Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jun 1947

Vol. 107 No. 2

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill deals with two matters, one of which is the travelling facilities for members of the Dáil and Seanad and the other the allowances for members of the Dáil and Seanad. Regarding Section 2, the principal effect of the amendment is to permit of the repayment, at the full mileage rate sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, of expenses of travelling in a member's own motor car, even in cases where railway travelling is available for the whole or part of the distance covered. The definition in the Principal Act now being amended does not allow of the repayment of such expenses in so far as they exceed the cost of first-class railway travelling in respect of any portion of a journey for which railway travelling is available.

The Government decided that this provision was out of date and that members of the Dáil and Seanad should be permitted to use their cars to do their work as Deputies and as Senators with reasonable expedition and with as much convenience as possible for themselves. The additional expenditure which would result from the proposed amendment cannot be estimated even approximately, as it would of course depend on the extent to which members use their own cars in future and the mileage rates approved.

Section 3(1) proposes to increase by 30 per cent. the allowance of £40 per month payable to a member of Dáil Éireann. The new rate of allowance will be £52 per month. Sub-section (2) proposes an increase of 30 per cent. in the allowance of £30 payable to members of Seanad Éireann. The new rate of allowance will be £39 per month. Deputies will remember that, in recent arrangements for consolidation of the basic salary and bonus of civil servants, a civil servant whose total pay in 1939 was £480—corresponding to the T.D.'s allowance at that time—receives an increase of 37½ per cent. This Bill proposes an increase of 30 per cent. in the Deputy's allowance. A civil servant whose salary in 1939 was £360 received, under the recent agreement with the Civil Service, an increase of 41 per cent. The £360 would correspond to the amount of allowance which a member of the Seanad received, but in this Bill we propose a 30 per cent. increase to Senators instead of the 41 per cent. received by civil servants. The total cost of the increases in allowances, leaving aside the increased travelling facilities, will be about £23,800 per annum. The Government consider that these increases should be granted in order that the members of the Dáil and Seanad will be enabled to fulfil their functions as Deputies and Senators.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

I want to say at the outset that we are opposing this measure for many reasons. The Minister has made no case whatever for the increase now demanded of this House. He bases such case as he has made on a false comparison. He compares the position of Deputies in receipt of an allowance of £480 a year with the corresponding rank in the Civil Service, but there is no analogy between the Deputy's allowance and the salary earned by a wholetime officer of the Civil Service. We are also opposed to this measure because we feel that at the present time taxation is bearing so heavily upon our citizens that this House should set some example to the country, if for no other reason than to indicate to the country that the House is dissatisfied with the extravagant administration which now obtains.

Taxation, central and local, at present represents something like 25 per cent. of our national income. In other words, virtually £1 out of every £4 of every citizen's income goes back either to the State or the local authority in some form of taxation. Taxation in 1931 was £7 per head of the entire population counting every man, woman and child. Taxation to-day, on the last Budget figures, is £23 per head of the population, and with the Supplementary Estimates, now being introduced and the other Supplementary Estimates likely to come along during the year, it is highly probable that taxation will reach something in the neighbourhood of £26 per head of our entire population, or, to reduce it to simple terms, to 10/- per week per head. That is not the real basis of comparison, because I need hardly point out that infants and children, and perhaps aged people, are not income-earners, and in many households there are people who are not income-earners but who are engaged in domestic duties. The real pressure of taxation is upon the family head. If we were to work out the taxation upon the head of every household, I venture to prophecy that the figure at present would be phenomenal.

However, taxation is pressing severely on all wage-earners, all lower income classes, all the middle classes, and particularly on all those people who are compelled to earn their livelihood by way of a fixed wage or income. Many of these people, formerly in happy, comfortable circumstances, are so driven to-day by the cost of living that they have to curtail their domestic expenditure. They have, in many cases, to curtail their expenditure on food and clothing and, in other cases, their expenditure upon the education of their children. In many ways, they have to economise to such an extent that the standard of living of many of these people to-day has been considerably lowered as compared with pre-war. We feel, therefore, that, in these circumstances, this is not the time when this House should take upon itself the responsibility of increasing the allowances paid to Deputies.

Nobody will question the right of this House to provide reasonable allowances for Deputies. It is provided in the Constitution that laws may be passed by the House providing for the payment of allowances, but I want to stress the word "allowances". Our Constitution is deliberately framed to provide only allowances—not income, not salary, not wages, and not remuneration. Allowancces are, therefore, provided as a recoupment of the expenses which the normally active Deputy will incur in the performance of his public duty. We have never visualised a situation here in which our Deputies should be paid a salary, wage or remuneration for their public duties. We have inherited a tradition here by which we feel that public representatives should perform public duties very often at the expense of their leisure, of their pockets and, perhaps of their professions, businesses or callings. We feel that nothing should be done in this House to set up a professional class of politicians. Nothing should be done in this House to induce the setting up of a privileged class and nothing should be done to make the position of Deputy so financially attractive that it will become the be-all and end-all of, perhaps, certain adventurers, to seek suffrages for the purpose of earning that particular income.

May I remind the House that, centuries ago, public representatives were maintained and paid by their constituencies? That system obtained from the 14th century down to the 18th century, and, as a matter of law, the legal liability of constituencies to maintain their representatives still remains. It has never been removed. I should like to remind Deputies also that the liability was fixed in 1323 at 4/- a day for a knight of the shire and 2/- a day for a citizen or burgess.

That scale should suit the Minister for Local Government.

It should, but remember that the 1/- was worth more than it is to-day. It was only in very recent years that a movement took place in Great Britain for the payment of public representatives. I do not want to go into the history of the matter, but it was only in 1911 that it was decided that public representatives in Britain should be paid. When it was settled in England, it was settled on the basis that the payment was regarded in part salary or income and in part a recoupment of expenses, and when the figure was fixed at £400, £100 was allowed for expenses. In other words, that £100 was free of income-tax and the £300 was subject to income-tax. In 1937 that sum was increased to £600. In 1946 it was increased even still further to £1,000, of which £500 is free of income-tax to cover expenses and the other £500 is regarded as income proper or remuneration. May I say that that is the all-in figure for a member of the British Parliament to-day, excluding the case of a member living out of London who has free railway travel to Westminster. But car hire, travel by car, car allowance, etc., is specifically excluded and the member must do all his travelling at his own expense, that is, within the limit of £1,000.

We, in this House, propose to give Deputies an allowance of £624 a year, free of income-tax—entirely so—and, in addition, we propose to provide the Deputy with such travelling facilities and expenses as will enable him to travel by car and to do most of his public work by car. In essence, that means that we are providing something very near, if not more than, the figure which has been arrived at in England. I want to say that if it is going to be put forward here that the profession of politics in the modern complexity of life should become a whole-time profession, it is a principle that will have to be settled by this House some day but that we are going very near doing so now when we are proposing to give such unreasonable emoluments, having regard to present-day conditions around us, to our Deputies. I am sure the Minister would be able to tell us the equivalent in income, that is, income bearing income-tax, of an allowance of £624, free of income-tax. It must represent £800 or £900, according to individual circumstances. If we add to that what a member may recoup himself by way of travel with his own car, I think the allowances proposed in this measure will exceed the allowances now granted in Great Britain. I want to say that we have not accepted the principle that politics should become a whole-time profession here nor do we intend to subscribe to that principle at any time. We think it is improper that politics should be handed over to the professional politician. We think it would be bad for politics, bad for the country and particularly bad for the taxpayer. Therefore, we subscribe to the ideal that enables any citizen, irrespective of rank, class, creed, or personal circumstances who wants to seek the suffrage of the people to have the right, if he earns their confidence, to come to this House.

In order to enable the poor man to come to this House we want to provide a reasonable allowance which will enable him to sacrifice perhaps his ordinary avocation, and yet not be out of pocket for serving the public. At the same time, we do not want to put a premium on such services. We feel that a great deal of public service should be done voluntarily. We feel that this House, particularly, should set the example to the country in making sacrifices in the present difficult circumstances. We feel that the old ideals of volunteer service should, to some extent, prevail on all the benches here. We feel that the proper approach to this problem is not the monetary approach but rather that the emphasis should be upon public service —public service as an ideal, public service as a service to our people, irrespective of the monetary attractions that may be provided. I am not going to go into the difficult question of what is a reasonable allowance. All I will say is that I, personally, have heard no complaint that the existing allowance is inadequate. I have not heard the case made by any individual Deputy or Party that the present allowances are not sufficient to cover the normal Deputy's expenses. If there is a case for that there is a way of meeting it other than by bringing in this measure arbitrarily at the dictation of the Government or the Government Party. I do not know if, in consideration of supporting the proposed increases of Ministerial salaries, a bargain has been struck between the Government and the Government Party and that as a quid pro quo the members of the Government Party have bargained for this increase in allowances. I hope no such bargain has been struck. I think if such a bargain were struck it would be a very vicious precedent to establish in this House. Certainly, there was no prior consultation with any other Party in this House before the measure was introduced. The first knowledge we had of it was the announcement in the daily Press of the Government's intention to introduce such a measure. Of course the build-up for this measure has been very carefully and studiously performed. The Government began with the removal of the standstill Order. It then set up a Labour Court to deal with the wages problem, without, of course, having set any wages policy to guide that particular institution. It then proceeded to increase the salaries and wages of the Army and the Gárda Síochána.

The salaries and bonuses of civil servants were stabilised and consolidated and they were given their increases. The local authorities, in their turn, got their increases. Then we came to the "higher-ups", the judiciary, and they were provided for. Then having felt that they had done a great day's work for everybody the Government turned to themselves and said: "Well boys, what about ourselves? We have done well for them all now. I think it is time we did something for ourselves." I want to remind the House that in 1938 this House passed a measure providing £480 as an allowance which was then considered sufficient for a Deputy. That measure was introduced at that time despite the fact that the Shanley Committee, which had been set up in 1937 to report on this matter, had recommended to the Government that the existing allowance of £360 was not insufficient—that in their opinion it was sufficient to cover a normal Deputy's activities and his out-of-pocket expenses in relation to these activities. Nevertheless, the Government in 1938, despite the recommendation of the Shanley Committee, introduced this measure and provided an allowance of £480, which from 1938 onwards represents a 25 per cent. increase on the allowance which was then considered by the Shanley Committee to be sufficient. In support of that measure the then Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee), as reported in column 989, volume 73, of the Official Reports, said this:

"If it could be shown that the figure which it is proposed to fix to-day more than covers the expenses which the most active Deputies may be called upon to face, nevertheless that would not be any sound reason for trying to whittle that figure down. We must leave a margin for future contingencies and allow those who may be called upon to serve the community later to serve it without having to make too many sacrifices."

I hold, therefore, that in making the 1938 provision, which represents a 25 per cent. increase on the previous allowance and on the Shanley Committee's recommendation, we have made sufficient provision to cover the further contingencies which have arisen since the emergency came upon us. The Minister there admitted that, in all probability, more than sufficient was being then provided, but that he had to cover all contingencies and to provide against the rainy day. On that basis, it seems to me illogical and unreasonable that the Minister should now come to the House and ask us to subscribe to a further increase.

I should like to make one further point in relation to this matter. These allowances are provided solely for the purpose of covering the expenses of a Deputy in the performance of his public duties, that is, as a public representative in his constituency and as a public representative here in this House. But they are in no sense intended to cover his expenses as a politician, to cover his expenses as a member of a particular political Party, or in any way to cover expenses which he may have to incur in ordinary, everyday political life. They are purely intended to cover his functions, duties and responsibilities of a strictly public nature as distinct from his activities as a member of a particular Pary. Examining the activities of the various Parties and the various members of the various Parties, it seems clear to us that the present allowances are sufficient and reasonable to cover the case of the average active Deputy. They may be more than reasonable to cover the case of the absentee or the inactive Deputy.

I want to say further that one of the greatest constitutional authorities— Dicey—when considering this matter of the payment of members of Parliament gave it as his opinion after a long study of the matter that it was dangerous to establish the precedent of paying members at too high a rate, making them too comfortable or making them too highly paid. He felt that that would have the tendency of prolonging the life of Parliament; that an unscrupulous Government, perhaps, would take the opportunity so to remunerate its followers, or even the entire membership of Parliament as to avoid the necessity for going to the country, when they had lost the confidence of the country; in other words, that they would feather their nests while the going was good and have a good whack, knowing that their time was up.

There is a danger, therefore, that in matters of this kind, self-interest would predominate and that members, irrespective of Party, would allow their self-interests to dictate the course of their public conduct, particularly in Parliament. Therefore, I think that anything which tends towards creating a new privileged, professional, political class in this country is a tendency that ought to be checked. It is a tendency that we definitely intend to stand against and to oppose as strenuously as we possibly can.

The increase proposed in this Bill represents something between £23,000 and £24,000 on the Oireachtas Vote. The Oireachtas Vote this year is already £7,900 up on last year. The Oireachtas Vote in 1946-47 was £137,500. This year the Oireachtas Vote is £145,400. In 1938-39, the Oireachtas Vote was £102,396. Having regard to the almost geometrical progress upwards in our taxation, the extravagance of public administration in every Department of Government, the ever-increasing bill which every Department of Government is presenting annually to this House, we cannot subscribe to the bad example which the Government and the Government Party are placing before the country in introducing this measure.

From time to time, when members of this Party requested from the Government certain very necessary increases, the invariable cry that met us from the Government benches was: "Where is this money to be found?" I remember some time ago, when we put down a motion to increase old age pensions and to modify the means test somewhat, the only argument the Minister had against it was: "Where is this money to come from? How is it to be found?" Here we have a spate of Bills, coupled with the increase in judges salaries given a few weeks ago, and not one word from either the Minister or from any Fianna Fáil speaker as to where this money is to be found. Of course there is no need to ask, because the Minister made sure that he would find it when framing his Budget previous to the 8th May last.

I hold that this Bill has a wrong title. It should not be called Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Amendment Bill. Seeing the order in which these Bills are being taken, I think it should be called Plunder Bill No. 2. We are after passing the Second Stage of Plunder Bill No. 1 and Plunder Bills No. 3 and No. 4 will follow in the course of this evening or to-morrow.

I often wonder what sort of mentality is behind the Government when they frame this type of legislation. When the Minister introduced this Bill I asked him a few questions and he did not answer them, although he had the opportunity. A half an hour ago he took great pains to explain to the House that the President did not ask for an increase in his allowance, or intimated in any way that he desired one, and the recent increases in salaries to civil servants and other State servants were given as a result of requests from their organisations. When this Bill was introduced, I asked him did he receive a request from any side of the House. I know that he did not receive one from this Party. Deputy Mulcahy said no member of Fine Gael requested such an increase. Deputy Norton followed and said no member of the Labour Party made the demand. One or other of two things must have happened. Either no Deputy demanded an increase, or else the Fianna Fáil Deputies demanded it. Will the Minister say what is the actual position?

It might be argued that the cost of living has gone up and, consequently, Deputies' allowances are insufficient. The cost of living has gone up enormously. There is a lot of talk about the value of the £ being reduced to half, and that is perfectly true. Before the Minister introduced this Bill, he should have consulted with Deputies and inquired if there was a danger of any Deputy resigning because the allowance was too small. If that was so, I could then understand the introduction of the Bill. If he could tell us that Deputy So-and-so threatened to resign because the allowance was not sufficient to cover his expenses, I could understand his bringing in the Bill. I could also understand its introduction if the country was in a prosperous condition.

