordered for Tuesday, 17th June, 1947.