The position is that our young men and women are emigrating, and those staying at home are not getting an adequate wage. The money paid to many workers here is not sufficient to enable them to live in comfort and it, is certainly inadequate for any married worker to sustain himself and his wife and family in decency. Some 18 or 20 years ago England was faced with a crisis when she went off the gold standard and one result was a voluntary act by the King to reduce his salary. Until we in this country start at the top, use the axe on the higher salaries, and redistribute the money so that the poorer paid classes will get enough to live in a fair measure of decency and comfort, there is bound to be dissatisfaction.

The Minister must be aware of the conditions in the country. If he does not go among the people, surely some members of his Party must go among them and they must have some knowledge of the rising howl of discontent and dissatisfaction. It is wrong to introduce Bills here such as we have on the Order Paper until the majority of our people are placed in a position to meet their liabilities and live in reasonable comfort. When we reach that stage, it will be time enough to consider ourselves. The whole procedure here is wrong. The only justification the Minister could have for such a measure as this is if representations were made by Deputies that they would have to resign because they could not attend to their constituents' business as effectively as they would like to on the existing allowance. It is only in such circumstances that the Minister would be justified in introducing this measure.

Mr. P. Burke

I have been a member of this House for a little over three years and this is the first time I listened to real high-power politics being played here. That was done by the two last speakers. Deputy Coogan almost cried crocodile tears and Deputy Blowick did the same. Candidly, if I were in their shoes I also would be tempted to do it. The position is that these gentlemen said, either at Party meetings or elsewhere: "Well, we are going to get this increase. We might as well oppose it and make all the political propaganda we can about it." That is why I referred to them as playing high-power politics. Deputy Blowick said, in a very emphatic way, that none of his Party wants an increase. They actually had to kick one member of their Party into the Lobby last week to vote, and I do not think he voted against the First Reading of this Bill.

Will you give the name of the Deputy? As Leader of the Party, I would like to know.

Mr. P. Burke

I have never been an informer and I will not become one now. We hear certain statements from Deputy Blowick, but I can assure him that there is no member on this side of the House who is not just as sympathetic and soft-hearted as he and members of his Party. We are just as anxious to raise the standard of living of every section of the people as either Deputy Blowick or Deputy Coogan.

Will you give me the Deputy's name?

Mr. Burke

I will tell you some other time. With Deputy Coogan, we have gone back three centuries. He went so far back I thought he would have told the House: "I am a member of the privileged class and I can do my job very well without receiving any public remuneration for the services I surrender." He made a case for £480 in 1938 and, surely, if it required that allowance to enable a Deputy to do his job in 1938, £480 is totally inadequate to-day for any Deputy who lives up to his name as a Deputy and properly carries out his public duties? The position was misrepresented by Deputy Coogan when he said that this increase would be responsible for building up a certain type of politician, a professional politician. I do not see how Deputy Coogan could stand up here and state that he was doing his duty by his constituents; I am not interfering with him personally, but I say that he could not do his duty honourably on the small, niggardly allowance of £480.

I have had experience as a Deputy for three years and, ever since I came into public life—I say this without fear of contradiction—I have spent at least £300 each year more than the niggardly allowance I have been drawing from this House. I could do the job if I stayed at home and did not answer letters or go around among my constituents, but I feel that if any man wants to do his job properly, the present allowance is too small. You have to do one thing or the other; you have to be honest with your constituents and do your best for them and be dishonest with yourself, or, if you happen to be a member of a certain privileged class, possibly you can do the work for nothing. But have we come to such a pass in this democratic State that only a certain type of people, people perhaps, with £5,000 or £6,000 a year, will be asked to enter public life? Surely in this democratic country we have not reached that stage.

It has been alleged that we, on the Fianna Fáil benches, are not concerned with uplifting the community, that we are trying to depress still further the down-trodden classes. I can assure both Deputy Coogan and Deputy Blowick that either Ministers or Deputies or the Fianna Fáil Party have not let an opportunity slip on which we could improve the lot of the people generally. We are deeply concerned with uplifting the conditions of every section of our people and that is the policy for which we stand. When one hears certain remarks that have been made in opposing the Bill, one can only conclude that certain Deputies have decided that it is wonderful politics. I congratulate the Deputies who spoke in that strain on being so intelligent as to try to grasp even the last straw by deciding to oppose this Bill. Of course, in opposing it, they are indulging in splendid politics. They probably say to themselves "People down the country will believe that we are really honest about it. They will say that we are so honest about it that we are the only honest to God Party, that we do not want anything at all for ourselves, that we want to give everything away and that we would do the job for nothing." They will tell the people that the Fianna Fáil Party are the only Party who want anything for themselves. I want to tell these Deputies that there are men on these benches who served the country nobly and well for years without any remuneration and as a result of their labours in conjunction with those of members of other Parties we have at last a national Assembly here. I appeal, even at this late stage, to members of the House not to play that mean low game of politics which is most unbecoming to this House and the country in general.

Legislation of this kind embarrasses most Deputies who have to deal with it, because I believe we are the only section of the community who can come here and decide the scale of our own salaries and allowances. Deputy Burke, who has just spoken, is inclined to doubt very much the sincerity of certain Deputies in this House. I want to assure Deputy Burke that, as far as I am concerned, the way I vote in this House is absolutely in accordance with the dictates of my own conscience. If I decide to vote in favour of any particular motion or measure, I do not care whether it is a popular or unpopular measure, I will vote in the way that suits myself and I am prepared to go back at any election and stand over my actions. I think it is in very bad taste for Deputies like Deputy Burke to cast reflections on the bona fides of any Deputy or group of Deputies who are opposed to this Bill.

I think this is one of the first measures introduced by a Fianna Fáil Minister where we are going to see members of the Fianna Fáil Party voting with both body and soul. They are certainly on this occasion going to vote in accordance with their own private convictions, but on many other occasions, on legislation introduced here, we saw that their bodies and souls were divided. Their souls probably went with the Opposition who voted against that legislation but, if their leader thought otherwise, they were compelled to follow him bodily into the Division Lobby. I believe that honest talk is going to count a good deal in this debate and I should certainly vote for this measure if it were introduced at any time other than the period through which we are passing at present, when we see the cream of our Irish manhood compelled to emigrate because they cannot find food, shelter or clothing in their own land and when we see various classes of our people discontented. As was pointed out on another occasion, every section of the community is discontented. We have the Gardaí, the Army, the farming community and the teachers most discontented. We have agricultural workers, road workers and county council workers all demanding increases. While such a state of affairs exists our first obligation should be to cater for the people who have sent us here—road workers, agricultural workers and farmers. It is our duty to carry out our work in this House in accordance with what we believe will be for the betterment of the country in general.

Deputy Coogan in the course of his speech made reference to the manner in which Deputies discharge their duties. I think it is a very bad thing that we have to stand here in this House and vote for an increase of £3 per week or £12 per month, to some "dud" whom we see walking into this House only once a year, in fact in some cases whom we see only every five years, whereas the honest hardworking Deputy who has to answer every beck and call has only the very same allowance as the man who sits at home comfortably and pays only an occasional visit to this House.

I am one of the poorest Deputies, from a financial standpoint, in this House. I am neither a barrister nor a solicitor, a trader nor a farmer. I have no other employment. If I had a job I would have to lay down my mind to it and neglect my Parliamentary duties. I am one of the few Deputies who devotes his whole time to the discharge of my public duties. When I leave here on a Friday evening and go to my constituency, I have frequently to attend some meeting that night and I am engaged there up to a late hour. From an early hour on Saturday I am engaged in interviewing people from my constituency and on Sunday I generally make a tour of some part of it. Probably some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies are anxious to know how I secured such a huge majority at the last election. Well, that is the secret and that is going to be the secret of my victory at the next election, because, as sure as there is a bill on a crow, I shall top the poll again in my constituency. I honestly believe that any man who professes no particular brand of politics but is out to serve his constituents honestly will get support from the people because they know that they will get good service from him and that he will give good value. That is what the people want.

Some Deputies may be doctors and others barristers who just come in here for a few hours in the afternoon. Others may be solicitors. Deputies who are solicitors in my opinion are making piles. The Deputy who is a solicitor is putting the pounds on their edges because when a constituent approaches a Deputy of that type the Deputy will say to him: "I can do very little for you in that case," or "It is not a case in which I can do anything for you in the discharge of my public duties but I think I can assist you professionally by my advice and that is going to cost you a couple of guineas." I want to make this comparison. At the moment I do not hold any position other than that of a member of this House and I get no salary for that; I get only an allowance. My postage bill, my telegrams and my phone calls amount to £2 5s. per week. That figure can be verified at the local post office when I am at home or at the post office in Leinster House when the Dáil is sitting. When the House is sitting any Deputy who goes into the Library will see me there sitting at a table with my back bent, with welts on my hand and a hump on my back from writing answering letters. No member of the House can keep a motor car on the road for less than £2 a week when you take into account what it costs for petrol, oil, tyres, and wear and tear. Even at that figure you have to watch every journey you take and every drop of petrol that goes into the tank. You have to watch your car carefully to see that it is not damaged. When repairs are to be carried out you have to go scrounging round the country looking for the cheapest garage you can find.

When the Dáil is sitting on four days a week it is my custom to come up on Monday nights. That means that I spend four nights a week in a hotel in Dublin. Bed and breakfast costs 14/-a night. That gives a total of £2 16s. 0d. When you come to Leinster House you take your lunch in the restaurant here. People say that Deputies' allowances are free of income-tax, but when they go to the Dáil Restaurant for their lunch that is where they pay their income-tax. They are fleeced there. I had my lunch yesterday and to-day in Clery's Restaurant. I got a ten times better lunch there for 2/3 than I could get in the Dáil Restaurant for 5/- or 6/-. The cheapest lunch you get there costs 3/9. Four lunches at that figure costs 15/- a week. Four ordinary plain teas in the Dáil Restaurant will cost 2/-each, or 8/- for the week. If a Deputy smokes a packet of 20 cigarettes per day that will cost him 14/- for the week.

If all these items are totted up you get the figure of £8 18s. 8d., so that the balance that is left out of the allowance of £10 a week is £1 1s. 4d. which is less than the wage paid to road-workers or agricultural workers and only a little more than the allowance which the old age pensioners get. That is all that is left to me after I have met all the expenses that I have outlined. Deputy Larry Walsh has said something that I did not catch, but if he desires any further information from me I am prepared to give it to him as well as details of my bank overdraft. That balance of £1 1s. 4d. is very small indeed for any Deputy who devotes all his time to his duties as a Deputy and who has no profession. A number of us are in that position, such as Deputy Commons, Deputy Cafferky, Deputy Corish and others.

Out of that £1 1s. 4d. I have to provide myself with clothing and to meet demands for subscriptions. If the demand for a subscription is not from a pipers' band it is from a feis committee, and if it is not from a feis committee it is from some distressed man from Leix or Offaly who parades outside the gates of Leinster House, or perhaps the appeal may come from a distressed man in some other part of the country. We are also expected to subscribe to church building funds, bazaars and carnivals. They all write to the local T.D. for a subscription. We have in my constituency Deputy O'Higgins, who is a doctor, and Deputy Davin, who is in another position. If they give a subscription of £2 2s. to something or other, and if I send only £1, well then I will get no votes at the next election. In that way I am compelled to be as good as the best Deputy in my constituency, so that I may hold myself well in the public eye. If Deputies in my constituency give subscriptions of £3 3s. I must be as good as they are, or perhaps I may give a shilling or two shillings more in order that I may hope to do well the next time. Deputies are also expected to attend funerals, at which you meet many old friends. In some parishes it is the custom to give offerings, and, of course, you have to do the same as other people do in that regard. I find that I am not able to attend a week-end meeting on less than £1. There is not much left out of the £10 when all that is taken into account. If I attend a meeting at Mountrath, Durrow or Portlaoighise I will meet there a group of the boys who are my supporters, and before I leave I will invite them to the local hotel and that is going to cost me a £1.

If I attend a meeting of the county council, a meeting of the mental hospital committee or any other meeting I will meet a number of old colleagues, friends and supporters. If, after a meeting, I sit down to dinner with two or three people it is certain the local Deputy is going to ask for the bill. He will have to pay. He is stuck again and he is expected to do all these things. I may attend some other meeting and meet a very near and dear friend. He is likely to make a demand in connection with a receivable order out of his pocket and will tell me that he is short of a couple of pounds until the harvest comes in. He will ask me to clear the rent with the Land Commission and that he will see me when he gets money in the harvest time. I may never see sight or light of him again. We always have poor people calling on us. Some think that the local T.D. is like a mint, and that he can shovel out money. The point is that Deputies cannot refuse their constituents when demands are made on them, and they should be in an independent position. The only man who is able to turn money from the fact that he is a Deputy is a solicitor. A constituent may call on him and ask him to do some work for him. He will politely say: "I cannot assist you as a Deputy but I can assist you professionally." Well, his advice is going to cost that person something. If I was a solicitor like Deputy Healy or Deputy Skinner or some other Deputies, and if I were to get 5/- each for the 40 letters a day that I write, it would mean £10 a day for me. I sometimes write as many as 150 letters.

When a solicitor writes a letter he gets 6/8 for doing so, sometimes 10/-or 12/6. If, as I say, I was getting £10 a day for the 40 letters a day that I write it would amount to £60 a week or £3,120 a year. I would nearly be as well off as the President then. I can say that I was a richer man before I became a Deputy than I am to-day. That is an honest confession, and I am sure the same is true of a number of other Deputies who are in the same position as myself. I found that before I became a Deputy I would not get a penny tick in any establishment. Now it is forced on me. I can get anything I want. It is a case of "Hail fellow, well met. Your name is good. You will pay for it sometime." That is the very reason why Deputies find themselves in a very difficult position. If I got 5/-for every letter I write I would be in receipt of £3,120 per annum and I am making no bones about it either.

Deputy Cogan may stand up and make a case why the allowances should not be increased. Parliament is open to poor men and rich men and that is as it should be. Parliament is here and the poor man is entitled to take his place amongst the elected representatives, just as the earl or the baron or any other titled gentleman who has thousands of pounds to declare him an independent citizen.

I was elected to the Dáil for the first time on the 25th June four years ago. The election campagn cost me £200 and I owed that amount when I was elected. If I had not been elected I would not have paid it; I would not have been able to pay it. I paid off the debt in monthly instalments of £10. After nine months there was another general election. I still owed £110 of the cost of the first election and the second election cost me another £150, which meant that I owed £260. In the meantime I had to buy a car, which cost £200. Therefore, I owed £460, which meant that I had to work a whole year for nothing for my constituents. That is a fact, and I am sure other Deputies could make the same case if they had the courage to make open confession concerning their expenses.

Deputies are expected to discharge their obligations in a very dignified manner. I shall not refer to or comment on the manner in which some Deputies exercise their duties. It is up to everyone to look after himself and that is what I am doing now. I want to indicate very clearly that there have been cases of very good men coming into this House, even before my time, and that their coming here was responsible for bringing them almost to the door of the county homes. I have known cases of at least four ex-T.D.s who, before they were elected to this House, were well off, and who are out of public life to-day and in very poor circumstances. I could name them but I shall not do so.

These were good, honest, industrious, well-to-do men until they came here and this House was the means of wrecking their lives. I know one case of an ex-T.D. who is living on charity to-day. I know of two ex-T.D.s who are living on their relatives. This House has wrecked more men than it has built men. I would be only too anxious and too willing to vote for this increase, because I believe that as a Deputy I am entitled to it. I believe that I am worth more to my constituency than I am getting. That is my honest opinion. Deputy Skinner or Deputy Healy or Deputy Walsh may say: "When Deputy Flanagan is going to vote against this, why does not he hand the increase back to the Minister for Finance?" I will be a cheap Deputy for nobody. I am as good a Deputy as the next. If one is to get it, let all get it. Certainly, I will hand back none of it. I will not be a cheap Deputy. I will not accept three-ha'pence less than Deputy Walsh or the dumbest back-bencher in Fianna Fáil. Why should any Deputy hand back his allowance?

I think it is insanity to bring in legislation of this nature while half the country is starving. Nevertheless, if it comes, I will take it because there is no reason why one Deputy should work cheaper than the next. I will be a cheap Deputy for no Party. At the same time I will vote against it because I believe it is not the right time to bring in legislation like this when the farming community is in the position that they cannot produce because of lack of capital and when the vast majority of our farmers, who have suffered severe losses of live stock as a result of the very severe weather, are at a standstill because they have no capital for the purpose of restocking their land, when the ordinary working-class people are in a deplorable state, when the old age pensioners in the Twenty-Six Counties are paid on a pauperish scale, when some members of the old I.R.A., that we hear so much about from time to time, are in county homes.

I want Deputies to have some conscience and to say to themselves that they are not going to pool all for themselves. We must look to those who are outside this House and who are entitled to an existence and who have a right to live. For that reason alone I propose to vote against this measure. I oppose it in the strongest possible terms because I believe that this is not the time, when our country is in such distress, when our people are in such a state of poverty, when there is urgent need of housing and proper sanatoria for tubercular patients who cannot get hospital or sanatorium accommodation. These are matters that should be dealt with before we increase the President's allowance, Ministers' allowances or allowances of Deputies and Senators. It is more important to cater for these people and to put them in a position of being able to live in their own country than to increase these allowances. The Government would be much more profitably employed if they would direct some attention to providing work for the workless and assisting those who are unable to secure employment, to increasing rates of wages for the working class, increasing widows' and orphans' and old age pensions. These are matters that should come before Deputies' and Senators' allowances.

I think it was Deputy Cogan who referred to work that we should do for nothing. I agree that that is a grand spirit but it is not the spirit that prevails in the country to-day, I am sorry to say. One man to-day is looking to see what he can get from another. The good old Christian doctrine, "Do unto others as you would wish others to do unto you", no longer prevails. Now it is, "Do man because he will do you".

This is legislation which should not be introduced at this stage. I oppose it very strenuously and I will vote against it and I am not voting against my conscience in doing that. I am one who has the interests of my constituents at heart. I know the conditions that prevail. I know the circumstances under which they are living. They are the circumstances in which the majority of our people are living. As the Minister for Finance knows, Ireland is divided into two. We have an Ireland for the rich and an Ireland for the poor. Anyone can see that there is one section living in luxury and another living in poverty and destitution. Having regard to the greater section of our people who are living in the Ireland of the poor, I am prepared to vote with the Parties who are rejecting and protesting against this insane and unsound legislation that the Minister for Finance has introduced in this House to-day.

Several commissions were appointed and considered this whole question of Deputies' allowances. The last of these commissions reported in 1937 and no recommendation was made in favour of increasing the allowances paid to Deputies. In fact, after considering the matter, the commission came to the conclusion that the £30 a month allowance, as it then was, was adequate to meet the expenses necessarily incurred by Deputies in the discharge of their public duties. Notwithstanding that, the Government saw fit at the time, in considering Ministers' salaries and the responsibilities of ex-Ministers and the fact that they were inadequtely provided for, to introduce a proposal to increase the allowance paid to Deputies to £40 a month. I think that no adequate case was made then for that increase. I may say, en passant, that the allowances which are frequently referred to as salaries— and in fact are allowances—were originally laid down in the Act as allowances, because of the fact that Deputies necessarily incurred the expenditure and that these necessarily incurred expenses should, because of their nature, be tax free.

Much play has been made from time to time, both by politicians and by writers, concerning this whole question. Considerable comment has been voiced because members of the Oireachtas are in what is termed a privileged position. I think that, once and for all, this whole question of Deputies being in a privileged position should be faced and that any criticism—much of it well intentioned, but a great deal more of it malicious— should be answered. From time to time Deputies give expression to opinions, in this House and outside it, concerning their expenses. Deputies have just listened to Deputy Flanagan describing his expenses, necessarily incurred, in his opinion, and expenses that, if these allowances were subject to tax, would undoubtedly be considered by the income-tax officials under the income-tax code as incurred in the discharge of public duty and for that reason not subject to tax. It was deemed proper that Deputies' and Senators' allowances should be free from tax.

The most obvious type of expense, other than travelling expenses and postage expenses, is that of subscriptions to charities and other activities in the constituency and the amount of those expenses depends on each individual Deputy. The fact that Deputies are obliged to defray those necessary expenses would mean that the Deputy would no longer be taxable in respect of those subscriptions or other contributions. The cry has been raised from time to time that these allowances should be subject to tax. I believe it would be more equitable and it might silence some of the criticism if they were, but it is obvious that there should be equality between one Deputy and another. If there is to be that equality, each Deputy should have free of tax the allowance considered necessary to defray his public expenditure as a Deputy.

If the allowance were subject to tax, some very few Deputies would pay the entire allowance in defraying income-tax, a larger number would pay a certain portion of it and a number of other Deputies would, because they had no other income or emoluments, retain the whole allowance. I think it is undesirable and wrong that Deputies should find themselves in these dissimilar positions—one able to retain the whole allowance and the other, because he is in receipt of an income or emoluments from a position, obliged to pay a large portion or even the whole of his allowance in income-tax. It was for that reason, and because if it was called a salary and properly liable to tax some Deputies would have to pay portion or all of it in tax and other Deputies would not, that it was made an allowance free of tax.

Deputies expenses may differ, but by and large the Deputy who attends to his duties in his constituency, attends the Dáil and attends whatever functions or meetings of various kinds may be held in his constituency, is involved in considerable expense. It would be wrong and improper that Deputies should be able to make something out of the performance of their work as public representatives or that they should be able to retain, over and above expenses necessarily incurred, some portion of the allowance and so make a profit out of public service.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

We have discussed also on other occasions how this whole question of payment to members of Parliament first arose. In this matter we bear, up to the present, favourable comparison with other Parliaments. The Parliament with which we are most likely to be compared is the British House of Commons, and until recently the payments there bore very close relation to the payments here.

Because of changed circumstances, the British Parliament last year passed an Act increasing the payments from £600 to £1,000, but a distinction is made and there is one portion which is properly regarded as tax free, in order to cover necessary expenses, and another portion which is regarded as salary and, therefore, liable to tax. In the past, in the British Parliament, a large number of those who made up the membership were in such financial circumstances, through inherited wealth, or held such positions that they were able to discharge their public duties for a comparatively small payment, or even for no payment, during a considerable period of time. We have never been in the same position, because of the general makeup in this country and the different types of people who are likely to seek entrance to Parliament.

It is obvious that the number of people who could devote themselves almost exclusively to Parliamentary work, and do so without requiring that their expenses necessarily incurred should be defrayed out of an allowance or salary, is extremely limited. It is likely that in the future there will be very few people who could be members of this House, and it is possible that even at present there are very few people in this House in a position to remain members, if there were no allowances in respect of Parliamentary duties. It is because there is no possibility otherwise of having membership of this House open to those who are not financially independent that it was deemed, and is deemed, essential that allowances should be paid to Deputies. That being so, the question to be considered is what is an adequate allowance? I do not know whether it is proposed to set up here a professional class of politicians.

Listening to some of the speeches, observing the work of some Deputies and noting their contributions, or lack of contributions, to debates here, it is obvious that a large number of Deputies consider that there should be a class of professional politician, that a class of politicians is desirable who would have no occupation or activity in life other than attending here, and the majority of those who favour that view, with certain exceptions, make no contributions to any matter and some of the contributions might well be left unmade.

I think it would be highly undesirable and entirely wrong, and certainly a departure which this House should not decide upon without grave reflection and serious consideration, to set up a class of politicians to be paid out of public funds for public purposes, and not merely to defray their expenses but to enable them to live entirely on the salary or allowance. If we propose to set up here, under an Act of this House, a scale of allowances which will enable people to discharge their duties on the basis of being entitled to defray not merely necessary expenses but their own personal expenses and family expenses as well out of public moneys, we ought to face the fact, but I object to the proposal because, so far as I can make out from my own experience and the experience of other Deputies, and in so far as no case has been made by the Government, there is no reason why the allowance of £480 should be increased to £624.

If the suspicion exists—it is ill-founded but nevertheless prevalent in the country—that Deputies make something out of politics, it is our duty to nail it and, so far as I can do so, I propose to nail as lying and slanderous any attempt by writers, politicians, critics or any others, to suggest that Deputies not only have sufficient to discharge their responsibilities, but, over and above that, are enabled to make something out of politics. The experience of anyone who has served for any period in the House is that Deputies not merely sacrifice time and convenience but suffer financial loss. I do not say that that should not be so. The fact that a person is deemed fit by his fellow citizens to serve in Parliament, is deemed a worthy representative and has had the good fortune to secure the confidence of his fellow citizens and is thereby enabled to serve, is, in my view, an honour worthy of attainment and one to which many citizens aspire.

However that may be, the public service has, for nearly all Deputies, a number of onerous duties that involve most Deputies in considerable inconvenience. I regard it as part of the honour of serving as a public representative that that should be so—that Deputies should make sacrifies in order effectively and properly to discharge public duties—but if we create the suspicion or the belief that we are setting up a privileged class of professional politicians, who, because of their position, are enabled to vote themselves increases, without adequate consideration or reason, and without a proper appraisal of the expenses necessarily incurred by a Deputy, not merely are we injuring those who are members now, but we are damaging the political, economic and national fabric of the country.

I object strongly to any suggestion that Deputies, because of their position, are voting themselves privileges. I have already explained, and I believe it is an adequate reason, that Deputies' allowances are free from tax not only because of their nature but because of the purpose for which these allowances are voted; but if the suspicion, which is prevalent to some extent through the country, that Deputies are a privileged class and making something out of their position, is allowed to grow, if we contribute to the spread of that suspicion by voting ourselves increases without any reasons being adduced, we are not merely doing a disservice to ourselves but we are placing this Assembly and the political life of the country in an invidious position and creating a position in which it will be the aim of those who want to make something out of politics to seek, by whatever means they think fit, entrance into politics in order to feather their own nests.

I resent any suggestion that members of this House—any members with whom I have any contact—make anything out of politics. We have discussed this matter from time to time and the House is familiar with the different types of expenditure in which their public duties involve Deputies. The fact that that is so and the fact that Deputies necessarily incur expenses necessitated the payment of an allowance. The matter has been considered on a number of occasions and the last commission which discussed it regarded the allowance then payable as adequate. For some unknown reason—possibly in order to cloak over the fact that the salaries paid to Ministers at the time were being increased—a proposal was brought in to increase the allowances to Deputies. No case was then made and no case has been made on this occasion.

It is true, as has been said, that the expenses of Deputies have gone up. It would indeed be regrettable that people outside, in the position in which so many people outside find themselves, in which they are unable to meet their commitments—those in receipt of salaries on a fixed basis and all those who are unable to secure, or have not secured, any increases, with the exception of some small bonus allowances—people who have weathered the high cost of living all through the emergency and are still weathering an ever-rising cost of living and difficulties of all types should be told: "You have got whatever you are entitled to and you will not get any more. You will not get any increase, but members of the Oireachtas, because of their position, are going to vote themselves an increase of 30 per cent." As I said earlier, it is wrong and improper that any suspicion should be created that the members of this House or that politicians in general are creating a privileged position for themselves and so establishing themselves as a privileged class. I do not think that because the allowances paid are free from tax, Deputies are placed in a privileged position. These allowances were originally, and are still, payable because of certain expenses incurred by Deputies. If we now propose, under this Bill, to increase the allowances still further, then undoubtedy good cause and good reason will be shown for the criticism, the abuse and the vilification which have gone on against members of the Oireachtas because they are paying themselves allowances free of tax. I resent, object, refute and deny that type of propaganda, which I consider slanderous.

The originators were the Party opposite and when they dropped it others took it up. It has been supported from time to time by sections outside the House, writers and others. It is time to put an end to it. If we can do so now we may not merely be serving ourselves but we may be serving this Assembly and those who may be called here in the future to serve the country. If we vote for an increase at the present time without any reason being given, without any consideration being given to increased expenses incurred by Deputies, without any case being made that these expenses have increased, I think that not merely are we degrading ourselves but we are degrading the nation. I regard this proposal at the present time as improper and as unjustified. I think that the whole suggestion at the back of this is to cover up the proposed increases for Ministers and to cover up the increase which we considered earlier to-day and yesterday in the allowance paid to the President. I think it is all one piece. I think it is kept as one piece in order to cloak over the fact that increases are proposed for the Ministers and members of the Government. I think we should resolutely set our faces against it but not from the point of view that any political advantage can be got out of it. As far as I am concerned I always stood before my constituents—I do so now and I will do so again—as serving their interests according to the changing circumstances of the times, according to whatever I consider wise and proper and according to what I consider to be their needs. I regard it as improper that we should at this time vote ourselves an increase without any single item being adduced, without any single scintilla of evidence being produced that would show that Deputies need the increase or that it is essential it should be paid. The case made does not warrant consideration of this matter for five minutes and it has not so far produced one speech in favour of the increase with the exception of some negligible contribution from the opposite benches. Anything that attempts or gives any food for a furtherance of the type of propaganda that has so far been carried on with some effect and that may in the future be carried on with greater effect against this Assembly or politicians is bad.

We have seen how politicians in other countries who, because of the privileges, because of the advantages, because of the benefits which they enabled themselves to get, either by legislation, by the improper abuse of their offices or by the improper use of the position which they held have so reduced political life, have so degraded political life, have so weakened and shaken the confidence of their fellow-countrymen, that throughout many countries in Europe and outside, nobody believes in democratic institutions and nobody believes in Parliamentary Assemblies. We have seen that in other countries. We see it at the present time in France. Faced with that experience, faced with these facts, faced with the dreadful effect that has had not merely in that country but in Europe, we propose now and the Government proposes without any cause, to increase the allowances paid to Deputies. I think we should think long and think well and learn by the experiences of other countries before we increase or before we heedlessly introduce a measure of this kind to raise the allowances of Deputies without considering not merely the immediate effects but without considering the possible serious repercussions which a measure of this kind may have in the future.

I want to approach consideration of this Bill in the calmest possible way without any regard whatever to its political repercussions and concerned only for the dignity of the House in the eyes of the people of the country. As I said on the Bill to increase the Presidential allowances last night, if all our other problems were solved, I could understand the approach which the Government has made to this question of Deputies' and Senators' allowances. But it is because they are far from solved and further away than ever from solution in the economic circumstances which exist in this country to-day, that I do not think we can undertake, unless we are going to forfeit the confidence and respect of the people, to apply ourselves to a solution of our own personal problems whilst neglecting to apply ourselves to a solution of those problems which press with such rigour on the masses of the people of this country. That there are problems to be solved, no sensible person, with his fingers near the pulse of the people, will attempt to deny. Every Deputy, from day to day, gets letters from constituents complaining of the manner in which they find themselves victims of existing circumstances. Every Deputy gets letters from constituents complaining of the circumstances in which they find themselves consequent on having to subsist on miserable scales of home assistance, inadequate widows' and orphans' pensions or on relief from social services which are now so outmoded that they make no reasonable contribution to the maintenance of life at the high living costs which operate in this country to-day.

I will refer to just two letters which I got to-day—two of many which will serve to illustrate the fact that our problems are far from solved. In the first letter a woman tells me that she has 18/- a week widows' pension. She says:—

"...eighteen shillings to keep five children and myself. Of course there are only three young children but the others have no income either. I wrote again last Friday to the Head Office in Dublin but got no answer. My food bill for the week was 11/3 for bread; milk, 5/3; tea, sugar and butter, 8/8½d. What for rent, light, fuel—not to speak of clothes? My girl aged 12 had to get 2/8 on Monday morning for books and she needs another 8/3. The two younger ones will want five or six shillings between them."

I thought there are free schoolbooks.

There are free schoolbooks.

Yes on a certain basis, but even then there is a test. It is a matter which I have not had a chance of investigating. There is the example of a poor woman trying to rear five children on 18/- per week. Surely we ought to apply ourselves to finding a solution for that woman's problem before we get all heated up over our own problem, so far as there is a problem at all, in relation to the general setting in which this House finds itself vis-à-vis the difficulties of the people.

Here is a letter from another woman whose husband died following participation in Easter Week, 1916. She gets a pension of £90 per year. She tells me how impossible it is to live on the pension in present-day conditions. Her husband was one of the people who made a contribution to the building up of this State. Notwithstanding the fact that the pension was awarded under the Army Pensions Act of 1923 and the pension of £90 was fixed then, there is no proposal to increase that poor widow's pension because of the increased cost of living. She has to subsist on her £90 per annum, having given her husband to the service and the exaltation of this nation. There is no proposal to do anything for her, because Deputies are too busy passing legislation to amend beneficially their own allowances.

I think the most fatal mistake that we can make as a House is to devote our time and our energies and our powers of enacting legislation to the benefit of ourselves as members of the Oireachtas while leaving problems such as those I have adverted to in these two letters untouched. In present circumstances, I think it is a very legitimate charge against this Legislature that it is proposing to increase the allowances of persons who, at least, are not nearly so badly off as those to whom I have adverted, whilst doing nothing for the masses of the people who are in dire need of assistance from this Legislature in order to help them to weather the economic blizzard which is blowing against them at present. I think that in all this matter our first concern must be regard for the reputation of this House.

At all times you will find a current of opinion against anything in the nature of representative government. You will have the cynic, the sneerer and the phrase-coiner who are all the time only too glad to indulge in any kind of repartee or abuse which helps to bring the Legislature into disrepute. We ought to recognise the existence of persons of that calibre and, by our own actions, we ought not consciously to do anything calculated to bring grist to the mill of persons of that outlook. Instead, we ought, by the honesty of our actions here, endeavour to show that we have regard for the reputation of this House and that we are not prepared even though it may be personally attractive to us, to embark upon a course of action calculated to undermine the confidence which the people of the country ought to have in a legislative assembly.

Here I come to the point at which I must express the opinion that there is something fundamentally wrong with this Legislature initiating, without any apparent demand from any large number of Deputies, or without any public outcry of sympathy with Deputies, proposals to increase the allowances of Deputies and Senators. One is tempted to ask at this stage who initiated the demand for this increase on the scale and in the manner provided in this Bill? It certainly was not the public. The public were not consulted in the matter. It cannot have been Deputies on any widespread scale. If the Government for once in its existence wants to say to people: "We do not think you have enough money and we insist on giving you more", I begin to get suspicious. That has not been their attitude towards civil servants; that has not been their attitude towards many other classes of workers for whose remuneration they are responsible. There seems now to be a complete change of front when the Government come along and want to give to Deputies an increase in their allowances on this scale and in this manner without any apparent demand for such an adjustment in their remuneration.

I do not think the public are in favour of these proposals. In a matter of this kind, the public are entitled to be considered and their viewpoint ought to be ascertained. Whilst it may not be very convenient to ascertain the viewpoint of the public on proposals of this kind, it seems to me that before we proceed further we ought to feel satisfied at all events that we are fortified by some current of public opinion favourable to an increase in Deputies' and Senators' allowances. I have not met one member of the public who was glad that Deputies' allowances were to be increased, but I heard a very considerable number of people saying that it was a damned shame that, in present circumstances, Deputies' allowances should be increased when so many persons were finding it so hard to live.

I referred a few moments ago to the regard which I think Deputies ought to have for the reputation of this House. That brings me to another aspect of the method of remunerating those who are members of the House in the form of allowances, namely, the question of the exemption of these allowances from income-tax. Deputy Cosgrave has made the case that membership of this House ought not to be a salaried occupation. Of course, I can conceive an Olympian concept of life in which the payment of a salary for doing anything would soil the hands and the souls of certain people. We should remember, however, that we are living in Ireland in 1947. Those who have been members of the House for a very long time and who have had experience of life know perfectly well that many persons come into this House as Deputies and have no other income whatever. Does anybody ask us to do such violence to our intelligence and to our sense of understanding as to imagine that these persons spent their whole allowance on their public duties and never a ha'penny on themselves? I do not believe it for one moment and the man who says it is living in the clouds.

Many Deputies, and I speak for a number on these benches, come into this House and live entirely on the allowance which they receive. They perform their public duties in a very creditable manner; they are amongst the active Deputies. I think it is all nonsense to pretend that the allowance is something to enable a person to discharge his public duties and that it must not be touched for the personal maintenance of a Deputy. It is being touched. The person who says it is not knows that he is taking leave of the truth when he makes a statement of that kind.

I would prefer to see this whole matter dealt with in another way, as against the Olympian concept of things which Deputy Cosgrave has. I concede that he holds that viewpoint conscientiously, but, I think, mistakenly. In face of the stern realities of life in this country to-day, I would sooner approach the problem in a candid way and say: "Let us recognise that this is public service in the same way as a judge gives public service, as a civil servant gives public service and as many other persons give public service," and let us put it that so long as you are fortified by the authority of the people to render that public service, then you will receive for it remuneration which will enable you to discharge your duties and provide for your maintenance. Is there anything wrong with that? Is not that what we do to the Chief Justice—I do not want to refer to him in any personal sense—is not that what we do to the Taoiseach and is not that what we do to the President? Why does it become so sinful or so distasteful when it applies to an ordinary Deputy who, possibly, has left his potato field or his factory in order to come into the Dáil? Is there any special code of honour expected from him, any special standard of rectitude? Is he supposed to set a standard on his £480 a year which nobody will attempt to set for people with ten times his salary, whilst they also are rendering public service?

Quite frankly, I would prefer to see this matter approached on the basis of recognising that membership of the Dáil is a public service the same as the judiciary, the Garda Síochána, the Army or any other sphere in which public service is rendered. I would like to see it regarded as public service in the same way as public service is rendered by members of the Government, for instance.

The service of members of the Dáil might be regarded as a part-time service.

For some members of the Dáil it might be a no-time service at all. The fashion has grown up here —and the Deputy is not unfamiliar with one person who has brought it to a fine art—that because a Deputy may get annoyed in the Dáil he does not come here any more. The position is that you get annoyed in the Dáil and you stay at home, but you get your £480 even though you stay at home. Under this Bill any person who gets sulky just like that will get £624 for remaining at home. That is abstention in excelsis, it seems to me, but that is what is going to happen under this Bill.

I would sooner face up to the position frankly and pay a recognised salary in respect of membership of the Dáil and at the same time make that salary subject to income-tax. I can see no reason why we ought not to face up to the position and say that this is public service, that the salary is so much, and that it will be liable to income-tax. I see no reason why a Deputy, in respect of income in the form of an allowance which is, in fact, a salary, should not pay income-tax in the same way as every other person who receives an income pays it. Let a Deputy make the case if he can—and it can be made in very substantial measure—for such rebates of income-tax as may be due because of expenditure necessarily incurred in the discharge of his public duties.

I do not think we are entitled to sit here as some kind of tin gods and put our tongues out at the public every time the public legitimately voices a complaint against practices with which it does not agree. I think that if there is a large volume of public opinion in favour of making our incomes liable to income-tax, we are bound to take notice. We are here as the servants of the public. We can put a case to the public if we wish to do so and the public are entitled to express an opinion. If that opinion is widespread, the public are entitled to expect that those who serve them in the Legislature will have their viewpoint expressed, too. I would sooner face up to the position of a regular salary for a member of the Dáil or of the Seanad —the case for it may be less in the Seanad than in the Dáil—subject to that salary being liable for income-tax, so as to get away from what is in many respects irresponsible criticism of Dáil members for exempting themselves from liability to pay income-tax.

I can see that in some cases it may be just part of the efforts of a small group of irresponsible people to hold the Dáil up to odium, as it would seek, if that difficulty were not there, to hold the Dáil up to odium in some other connection. When the position is examined in the circumstances in which we live, and when it is closely scrutinised, I think a case can be made in favour of a salary, making that salary reasonable for the duties discharged by a Deputy and also making it liable to income-tax.

If I have to face up to that problem as against facing the difficulties which a Bill of this kind will create for this House and the hostility with which it will be received by the people, I would sooner face the problem from that angle in a candid and frank way, but I would not prefer to do it just half way between one election and another. I think the people ought to be informed about it and given an opportunity of voting on it. It is the kind of issue that might well be thrown into the arena at a general election, where you can give it an airing, a canter, and make sure that you will hear the views of both sides in the cut and thrust of an electoral battle.

Deputy Flanagan talked about his expenses as a member of the Dáil. Until he more or less shattered the nerves of the House by saying he thought he was entitled to a salary of £3,140 per annum for writing a certain number of letters per day, I thought he was making a very reasonable case so far as the expenses of an active Deputy are concerned. I leave out his rhetoric and the embellishments which he brought into the debate, but he certainly showed, in a way that invited examination and that did not attempt to conceal the economic and fiscal facts as they had their impact on him, what his expenses were like.

Per week, which he multiplied by 52.

Is there not something radically wrong with our arrangements if a Deputy can be elected and can then treat this House in the most cavalier fashion—can attend when he likes, can absent himself if he does not like to come here, can do that month in and month out, can get, as it were, a regular pension—and still the legislation frames itself in such a way that that person gets the same allowance as an active Deputy who discharges his public duties? I know there is a difficulty in dealing with a Deputy of that kind. Probably one of the easiest ways of dealing with him is through Party machinery, but I am not sure that even Party machinery works effectively or efficiently with Deputies of that type. In any case, if the Party machinery is efficient and deals in a serious, disciplinary manner with the Deputy, the Deputy can become sulky and not come here at all, whereupon he receives the same remuneration as an active Deputy.

As I say, Deputy Flanagan made a case on his own expenses and I think a case can be made for certain Deputies who have no other source of income whatever. In their case their allowance has to be salary and the medium of meeting expenses necessarily incurred in the discharge of their public duties. We are burying our heads in the sand if we do not recognise that the question of dealing with that class of Deputy is a problem. That does not ignore the fact that others probably have very great problems also. If there is any Deputy in the House who can make a case for this Bill it is that class of Deputy but other Deputies have no case to make. I know Deputies in our own Party who have to travel long distances to attend meetings of this Assembly. They have to pay for meals on the train; they have to get meals in the restaurant here which are by no means cheap meals. They have to live in small boarding houses in town. Many of them are forced to move from one boarding house to another in order to try to get something within the ability of their pockets to pay.

If they are active Deputies and deal with a lot of constituency correspondence, they have a very substantial postage outlay. If they have visitors to the House that involves them in other expenses for meals or perhaps for refreshments, but mainly for meals. Again, if there is a collection in their constituency for a particular purpose they must, contribute; in fact, they are morally coerced into subscribing, to worth-while objects of that kind. Total up all that expenditure, remembering that the Deputy has no other source of income and you will find that what is left to that Deputy is an extremely small amount. So far as that Deputy is concerned, his constituents are getting from him not merely public service where he is an active Deputy, but real sacrifice as well. I should like to see the case of that Deputy specially examined.

I see difficulties in that. I see the difficulties which would be created by paying one Deputy one type of allowance or salary and another Deputy on a different scale. But if I have got to face up to this problem of having to vote for a blanket increase in allowances such as is proposed in this Bill or seeing that this small number of Deputies carry on in real hardship, then I am afraid they will have to carry on in real hardship because I am not prepared in present circumstances to vote for an increase of £144 per annum in Deputies' allowances because in many cases Deputies cannot make a case for it. A small number may, because of their peculiar circumstances, make a case for it. I should prefer, however, to see their cases tackled in another way, tackled through the medium of an arrangement whereby salaries would be subject to income-tax but that problem should be examined in respect of every other Deputy in this House. As I say, there is a case for that small group of Deputies who have no other source of income or emolument whatever, no shops, no farms, no other type of income. When one takes the trouble personally to examine the circumstances of some of these Deputies, one will find cases of very real hardship such as have come to my notice from time to time.

I made up my mind on this Bill by one simple test: how can you justify giving 2/6 to an old age pensioner and £144 additional allowance to a Deputy? Here is a House knowing that there are about 140,000 old age pensioners in the country getting a maximum of 10/- per week with a rigorous means test imposed on people with low incomes, and this House says to the old age pensioners: "The most we can give you is 2/6 a week, not a halfpenny more." If we are going to say that to the old age pensioners in the name of this House, how can we justify our mean and miserable attitude towards such persons while giving £144 additional allowances to ourselves? I cannot do it. I should like to see the Deputy who is going to justify it. I cannot justify it, and it is because I cannot justify it to myself that I am not going to vote for this Bill.

Some Deputies have their problems, but there are other problems. There are the problems of the people whose letters I read this afternoon. There is the problem of the old age pensioner, the problem of the person who has served the State over a long number of years and who is now subsisting on a miserable pension, the problem of the widow and the orphan, of the home assistance recipient, the problem of endemic poverty in many parts of the country.

Having regard to our attitude to all these sections, I certainly could not justify the proposal to increase our own allowance by £144 per annum and I am not voting for this Bill. I say to the Government that there has been no demand for this Bill, no vocal demand, no widespread demand. Why was it introduced? Somebody should explain that. I could hardly imagine that the Government have adopted a new fiscal policy, a new outlook on life as a result of which people have not to come to them for money but the Government comes along and says to them: "You will get 30 per cent. of an increase; we feel for you. You do not have to come to us to make a case. All you have got to do is to hold out your hand."

I do not believe it is due to that, but we should get some explanation as to what is responsible for it. I think having regard to the reputation of this House and the desire to maintain that reputation, it is both unwise and inopportune to introduce a Bill of this kind. I think that the Bill should be withdrawn and re-examined by the Government in the light of the facts which this discussion reveals and in the light of whatever difficulties have to be met so far as energetic, zealous, conscientious Deputies are concerned.

It looks to me from what has been said already that the vote on this Bill will take place along Party lines. I think that is a mistake, a tragic mistake in a matter of this kind. It is more than an accident that every member of the Fianna Fáil Party will vote for this Bill. One could hardly imagine that a number of people on an issue of this kind would have the same view. There must be Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches who realise that it is an unwise and an inopportune Bill and that it should not be proceeded with. If they believe that, surely they should not be machined into voting for it? Is there any good constitutional reason why the Government should insist on a Bill of this kind being put to a Party vote or why the Whips should mill this Bill-through? Is it not the honest thing with a Bill of this kind to leave it to a free vote of the House? If Deputies then feel that they want more allowances let them vote for the Bill and justify their action afterwards. It is not fair even to Fianna Fáil members that somebody should have to think for them on an occasion like this. They should be allowed to exercise an independent point of view. They should be given an opportunity of voting freely in accordance with the dictates of their own consciences.

I think the Government should withdraw the Bill. I think that is the desirable thing to do. Let the whole matter be reconsidered if there is any desire to reconsider it in present circumstances. If, however, the Government still feels that its face is involved in this matter it ought at all events not press Deputies to vote for it if Deputies conscientiously do not want to do so.

It is quite evident from the speech to which we have just listened that the Labour Party have decided on this occasion to play politics. Deputy Cosgrave said that no case had been made for the Bill. I would ask Deputy Cosgrave or any other Deputy on the Fine Gael Benches who wants to find a case for this Bill to read the speeches of Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and of Deputy Mulcahy on a similar Bill that was before the House in 1938, when members of all Parties went into the Lobby and agreed that an allowance of £480 a year was then necessary. It would surely not be out of place now, in view of the circumstances that have developed in the meantime, for Deputies to go into the Division Lobby and vote for a further increase in those allowances. The Labour Party on that occasion supported the Fianna Fáil Party. A couple of weeks ago, when we had a division here on the First Reading of this Bill, the Labour Deputy who acted as spokesman for the Party on that occasion expressed himself as being in favour of this measure. It would appear that in the meantime they considered it to be good policy to join with the other Opposition Parties in opposing this measure.

I voted against the previous Bill. If the Deputy will look up the figures, he will see.

Mr. Brady

If the Deputy will look up the division list for last Tuesday week—I do not think the Deputy himself was present—he will see that the members of his Party voted for the First Reading of this Bill, and that Deputy Keyes declared himself in favour of it.

I voted against the previous one in 1938.

Mr. Brady

I allowed Deputy Norton to speak without interrupting him. I do not speak very often in the House.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy. I simply want to put that point right, that I did not vote for the previous Bill.

Mr. Brady

The members of the Labour Party did.

Some of them did.

Seventeen members of this Party voted against that Bill.

Mr. Brady

And the rest voted for it.

I voted for it and I will vote against this one, and if anybody cares to make anything out of that, he can do so.

Mr. Brady

It is very difficult for me to understand the mentality of Deputies who can, without turning a hair, vote an increase of £600 a year in one case, of £500 a year in another and an increase of £300 a year in other cases under legislation that went through this House some weeks ago, and yet who are so economical, so saving and so concerned about the widow, the orphan, and the old age pensioner when it comes to the case of Deputies' allowances.

It is very easy for full-time officials, for men who are not by any means dependent on their allowances in this House, who have very little travelling expenses since they live convenient to the Dáil to come in here and make a case against increased allowances for Deputies. I would ask them to take the case of Deputies from Donegal, Cork, parts of Mayo and other faraway districts who, for some time past because of Dáil sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, have to leave their homes at 10 o'clock on a Monday morning. If they have to remain for a Friday sitting, they do not get home until Saturday night so that the only day they are at home is Sunday, when they probably have to do some constituency work. Deputy Dillon will say that that does not apply all the year round and that a Deputy is able to spend a considerable amount of time at home. I say that a Deputy who is working a constituency and working in the interests of his constituents will be active even during the time that the Dáil is in recess, so that in reality he will have very little time at home to attend to his farm, to his business or to whatever vocation in life he follows.

The travelling and hotel expenses of a Deputy are considerably higher now than they were in 1938. I venture to say that the allowance of £360 a year which Deputies had from 1922 or 1923 until 1938 was much more valuable than the allowance they have to-day, or than even the proposed increased allowance will be. I am not in a position to speak about the expense of running a car. I have not one, but the expense of running a car is very high at the present time. I know Deputies who have cars and they tell me that the running of a car costs in the neighbourhood of £250 a year—that if you take wear and tear, depreciation, and the cost of petrol, that more than half of a Deputy's allowance goes towards the maintenance of a car.

That is refunded.

Mr. Brady

How?

A Deputy gets a refund every time he drives the car to the Dáil.

Mr. Brady

He gets first-class railway travel.

He gets 4d. a mile.

A Deputy does not get the price of a car.

He gets 4d. a mile.

Mr. Brady

In the case of a Deputy who is active in doing the work of his constituents a car will not last him very long. On this question of Deputies' allowances, I should like to avail of the opportunity which this Bill affords to make certain representations to the Minister in connection with the establishment of some fund whereby we could make provision for the widow and orphans of a deceased Deputy. All of us, on all sides of the House, have had the experience of Deputies passing away during their period of membership of the Dáil. In not a few cases appeals have been made to us to subscribe to funds to help the widow or the orphans, as the case may be, of a deceased Deputy. I think that in the case of a Deputy who gives ten, 15 or 20 years' service in this House—there are some Deputies here for more than 20 years—and who has given his time and attention to the work of his constituents, it is a blot on this Assembly that his widow or orphans should be left dependent on the result of an appeal made for public subscriptions.

There is a scheme in operation in Great Britain which I would like to recommend to the Minister for Finance. I think that on the Committee Stage of the Bill he should incorporate two new sections to make provision for the establishment of a similar fund here, or if it is necessary to do so, to introduce special legislation for the purpose as soon as possible. In 1937 a departmental committee was set up in the British House of Commons by the then Prime Minister. As a result of the report of that committee to inquire into the establishment of a fund for the widows and orphans of ex-members of the House of Commons, legislation was passed in 1939 establishing such a fund. To give Deputies an idea of what was done, I shall give some quotations from a Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons Members' Fund which gives details of how the money in that fund is expended. The fund was built up by the statutory contribution of £12 per year, deducted from the allowance of members. Other provisions were:

"A. The appointment of trustees to administer the fund.

B. The making of grants by the trustees to persons who had been members of the House of Commons or to their widows or in respect of orphan children, having regard to—

(a) the financial circumstances of the persons to or in respect of whom the payments are made,

(b) the resources and income of the fund and

(c) the following limitations—

(i) The annual amount of any periodical payment made to a former member is not to exceed £150 or such sum as will bring his annual income up to £225, whichever is the less;

(ii) The annual amount of any such payment made to a widow is not to exceed £75 or such sum as will bring her annual income up to £125, whichever is the less;

(iii) No payment is to be made to a former member unless he or she has reached the age of 60 or, in the opinion of the trustees, is by reason of mental or bodily infirmity incapable of earning a living."

There have been members of this Assembly in the past who were disabled or in bad health as a result of their service to the nation in this House and otherwise and who had very little means of livelihood when they lost their seats here. I think that provision would be a very necessary and essential provision to incorporate in this proposed legislation—

"(iv) no payment is to be made in respect of a child of a former member whilst either of the child's parents is living or after it has reached the age of 16 and the annual payment made in respect of the orphan child or children of any former member is not to exceed £75.

(v) No payment is to be made to any person unless the person by virtue of whose membership of the House such payment is made was a member for periods together amounting to ten years; but the trustees in certain cases had discretion to make grants even though this requirement was not complied with."

I would very strongly urge the Minister, either in this Bill or in some future legislation to make provision by way of compulsory statutory deductions from member's allowances to meet the cases of ex-Deputies and ex-Deputies' widows and orphans.

With regard to the Bill under discussion, there is no provision to compel a Deputy who does not want or who does not require the extra allowance which will be provided for him to spend that allowance. He can, I am sure, refund the extra allowance to the Exchequer. Any Deputy who feels that he is not expending the amount he is receiving by way of allowance should refund, not only the increase which it is proposed to give him now, but whatever balance he has over and above what he expends of the present allowance of £480. Although there is some truth in what Deputy Norton says, that there are a number of Deputies who have very little if any other income, there are Deputies who have other income and who, I am sure, do not expend their £480 a year but most Deputies, particularly most country Deputies who do their work, who attend the sitting of the Dáil, who attend the committees that are set up of which they are members, who attend to their public work in their constituencies, are not at the present time meeting their expenses by the payment of £480 a year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Jurymen in our society do not get any recompense at all and yet they go on working and I hope always will go on working because their work preserves the system of trial by jury, which is the bulwark of individual liberty. I think Deputies of a Parliamentary Assembly such as ours must labour under the same kind of injustice that jurymen labour under because the public are notoriously bad paymasters. They are as mean as it is possible to be. I do not believe our constituents would ever pay us a living wage and if the people of Monaghan think I am well paid at £480 a year for the work I do for them, they have another "think" coming. I told them that before and I must say, in justice, that they never pretended that they thought they were giving a fair wage but they have not the slightest desire to give any more. I would not be the least influenced by their views on that matter.

I believe that when a man becomes a member of this House he has a duty to do as a member of this House what he believes to be right and if his constituents do not like that they can put him out. I do not think any Deputy has a right to come in to this House, having been elected, and then do in violation of his own conscience what he thinks the majority of the voters of his constituency want him to do. He can resign if he wants to or he can do what I believe is the right thing to do and that is, so long as he is a member of this House, act in this House according to his conscience and answer for it to his constituents at the next general election.

Deputy Norton poses the question, ought not a decision be taken in principle as to whether members of this House should be paid a salary or be vouchsafed not more than the sum to cover expenses? I think Deputy Norton is right. A decision in principle on that matter ought to be taken. It is not true to say that no decision has been taken heretofore. The decision at present in operation is that Deputies of this House receive an allowance to defray expenses. I agree with Deputy Norton that in practice that means that a great many Deputies have to live out of that allowance for they have no other income. I think it is no reflection on many of our colleagues in this House to say that £480 a year free of tax is not a contemptible income. How many ten-acre farmers in this country could claim to have £480 a year free of tax? All the farmers in the parish where I live have farms varying from eight to 20 acres. I doubt if you could say of any of them that he has £480 per annum as an income. It is often forgotten by the public at large that if a member of this House has a family—and most of us have—that, in addition to taking your room here in Dublin and paying your expenses when you are in town, you have to maintain your wife and family at home. You have the exceptional expense of maintaining two households while the House is in session. I think it is a mistake to overstate the case by proceeding on the assumption that this House is in session for 52 weeks of the year, because it is not. I do not know what the average is, but it may be about 20 weeks.

A Deputy

Thirty weeks.

You may add to that another five or six, where Deputies come up during the Recess to visit Departments or transact business which requires their personal attendance here in town. If we say 35 or 36 weeks, a Deputy who is married has to bear the double burden of maintaining his home and paying for lodgings and accommodation here in town. Taking the Deputies of the House by and large, if they have the ability and the industry to secure the confidence of their constituents as a result of their work in Dáil Éireann, I believe it is highly likely that the vast majority of them, if they engaged in mercantile or professional occupations instead of devoting their time to politics, would make as much or more than they do by being T.D.s.

I cannot see how we could equitably pay salaries to members of Dáil Éireann. Under the existing arrangement of an allowance, as Deputy Norton pointed out, a member of this House may be industrious or may stay away and not do his work at all. I want to preserve that freedom to Deputies. It would be most unfortunate if we gave it into the authority of anyone to keep watch and ward over the comings and goings of Deputies. That is a matter for his constituents: if they do not like the way he is serving them, they have their remedy on polling day; but if they chose to elect a certain man to this House on his record, I know of no authority inside or outside this House who has a right to say: "We will not allow you to elect So-and-so, as he is not a fit man." If, however, a man is drawing a salary from the State to do certain work, then the shoe is on a different foot, since surely the State has a right to say to him: "You have been nominated to do a certain job for which there is a stipulated salary; we acknowledge the right of the constituents to nominate you as the person to receive the salary for doing the work, but you must make some shape at doing it—you cannot absent yourself from the House for 12 months without ever putting your nose inside the door, or the paymaster will want to know the reason why."

Does the Leader of the Labour Party think that would be a good system? I do not think I would, and I would be very slow to consent to the proposition that we, members of this House, should be paid servants of the Exchequer. I cannot imagine that Deputies would maintain their independence long if it were once established that they were quasi civil servants, subject to being called to render an account of their stewardship, not to their constituents, but to the paymaster in Government Buildings.

Now, Deputy Norton says: "How could any rational man suggest that you should increase Deputies' salaries while there are many people inadequately provided for?" Then he reads a letter from a constituent, a widow with five children, three of whom are under 16, who has only 18/- a week. That raises a very important issue. Does Deputy Norton maintain the thesis that a widow woman who lost her husband and is responsible for five children is the exclusive responsibility of the State? To maintain that would be to ignore completely the whole fabric of the Christian society of which Deputy Norton and the rest of us form part. Unless the case is very exceptional, her deceased husband has brothers or parents; or she, the bereaved woman, has brothers, sisters or parents; and surely, in any normal society, they would rally around and bear their share of the burden of her affliction. Is there any Deputy whose brother died leaving a wife and family after him, who would not concern himself to go and give some little hand to help out the family?

Mr. Corish

The Deputy would be surprised.

I think, when Deputy Corish is as old as I am, what will surprise him is the lengths that very rough, plain people will go to do good by stealth and make no pother about it.

What if they had no means?

The most exhaustive extremes of charity that I have ever come into contact with were in the tenement rooms of the City of Dublin. That is as it should be. It is a good thing, within reason, for society to help out, with outdoor relief or pensions, and always to stand ready to ensure that destitution will not be allowed to overtake anyone. It would be a great mistake, however, and one into which Deputy Norton will not readily fall, to make the case that the State must provide a reasonable stipend for every afflicted person before it pays the necessary expenses of maintaining Government and carrying on the institutions of the State.

Deputy Norton spoke also of the £90 per annum for the widow of a 1916 veteran. I do not understand now and never could understand how this Parliament has stood for figures of that kind. I have very little sympathy with the payment of a pension of any sort to an able-bodied man who has not suffered any physical injury in the service of his country, but where you are dealing with the widow of a man who has laid down his life in the service of his country, whether you agree with the fellow or not, it is different. Where you are dealing with a man who is crippled in the service of his country, whether you agree with him or not, that he should know the bitterness of looking at his neighbours who are comparatively prosperous and realise that he has to struggle along on £90 per year when, if his health were spared to him, he could have made a good living for himself and his family, is to me utterly incomprehensible.

Regarding Deputy Norton's reference to the widow of a man who was killed in 1916 or died as a result of wounds then received, and now in receipt of £90 a year, I think it is an outrage and I cannot but believe that, if that matter were brought before the House, all Parties without distinction would say that, where a person has suffered such physical injury as to make him unable to earn his own living, or where a person has left a widow and family after him because he died in the course of his duty, the inadequacy of the pension at present provided should be readily rectified.

I want now to break a lance with Deputy Cosgrave. He says we ought to be very circumspect about what we do because he observes the criticism of democratic politicians abroad and sees to what pretty pass they have been brought, owing to their having left themselves open to such criticism. I gather from his words that he implied that this criticism was very much justified. I want to question that. Every would-be tyrant, whether Bolshevik or Nazi, has always held the democratic politician up to odium as corrupt, as a time-server, chiseller and intriguer. Then he gets in and there is no more criticism—that is an essential part of the system—but if there was a faint aroma from the democratic Parliament, there is a stink that would paralyse you from the dictator's sanctum. Every corruption, every abomination, every inequality, every savagery that the mind of man can conceive, proceeds to pour forth, but there is never any criticism, because the first man who criticises, you knock his block off. We poor simple democrats acknowledge the right of people to praise or blame us at their own sweet will, but our critics who want to replace us or who want to set up pure, efficient, radical forms of government, it is perfectly true, are never criticised because it is as much as your life is worth to do so. So far as I am concerned, imperfect as we democratic politicians are, I would a damned sight sooner live under the worst of us than I would under any of the bloodstained dictators who disfigure the face of the earth at present.

It is true that at one time during the Third Republic in France one might criticise adversely the opportunist manæuvres of the splinter parties of the French Parliament. When we start dwelling on that, we might have a look around here and begin to wonder if that fate might ever overtake us in Dáil Éireann, but he is a bold man today who will start lecturing M. Ramadier, the Prime Minister of France, on courage or resolution in handling the problems of the democratic republic. If every man in the world showed the same courage and resolution, whether he is right or wrong, in the Parliaments of the world, the world might be a much better place than, in fact, it is. Do not let us carry over from yesteryear what were appropriate criticisms at that time into the present day when they have ceased to be appropriate, because there is nothing more discouraging than to find that, when a man changes a bad old system and, at great personal sacrifice, substitutes therefor the hard, difficult new system, the critics of the bad old system are still blaming him, although, at great sacrifice, he has changed what was bad and has sought to substitute for it something that was good.

I said I intended to vote against this Bill and I want to tell Deputies why. This Bill falls into two parts. The first part is the one which has to do with travelling expenses. Whoever is to blame for that part of the Bill, it is not the Minister for Finance, because I think I state the facts correctly when I say that, in regard to Part I, the Minister simply gave effect to a request made to him by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, with the approval of every member of that Committee representing all Parties in the House. On that request being made to the Minister, he considered it, and, believing it to be of a character which he might with propriety recommend to the Government, he did so, and the terms of this Bill in respect of Part I are no more and no less than a fulfilment of a request made to the Minister by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

It was designed to a particular end and it is very important that the House should know it. Under the old system, a Deputy was entitled to his first-class railway expenses coming and going from this House. He could come on foot, so far as I know, on his bicycle, in his motor-car, on a donkey or in a train, and, so long as he came and went home again, he was entitled to get his first-class railway expenses. A great many Deputies came in their cars and went home in their cars, and what these Deputies were entitled to—take my own case—was £2 1s., the return first-class fare to Ballaghaderreen. But suppose you started out on a day on which there was no train. You were entitled to 6d. a mile, and 6d. a mile sometimes ran up to £5, with the result that you found yourself down in the hall with no man on God's earth knowing what day you came, and if you said you came on Wednesday, you got only £2 1s., but if you could bring yourself to say that you came up on Tuesday, you might get anything from £5 to £7. Now, £5 is as acceptable to me as to anybody else, and, so far as I was concerned, I found the temptation was getting too strong for my constitution. The basis on which I went with the Minister for Finance was: "I do not want to be exposed to temptation and if this goes on much longer, great as is the grace of God, some day I will put down Tuesday instead of Wednesday."

I think that was a rational approach —that we ought not to be put in the dilemma every week of our lives of saying whether we came up on Wednesday or Tuesday, when no one could check up on us and when the difference might amount to a sum as substantial as £5 on each occasion. Over and above that, some Deputies do not claim their expenses every week, but let five, six and ten weeks go by, and then claim for all together. They were faced with the problem of trying to remember in respect of each week if there was a train available or not on the day on which they travelled. Accordingly, we asked the Minister to provide that if a Deputy coming to the House on public business came by train, he would get his train fare; if he came in a hired car, he would get the appropriate mileage rate provided by the regulations for that form of transport; and if he came in his own car, he would get the appropriate mileage rate laid down by the Department of Finance for that form of transport, without regard to the alternative means of transport available.

For that proviso in this Bill, if it is to be criticised, I want to accept my full share of responsibility, because I was one of the moving spirits in pressing on the Minister the desirability of it. So far as he was concerned personally, it was of no significance at all, because, living in the neighbourhood of the city, it is a proviso which has no reference to him whatever. It was designed purely for the convenience of country Deputies of all Parties who habitually travel.

We come then to the question whether we should raise the allowance or not. I trust the House will pardon me if I observe that when I hear members of the House declaring that it is unthinkable that men without independent means should be expected to serve in Parliament without adequate allowances, it makes me look back with pride to the 30 weary years during which the members of Parnell's Party and of Redmond's Party served this country in the British House of Commons, with no allowances of any kind, sort or description, except such modest contributions as their constituents were in a position to give them. Not until 1911 did the members of the Irish Party receive one penny Parliamentary allowance.

I look back with pride on the fact that some of the most distinguished amongst them did not think it beneath their dignity, in the service of this country, to live in tenement rooms on the Vauxhall Bridge Road in order to spare their constituents any excessive burden of their maintenance in London while they were doing their work there. I do not expect, and I do not suppose any of us should expect, now that the fight for national independence has been won—their fight—so far as the Twenty-Six Counties in this part of the country are concerned, that we should demand of public representatives the same standard of brilliant service which was so casually demanded of them and so ill-requited by those in whose service that work was done. They wanted no reward. It was not for that they worked but we, who live upon a lower plane than they, must ask ourselves the question Deputy Norton asked: Should we be the paid servants of the State or should we be the unpaid servants of the people for whom we work? For the reasons set out, I believe we should remain as we now are—the unpaid servants of those who vote for us—receiving an allowance barely adequate to permit those whose circumstances make them depend upon it entirely for their subsistence to live in modest comfort. I believe that is the penalty we must pay in order to avoid becoming paid servants of the State and in order to preserve the kind of Parliamentary diplomatic institutions we have got. There may be those who say: "You, who have an independent income find it very easy to say so. If you had to live on the £480 a year you might sing a different tune." I know. Maybe I would. If I did I think I would be wrong. I think my judgment would be swayed by personal considerations which, very possibly, if they applied directly to myself, I would not have the fortitude to meet with the detachment with which they ought to be considered. I recognise fully that it is not easy for any of us to judge this problem with detachment. Each of us must be influenced very largely by his own personal experiences and problems. In so far as I can do that, I believe it is best that we should forego a salary so that we may be independent and so that we may have to render an account to nobody on earth except to those who vote for us.

When we come to the question as to whether we should decide in principle whether we should receive an allowance tax free instead of a salary—and it is on that basis we are to estimate the reward—the fact, I think, is that we are getting enough in £480 a year. I think, admitting that the cost of our expenses has increased since the beginning of the war, if we go back to the commission which we ourselves set up to inquire into this matter in 1937 we will find that that commission—and it was a good commission—then said that they thought £360 and equitable figure; that it should not be changed, and the change was made to £480 despite that commission's recommendation. Now, if we stick to the figure on which we at present stand I believe that we are anchoring ourselves back to that commission's 1937 recommendation, making an allowance of about 30 per cent. for the increased cost of living. £360 plus 30 per cent. would be approximately £480. I do not believe the people down the country will recognise that that £480 a year, laid out as we have to lay it out, is very tight measure. On the contrary, I believe the vast majority of the people down the country think we are all living in the lap of luxury. We do not give two fiddle-dee-dees what they think. Our job here is to do what we believe to be right and if they do not like it let them lump it and get someone else. I think we are on solid ground so long as we can say: "We did what we thought was right, and if you think we are not fit to do it any longer, get someone else." But we must be clear in our minds that we did what we thought was right. We set up a commission in 1937 on which we had no representation at all. There are the names of the men we chose to examine this problem. They recommended £360 at that time. It was very short commons. The increase in the cost of living since then is probably more than 30 per cent—call it 30 per cent. We stand on £480 now, which is very short commons. We knew that when we entered public life.

Our contribution to the maintenance of democratic institutions in this country is the juryman's contribution —he does it for nothing but he only has to do it a couple of days every 12 months. We could not do it—if we did we would starve and our families would starve but we do it for the allowance. In the case of some of us it means we are living on very short commons and on far less than we would if we were to work for hire or at a profession. In the case of others of us, who have businesses or professions, the neglect of our business or of our profession as a result of our Parliamentary duties loses us far more than the £480 gives us. In regard to other fellows who do not come near the House at all and who enjoy the £480, I would say: "The devil mend you for voting for them. Who ever asked you to? If you think it is all lamb and salad at Leinster House you are quite wrong and if you do not like it you can lump it." Once we depart from that position I think we are lost. I do not think any Deputy in this House has made any case on the basis that this allowance of £480 is too little. For those who believe that it ought to be a salary—that is another story. I am not going to argue that. I choose in principle to stand on the allowance because I believe it is a better system. That is why I am going to vote against the Bill.

Why do you not go to the Labour Court?

We did. We anticipated the Labour Court. We set up an independent commission and we said: "We will be bound by your decision" and having got it we promptly rejected it. I want to get back to that decision. I think if we do that we are standing on solid ground and we are in a position quite conscientiously to fend in the knowledge that if the voters down the country do not like it so far as we are concerned, they can lump it.

I have not heard anything that would strengthen me in facing my constituents in that spirit if we advance the allowance to £624. I think I will be put upon my explanation, and that would be a most unfortunate situation for any of us to put ourselves in. That is why I propose to vote against the Bill. But, in voting against the Bill, let no one in the House or in the country imagine that, in regard to Part I, my vote against the Bill as a whole is an effort to divest myself of responsibility for that. If anyone in this House is responsible for whatever expenditure Part I of the Bill would involve, I am, with all the responsibility that any Deputy or Minister could have. It is because the proviso is in the Bill to advance our allowance to £624 that I intend to vote against it.

If the House takes the decision in principle that the allowance system should be abolished and that salaries should be established, I will vote for a four-figure salary for every Deputy, provided he does his work. But that means that there has to be some body set up to see whether he does or not. That is something I do not want ever to see done in this House, but, if it is done, I will vote for a four-figure salary. I do not want it to be done; I do not believe it should be done; but I do not want to pretend to voters down the country that I am one who believes that we ought all to work for £5 a week. I do not, and I would see them damned before I did. If they want to hire me, they will pay me well. I shall have a word to say on that in regard to the amendment which I propose to move to the next Bill before the House.

When we approach our duties in the spirit of a juryman we ought to be in a position to go down and stand on solid rock. Where is the Deputy on any side of the House who will make a case for the £624 allowance which will put solid rock under the feet of any one of us? If there is such a case to be made, I want to hear it. I have made a case for the £480 on which two-ton Tony could stand indefinitely. Is there any Deputy on the other side of the House or on this side who will do as much for the £624 proposition?

What has happened in this debate reminds me of a day away back in August, 1921, when I saw all the new recruits in the Garda barracks. All the boys here are shouting now because they know they can shout. They can say: "We are safe; we will get it anyway." What surprises me is that the main opposition to this increase comes from Dublin Deputies, all of whom have other sources of incomes and all of whom are pretty well off. Some Deputies who come into this House are paid by an outside organisation for their services here. They are paid considerable sums. Deputy Dillon alluded to Deputy Norton's opposition to this Bill on the basis of this allowance. We had Deputy Norton's statement about the poor widow and the poor old age pensioner. The organisation that pays Deputy Norton is an organisation of poor people and I have not heard Deputy Norton object to taking a salary from them.

I suppose the people who buy milk from Deputy Corry are poor people and I have not heard anything about his bringing down the price.

Deputy Norton does not fix his own salary. That is what you do.

I have seen Deputies within the past few months fixing their own salaries here.

It is a well-established principle that a man's private life or activities outside this House should not be referred to.

They have been referred to all the same.

I have seen that rule broken pretty often. However, if that is the rule, I will not break it. I have seen Deputies who are now objecting to this increase voting for increases here within the past three or four months which they knew were bound to increase their own salaries outside by 30 or 40 per cent., and then they come in here with the mantle of innocence thrown round their shoulders. I am anxious to approach this matter in a different way. I have stated that the Deputies who have spoken against this were mainly Dublin Deputies. I hold that a Dublin Deputy is not entitled to the present allowance, if there is any justice in calling it an allowance at all. A Dublin Deputy can sleep in his own home, have his breakfast and dinner at home, spend his day in the law courts making an income, stroll in here at half-past-five in the evening with his hands in his pockets, just as any other citizen of Dublin would go to the pictures for an evening's amusement, and put 480 quid in his pocket for that. I can speak from 21 years' experience of this House. I have seen many Deputies come and go here and I hope I will see a lot more of them go before I finish.

Maybe you will go yourself.

I can guarantee that the appreciation of my people for my services is not £480 a year. I estimated a short time ago how much I was worth to my constituents, and there is no year that I cannot show in black and white that I was worth anything from £20,000 to £50,000 to my constituents in hard, solid cash.

And they offered to pay you that?

They need not worry. Deputy Dockrell can stroll in here on Tuesday evening and go back any time he likes to his business; he could almost manage to have the Division bell rung in his premises.

There is a good deal of that in your part of the House, too.

I do not care in what part of the House these Deputies are. I am putting up the case that the rural Deputy has to leave home on Monday morning, he sticks in a Dublin hotel for five nights, pays his bill there, pays for his lunch and his tea in the Restaurant and when he arrives home on Saturday night, allowing for nothing only bare food and his bed, he will have left between £5 10s. 0d. and £6 after him. It will cost him at least £1 a week to entertain visitors in this House, and he will not pay many visits to the bar. Stamps and phones, if he does his job, will cost him £2 a week. That accounts for £9, without any extravagance.

If he wishes to remain a member of this House, he will have to take a stroll around his constituency off and on. A Dublin Deputy can do that on a tuppenny bus, but if I wish to go to any portion of my constituency, through the peculiar mentality of the Department of Finance there are two ways in which I can do it. If I want to go to the far end of my constituency, near the bailiwick of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I can pay £5 for a car, or get a voucher and come up to Dublin, which is the centre of the universe, and from Dublin I will be entitled to a first-class seat down to Nohoval. If I want to go to there at the expense of the State, I have to come to Dublin first and then get a ticket for Nohoval. If I want to go to any other portion of my constituency, unless I hire a car, I have to come to Dublin first. That is the special arrangement which the Department of Finance brought in to enable Deputies to live in Dublin and not to bother with their constituencies at all. It is an idiotic way of doing things, but it is the Department of Finance way.

The cost to a Deputy to travel in his constituency would be roughly £3 a week. There are very few Sundays when a working Deputy will not have to travel to some portion of his constituency, that is, if he works for his constituents the same as I have worked. The expenditure of a rural Deputy, compared with a Dublin Deputy, is much heavier. If £480 is a sufficient allowance for the rural Deputy, then a Dublin Deputy would be entitled to £150 and, even with that, I think he would have too much for the work he has to do. This matter should be approached from a different angle altogether.

Then you have the fellow alluded to by Deputy Dillon, the gentleman who comes up here a few times a year. You have to look at him ten times to remember his face and to recall when you saw him last. I saw some Deputies of that type here on one occasion and when it came to giving Deputies extra allowances, they objected to the Government giving any more because they said they could live on the then existing allowance. So well they could, coming up here twice a year, Christmas and Easter.

I suggest that instead of increasing Deputies' allowances now, rural Deputies outside a 20-mile radius from Dublin City should be paid a subsistence allowance on signing the attendance book in the Clerk's office. There is no business establishment and no other institution where you would have the same regulations for the payment of allowances as exists here. One Deputy came up here and his only action was to vote against the Taoiseach. He went home and did not come back since, yet he draws £480 a year the same as every active Deputy here.

Deputy Dr. Ward did the same.

Deputy O'Leary will probably do the same as soon as he has been a few years here.

Deputy O'Leary would not be here if he did that.

I am not going to make Deputy O'Leary's speech. If Deputy O'Leary wants me to make a speech for him I shall make it, but I do not know that he would be too pleased with it.

Deputy O'Leary will not be here to make his speech if he is constantly interrupting. If the Deputy interrupts Deputy Corry again, he will have to leave the Chamber.

Did Deputy Corry never interrupt anybody?

Is that a challenge to the Chair?

That is my first suggestion. I certainly object to men drawing public money for something they do not do. I certainly object to Deputies drawing public money as subsistence allowances in respect of work or for spending time on work that they do not do. I think it is unfair and unjust to the public and I suggest to the Department of Finance that some steps should be taken to prevent it. I suggest that instead of this increase a subsistence allowance should be paid to rural Deputies, Deputies who cannot go home at night and who are living outside a 30-mile radius of Dublin City. Pay a subsistence allowance to these Deputies on their attendance in this House and on their signing an attendance register when they come here. Pay them in that manner and you will pay them something just, something fair.

I also say that some steps should be taken to remove this inducement to live in Dublin. There is a very definite inducement to live in Dublin. If I live in Dublin I can go to any portion of my constituency, get a ticket and pay a taxi. Whatever way I want to travel to my constituency I can go there and my expenses are paid on condition that I live in Dublin. If I live in my own constituency, I get a ticket back to my home address. But if I want to go to any portion of my constituency, as I described a while ago, I have to get a ticket to Dublin and take a ticket from Dublin back to the portion of my constituency to which I want to go. So that if I wished to go to the trouble, I could involve this State in about £40 a week travelling expenses and they could not stop it. That is the ridiculous thing I want to stop. I suggest, therefore, that in addition to a subsistence allowance to Deputies, a travelling allowance should also be paid for travelling in their constituency. That is what I call reasonable justice.

I am not going to worry about Dublin because I have already pointed out the position of Dublin Deputies. A Dublin Deputy live at home. He uses this place as a kind of half-club room, half-cinema show and he has free accommodation here in many cases for transacting his private business. That is the use that the Dublin Deputy makes of this House. As a matter of fact the hours of this Dáil are specially prepared to suit him. If I want to attend this Dáil at 3 o'clock on Tuesday, I have to leave home somewhere about eight or nine o'clock on Monday morning, travel all day on Monday and get in here to a hotel on Monday night—if I can get a hotel decent enough to let me in. I then find that work will not start until 3 o'clock on Tuesday evening so that the law courts may be finished and the lawyers can come here and so that the lawyers may not be deprived of any briefs or fees. We heard a wail of complaints from these gentlemen before. You will pardon me if I have to keep a very tight rein on my tongue in this connection but I have seen what happened before. I remember the tales of woe we heard before on behalf of men who for ten years had been drawing £1,700 a year for administering the affairs of the nation. Three years after they left office, the poor fellows were walking the streets of Dublin with the toes off their boots and their elbows out of their coats. More of them were on the verge of bankruptcy; more of them had not a seat to their pants. Despite all these people did to us—and mind you we had a devilish hard time from them from 1922 up to the time we came in here about 1927 and kicked them out—we were generous.

The Deputy is now getting out of order.

I am completely within the scope of the Bill. I am pointing out the danger of giving a flat increase to everybody. I am pointing out what happened on a previous occasion despite the clause that if a man did not want to take the money provided, he could sign for it and give it back. I saw the poor Taoiseach endeavouring to provide for the wants and the woes of the poor devils who were in here for ten years, when it was said that they had not a sole to their shoes not a seat to their pants. We were told all about them and the poor Taoiseach said: "Despite all they have done, we will do our best to provide for them." He brought in a Pensions Bill to provide pensions for them.

All reference to pensions is out of order on this Bill. This is a different matter altogether.

I am pointing out to the Minister for Finance, who proposes to increase salaries now, the dangers that lie in this proposal. That is why I suggest that they should sign a book down in the clerk's office when they come in. The Taoiseach stated: "We hope that no man will draw this except those in dire necessity," but, bless you, they were like buzzards around a carcase—the dire want and the dire necessities of barristers with an income of £2,000 a year from their profession.

The Deputy must not refer to a Deputy's private income.

On a point of order, if we are going to have this sort of debate that members of the House are to be attacked in their personal capacities, their personal incomes, their domestic circumstances and how they earn their personal incomes and their pensions, I want to suggest——

It was laid down in the beginning that such things should not be dealt with.

I want to submit, before you leave the Chair, that you allowed it to be dealt with during the last 10 minutes.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Is the Deputy addressing the Chair or Deputy Corry?

Mr. Morrissey

I want this point clarified as to whether it is thought desirable that the debate should take that course?

I have no idea of its course yet.

Mr. Morrissey

I am sorry, Sir, that you have not. I am afraid it is a bit late now to stop the course on which it started.

Mr. Morrissey

I submit that there cannot be one law for one Deputy and another law for another Deputy.

Is the Deputy now making a speech or a point of order?

Mr. Morrissey

I am making a point of order, that there cannot be one law for one Deputy and another law for another Deputy.

The occupant of the Chair must rule as he sees fit.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not questioning that. We can deal with that type of speech with interest.

If there is objection to that particular line I want to say that I thought I was absolutely in order on account of the matter being allowed. If there is objection to that line, then we can have it on another occasion.

Mr. Morrissey

We certainly shall.

I consider the time has now arrived when there should be a definite line drawn between the expenses of a Deputy in a rural constituency and a Deputy living within 20 miles of Dublin. I consider that it is absolutely wrong that special terms should be given, if you wish, to Deputies living in Dublin who have no expenses and who, in their opulence have no consideration for the rural Deputy. The rural Deputy has to stay in Dublin on five nights a week, he has to pay his hotel bill and to meet the other incidental expenses that crop up through the performance of his duties. He has to travel his constituency, which extends in some cases 100 miles from one corner of it to the other. He is in a different position from the Deputy who can travel on a bus from one end of his constituency to the other for 2d. I consider that the Department of Finance would be lacking in its duty if it did not take these things into consideration now. This is the Department which laid down the regulation that if a Deputy wants to go to any portion of his constituency other than that in which he resides he will have to travel through Dublin. That is a most ridiculous regulation. It costs me 5/-to go from my house to Midleton. If I want the State to pay the 5/- instead of doing it myself, I must take a ticket to Dublin, a ticket from Dublin to Midleton, a ticket back to Dublin and then a ticket to take me home.

Is the Deputy not repeating himself?

Did the Deputy not say that before in this debate?

Yes, undoubtedly.

Three times.

Undoubtedly, the Department of Finance which has allowed that anomaly to continue for, I suppose, the past 20 years must have repeated that many times, and we are paying for the repetition of it. However, that is a side issue. I consider that the Deputy who does his work for his constituency will find that he will not have sufficient on the present allowance without encroaching on his private resources. The Deputy who wants to make money out of this can do so by doing nothing. It is the only job in the country where you will get paid for doing nothing. It does not matter whether you work or not, you will get paid for the five years you are here, but after that it may be a different story. I do not intend to take up the time of the House further. I think I have put the cases as fairly as I could. I think that the case I have put should be considered, the case of the rural Deputies as against the city Deputies, whether from Dublin or Cork, the case of rural Deputies and of Cork City Deputies and elsewhere as against Dublin Deputies, and the case for the Deputy who works and the Deputy who does not.

Some people think that modesty is something to be admired in an individual. I do not think Deputy Corry will ever be accused of modesty. As a matter of fact he told us that he was worth £40,000 or £50,000 a year to his constituents. Bad and all as that was, and disgusting and all as that was, it was not as bad as his objectionable, vulgar, low and unjust personal references and abuse of members of this House, of people who were members of the House in the past, and of men who gave magnificent service to this country in laying the foundations of this State. One of Deputy Corry's kidney might, at least, refrain from making such low remarks in the case of men who certainly did not impose unjust charges on the community for the services which they have given. Many of them made very great financial sacrifices. Many of them were poor men when they left office, and I think it ill behoves Deputy Corry to make such charges. It is unfortunate that he was permitted to indulge in such indecent behaviour. Some of those men who gave that service, although they could have drawn a pension from the time that the pension provisions were made in 1938, did not do so. Some of them have not drawn the pensions that are provided in the 1938 Act.

As a matter of fact, the question of pensions does not arise.

No, but it is only fair that we should get the opportunity of defending people who are not now in the House and of making it clear to the public, at least, that there is no justification whatever for that sort of abuse. Apart altogether from the merits or otherwise of this proposal, I consider the method of introducing the Bill an abuse of our position and of the privileges we enjoy in this House. I suggest that we ought not to be in a position to help ourselves. It is true in law that we are in that position but, if we have any decency or any self-respect, we ought not to avail of the position we are placed in and the privileges we enjoy in being sent here on behalf of the people, to help ourselves first. I do not think we ought to be accused of being a lot of self-seeking individuals who are thinking of our own personal interests and who forgot the interests of the people generally. If we feel that an adjustment is necessary in the matter of allowances for Deputies, if we think that there are Deputies so circumstanced that they find it impossible to carry on in their representative capacity, the matter ought to be examined in another way. There should be an independent commission set up to examine a proposal of this sort first. If a commission is set up for that purpose and if it makes any recommendations, the members of the House cannot be accused of being self-seeking individuals. It ill behoves us to proceed in this manner.

The allowances we receive are allowances. They are not salaries and cannot be regarded as income. Profit ought not to enter into this matter so far as we are concerned. If we are concerned to have public confidence and respect, we ought not to behave in this manner. If we want to preserve democratic government and democratic institutions and to inculcate respect for democratic government and for this Parliament, this is not the way that we should behave. To proceed along the lines suggested in this measure is the most effective way to bring this institution into disrepute.

I listened to a number of Deputies speaking on this Bill. I listened to Deputy Norton stressing the fact that there are Deputies in his own Party and in every Party in the House who find it extremely difficult to carry on at the present time and suggesting that the matter of the financial provisions made for Deputies ought to be clarified. He suggested that we should be placed on a salary. I am one of those who do not believe that we should become public servants, that we should be paid in the same way as public servants, whether civil servants or otherwise. We are apart altogether from that. We are public representatives. We are not public servants. We are answerable only to the people that sent us here. So far as any financial provisions are made, they are made by way of allowance to meet expenses. Deputy Coogan and Deputy Dillon mentioned that at one time representatives sent to Parliament did not get any allowance and that any expenses that were incurred had to be provided by constituents. The Irish Party went from this country for many years and the financing of that representation in the British Parliament was a very difficult matter for our people but they surmounted those difficulties.

I believe in maintaining the situation as it is. The basis of allowances is the method by which we should be recouped any losses that are incurred in being sent here to represent the public. I believe it is necessary to ensure that all classes can be represented here. We are all against the idea of confining this to a privileged class, to those who can afford to come here. The public are entitled, and should insist on their right, to send the people that they feel are best able to represent their interests in this House. If, because of financial considerations, individuals are not in a position to represent their constituents, we ought to make provision for that to ensure that every type of individual who is capable of representing the various sections of the community will get an opportunity of coming here.

On the question as to whether the present allowance is ample or not, I think it is ample. In 1938 I voted against the increase that was then proposed. I thought at that time an increase was not justifiable. If the allowance were still £360, a good case could certainly be made for an increase but, because there was an adjustment in 1938, the allowance has certainly met the case since. I should like to call the attention of the House and of the Government to what was said in support of an adjustment in 1938. First of all we should bear in mind that the commission that was set up in 1937 to examine the question of salaries and pensions for Ministers, examined also the question of allowances for Deputies, and recommended that the allowance that was then provided, that is, £360, was in their opinion sufficient. Notwithstanding that recommendation of the commission, the Bill that implemented the report so far as Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries were concerned contained a provision to increase Deputies' allowances. The then Minister for Finance, Mr. MacEntee, in defence of what was done at that time, stated—at column 989, Volume 73 of the Dáil Debates of 24th November, 1938:—

"We cannot be bringing in Bills of this sort every year, every two years or every five years. The present allowance was fixed at an experimental figure in 1922-23, when after the first year or two, it might be said the work of the Oireachtas was, perhaps, lighter than it is now. Everybody who is aware of the tendency which has manifested itself in regard to public business and administration, is aware of the fact that the demands made upon Deputies are multiplying from day to day.

If it could be shown that the figure which it is proposed to fix to-day more than covers the expenses which the most active Deputies may be called on to face, nevertheless that would not be any sound reason for trying to whittle that figure down."

Mark this:

"We must leave a margin for future contingencies and allow those who may be called upon to serve the community later to serve it without having to make too many sacrifices."

That was the view expressed then by the present Minister for Local Government. I think we are called upon to make sacrifices here and I certainly feel that the vast majority of the people at present are of the opinion that we are not making very many sacrifices in regard to the financial rewards we get for our services here.

With other Deputies, I have been advocating economies for some time past. I think economies are urgent and we cannot believe in economies and advocate them if we are going to help ourselves first. Every Deputy and every Minister should concern himself with the present cost of administration, which imposes a high level of taxation as a terrific burden on our people. It is an unjustifiable burden in the circumstances of our production, out of which we all must live. In view of our production position, the present high tax is unjustifiable. If that is so—and I honestly believe it is so—there is no justification for helping ourselves and no one has attempted to justify it. Our work does not warrant our helping ourselves, even if we were entitled to do so. We have a situation of which we cannot feel proud, when there are so many people living on low incomes, when the incidence of poverty and even destitution is so great. This sort of thing will provoke a feeling of revolt amongst large sections of the people and it shows very poor wisdom on the part of the Minister and the Government to move for an increase at present.

I agree with some of the Deputies that the pattern is complete. For some time the Government have been making provision for increases for civil servants and Judiciary and this is the grand finale—the President, the Deputies and the Ministers themselves—so that we may have the pattern complete. We are building an edifice here on the assumption that the existing value of the £ is going to remain, that the present artificial conditions will remain permanently, and we are taking the high level of extravagance in provisions of this sort, not thinking against the possibility of any depreciation that might hit this country, when we would be up against a very serious problem. We are too complacent about our whole economic position and this is part of the complacency. We are quite satisfied that everything is as it ought to be, that we can afford to be so happy about our position and with confidence help ourselves out of the limited pool of our resources.

There is one thing for which the Ministry has a record, that is the dissipation of public money, slinging it everywhere but into the right channels, without any consideration for the interest of the community as a whole. There has been no plan to ensure that production will be raised and with it the standard of living of the community. There is a responsibility on us to set a good example. Even if conditions are a bit difficult on certain Deputies coming here—and possibly the work of the Dáil is becoming more onerous—there is no case for an increase and no Deputy has made any case for it. I do not mind Deputy Corry, as the figures he gave are absurd and he has not attempted to justify them.

As far as the first part of the Bill is concerned, I was a member of the Committee of Procedure and Privileges which made the recommendation to the Minister for the adjustments that were made then. I think they were reasonable and there was not a very big sum involved. It expedited Deputies' work in travelling to the Dáil and back and spending four days here, when they could use their own cars, and it was not unreasonable to provide such facilities for them.

I hope no attempt will be made to change the present system of allowances. Deputy Corry suggested that a subsistence allowance should be made to Deputies coming from the country. It is true that those who have to come long distances and start early are making much greater sacrifices than Dublin Deputies, who live in the city and may be making no sacrifices at all, as it is very convenient for them; but that is their luck. We down the country are sent in a representative capacity, we are not on a salary and I hope we never will be. The financial provisions made are simply allowances to defray our expenses. We ought to stand on that and continue it. One Deputy, at least, believes that it is not a salary and not subject to taxation for that reason. I think the provisions are ample in the circumstances. Deputy Dillon pointed out that even £480 a year would be a substantial income for a great many of our people. If that is so, I do not see how we can make a case for an increase even for the man who has no income outside what comes to him through his allowances here.

The Minister to-day paid me the compliment of reminding me that I was consistent in regard to the Bill which was being discussed. I would like to remind him now that, in opposing this Bill, I am also consistent. I am taking exactly the same attitude as I took in 1938, when I was only a few weeks in this House and when a Bill was introduced for an increase in Deputies' allowances. At that time I contended that the increase was unjustifiable in the circumstances which then prevailed. I also argued that Deputies should not increase their salaries for the life of the Parliament of which they are members, and I said that if Deputies considered themselves entitled to an increase, they should suspend the operation of legislation of this kind until another general election has taken place and the people had an opportunity of voting on the matter, or that, alternatively, they could put the matter to a vote of the people by referendum.

We are the servants of the people, and no employer gives his servants the right to fix their own salaries. That is a right which is never conceded by any employer and it is not a right which should be taken by us servants of the people from the people. In decency and in accordance with justice, we should give the people an opportunity of deciding whether or not we are entitled to an increase, if we think we are so entitled. There are two ways, as I say, of implementing that suggestion —by referendum to the people, which might be an expensive way, or by putting a stay on the operation of the Bill until after a new Dáil has been elected. After the election of the new Dáil, it would be open to the new Parliament to bring the Act into force or to repeal it. The people would have had a chance of expressing their views on the matter.

There is something undignified, and almost indecent, in every discussion in this House in regard to Deputies' salaries and allowances. Most of the Deputies who took part in the debate tried to maintain a certain high standard, but there were many exceptions, and, if any marks are to be given to the Deputy who touched the lowest level, I think Deputy Corry would carry them off. I should like to say that no man who has held the office of Minister should be ridiculed, if, on his retirement from office, he is a poor man. It is rather a tribute to an ex-Minister. It is a tribute to a man who had the handling of large sums of money and who wielded very extensive power, that, after his retirement, he found himself in dire poverty, and I think Deputy Corry should have appreciated that, as every other Deputy will certainly appreciate it.

Apart altogether from whether we should assume this right to fix our own salaries or not, I think the proposal for an increase at present is unjustifiable. It may be, and, I suppose, it is true that many of us find it hard to carry out our duties as Deputies on the allowance provided, but we must remember and keep before our minds the general economic condition of our people and the general standard of living and of income of our people. The total national income is estimated at £250,000,000 and there are 1,250,000 people gainfully employed here. If we divide the national income between these people, we find that each person gainfully employed has an income of about £200 a year. We thus find that the present allowance of Deputies is very much above the income of the average citizen, and we cannot ignore that fact.

Again, from the figures kindly supplied to us by the Minister for Finance, we note that 83.8 per cent of our people have incomes of less than £500 a year, that 16.2 per cent. have incomes of over £500 per year. The present income of Deputies, allowing for exemption from income-tax, is well over £500. Therefore, Deputies, even on their present allowances, are well up to the standard of income of the very small minority of our people. We Deputies, as representing the ordinary average people throughout the length and breadth of the country, should be satisfied with a little over the average income and should certainly not seek to put ourselves in with the minority of 16.2 per cent., who are the highest paid in the community. That is a consideration that the Minister should dwell upon.

It is true that charity begins at home and it might follow from that that Deputies should think of themselves first. If the economic condition of the country is precarious, it might be argued that, from a selfish point of view, Deputies should at least make their own position safe and not bother about the rest of the community. I do not think that anyone who has any regard for ordinary principles of justice would accept that view. We have to try to be fair with the people and we expect the people to be fair with us. If an impartial tribunal were set up and if it decided that Deputies were entitled to an increase, I would accept that view, provided there was a stay on the operation of the legislation until after a general election; but I do not think that we Deputies have the right to take this into our own hands, and I think we are treating the people with contempt in calmly appropriating to ourselves the right to decide what remuneration we are entitled to.

There has been a good deal of discussion as to whether Deputies' allowances are really allowances or salaries. That is a question on which there could be a great deal of controversy. On other occasions when this matter was under discussion, I argued that at least a substantial portion of a Deputy's allowance must be regarded as salary, and I cited, in support of that argument, the position of the Deputy who has no source of income but his allowance as a Deputy. If that Deputy is only paid an allowance to cover his out-of-pocket expenses as a Deputy, the problem arises: how does he live? Would he not be entitled to seek home help and to get it, if he were to make a demand for it, if we accept the view that Deputies' allowances are 100 per cent. allowances? I do not think any sane person could accept the view that a Deputy's remuneration is 100 per cent. an allowance for out-of-pocket expenses. I think the British Parliament, which almost invariably, or very frequently, at any rate, displays a considerable amount of common sense, decided that the remuneration of its members was to be 50 per cent. salary and 50 per cent. an allowance. They could not logically take any other view. Members of the British House of Commons devote a considerable amount of time to their work and incur considerable out-of-pocket expense. They are entitled to some recompense for the time which they devote to their work and that recompense for time cannot be regarded as anything else except salary. There is no other legal or moral recognition for time given in public service except salary. Therefore, if this Bill is to go through and become law, if Deputies receive this increase, I think it ought to be accompanied by a new section which will provide for the removal or the partial removal of the exemption from income-tax.

Some short time ago I raised, by way of a question, the matter of the attendance of Deputies in the Dáil. I think it is nothing short of a public scandal that a Deputy can receive his allowance without making even one attendance here during the course of the whole life of the Dáil. He has only to call at this House, sign his name on the register, and he automatically becomes entitled by law to draw his allowance for the period of the life of the Dáil. There seems to be something radically wrong with that situation. I think it ought not to be allowed to continue especially if we are to have this demand for an increase in allowances to Deputies implemented. There is, in addition, the more extraordinary position that no official record is kept of attendances in this House. If a Deputy attends this House and takes part in a debate his attendance is recorded in the Official Report. If he takes part in a Division his attendance is also included in the Official Report. If a Deputy attends here and listens to the long-winded speeches which some of us make—I suppose I am as guilty in that respect, if not more so, than many others—if he does not take part in a debate and if, on the particular day of the attendance, there is no Division there is no official record to show that that Deputy has been present. If we are asking for a measure such as this —for an increased allowance—I think provision should be made whereby a daily record will be kept of the attendance of every Deputy. That, I think, is not asking too much. The people are entitled to have such a record which they can consult if they wish— even though there may be no penalties imposed on Deputies who fail to attend by way of reduction or stoppage of their remuneration. I think the least the people are entitled to is that there should be some official record of a Deputy's daily attendance. One point of the speech made by Deputy Corry intrigued me. He said he was worth £50,000 to his constituency.

Who said that?

He supplemented that by saying he had brought £50,000 in cash into his constituency. I would be very interested to know from what source he brought that income into his constituency. Did some other constituency or did all other constituencies suffer that loss? I take it that he did not create that £50,000. Perhaps people with more mathematical minds than mine can solve it.

I think the suggestions I have put forward are reasonable. I suggest that the operation of this Bill, if it is enacted, should be suspended until a new Dáil is elected, and that it would be for the new Dáil, having got the confidence of the people, to decide whether to allow the Act to take effect or not or whether to repeal it. If it decides to go on with this increase I suggest very earnestly that the whole question of exemption of Deputies' allowances from income-tax should be reviewed. It is unfortunate that we should have discussions of this nature in this House because it tends to lower the dignity of this Assembly, more especially because of the manner in which this particular increase was brought in without any judicial or impartial inquiry into the matter.

There is, unfortunately, in this country a large number of people who have been taught from early childhood to denounce any public representative who is paid public money. That sentiment dates back very many years. I remember, as a small boy, reading letters in the Irish Independent denouncing members of the Irish Party because they were receiving £400 a year. I think that denunciation of those members helped in a great measure to have them removed from office and another Party put into power. The same line of attack was adopted by the Fianna Fáil Party. I think it is desirable that that sentiment amongst our people should be eliminated. I think it is up to the Deputies of this Assembly to try to eliminate it. In my opinion the best way to secure the respect of all people for this Assembly would be for Deputies to be prepared, if necessary, to make a little financial sacrifice in order to carry on our duty as Deputies. If we are really convinced that our present allowance, having regard to the high cost of living, is inadequate we should try to do with it until, perhaps, as may happen in the course of a year or two, the cost of living will decline and then our present allowance will become adequate. This is not a temporary Bill or a temporary bonus or a temporary increase to meet the present abnormally high cost of living. It is a permanent fixation of remuneration and, if the cost of living goes down very much during the next few years, as it may, it will be the equivalent of a still further increase in the allowance of Deputies and it will lead to a very strong feeling against public representatives in this country and even against democratic institutions. Whatever the Minister may do in regard to the other Bills which are to be considered this week, I think he ought to withdraw this Bill. If he will not withdraw it, I strongly urge him to leave it to a free vote of the House.

Nílim chun an Tighe a coimeád le fada san díospóireacht so, ach ag éisteacht leis na aragúnta atá raidhte ag an Teachtaí agus an ráidhte nach raibh aon chas déanta i gcóir an Bille, déanfad iarracht é a fhragairt.

I have listened to this debate and the various points of view put forward. Listening to Deputy Dillon, I would interpret him as laying down the principle that membership of this House should be open only to those with a private income. I think that in a democratic State a man or woman with the necessary ability to serve as a public legislator, whether born in a cottage or a tenement, should be able to go forward and get elected to this House and get a sufficient allowance or remuneration while a public representative to keep him or her above the poverty line and above the temptation to bribery. The second matter I should like to refer to—Deputy Cosgrave has referred to it already—is this constant nagging about income-tax. One would think that a Deputy was elected for his or her natural life. Since I came into this House in 1927 there have been eight elections. Before that there were two elections within a short period. That means that, on an average, there is an election every two and a half years. With the exception of the emergency period, when the Dáil is dissolved Deputies cease to be paid and they are not paid until they sign the roll after the election. If we had photographs taken of the Dáil every time it was elected since 1922, the later ones would show very few Deputies who were elected to the original Dáil.

Take a man, whether he be a labourer, a professional man, a business man or a farmer, who faces the public and gets elected to the Dáil for a period. Nobody can seriously contend that he can serve two masters; that he can carry on an occupation or a profession fully and do his work in the Dáil as well. He will lose in his capacity as a business man or a farmer. He will have to get somebody else to do the work for him and that person will not do it properly when he is not there. Therefore, the contention about income-tax, as if a man was working and drawing an income all the time, is absurd.

The feeling has been created amongst the general public that Deputies and ex-Deputies are rolling in wealth at the public expense, and in the criticism of this Bill to-day everything has been done to lend aid to that contention. With two exceptions, I have never known, since I came into this Dáil 20 years ago, a Deputy of any Party who died leaving threepence behind him. I have seen the hat go round for the dependents of Deputies. Surely this matter should be approached in the way it has been approached in other public assemblies. Deputy Cogan talked about a referendum and leaving the matter to be discussed on the hustings. I am sure that you would get representatives of big corporations to go before the public, if a referendum were taken, and say that they would serve the public for nothing and pay £1,000 a year to any charity, because if they were elected they could serve the selfish interests that they represent. In the same way, if the question of the pay of civil servants was put to a referendum, I am sure you would get representatives of corporations to say: "We will put people in there who will do the work at half the pay of the present civil servants."

It has been argued that no case has been made for an increase in the Parliamentary allowance. I shall try to make a case for it. I represent a constituency which stretches from Drogheda to below the town of Moate. Week after week and month after month, I do my best to keep in contact with that constituency with a motor car. I admit that I am allowed for the running of my car when I drive up to the Dáil. But I have to cover the towns and the rural areas in my constituency, and I do it to the best of my ability. With depreciation and running costs, I cannot run a 10-h.p. car under £240 a year. In 1938, the purchase price of that car was approximately £180; to-day it is £390. In the same way, if a Deputy has a telephone, the cost to him will not be under £60 a year. My own telephone expenses average £7 a month, and I can safely say that £5 of that is for my Dáil work. Then there are postage and other expenses. I cannot afford to pay a typist, but I have to employ job typists. My expenses for job typing and postage amount to £100 a year. Therefore, if we take the travelling expenses in a constituency like Meath and Westmeath, Tipperary, Galway, or any other big constituency, you have approximately £240 for transport; £160 for telephone, typing and postage expenses, and £80 to meet your hotel bill. From these figures I say that a case can be made for an increased allowance.

Certain Deputies are in the fortunate position of having large farms; others have incomes from other sources on which they can live. But I should like Deputies to approach this matter from the point of view of the man or the woman who has little or no income and ask themselves whether such a Deputy can do the work on £480. It is all right to put up the contention about a farmer on a ten-acre holding having so much, but the farmer has not to travel to Dublin 33 weeks out of the 52 and live in hotels there. He has not to travel around County Mayo the 52 weeks of the year. He is stationary and, while we wish him every success, and wish the man with the small income an increase, there is no comparison. He is in a permanent position; he is there for life, but we are here to-day at the will of the people and we are out to-morrow at the will of the people.

Therefore, I submit that there has been no justice in the criticism of this Bill; that there has been no impartial approach to it and that there is every justification for this and for a bigger increase.

My colleague, Deputy Brian Brady, dealt with an important aspect of this matter. He referred to the report from a select committee in the House of Commons in relation to the members' fund. This is not money going into the public Exchequer or taking anything out of it. There they have a contribution of £1 a month from members and when a member dies, instead of going around with the hat —to which I referred—there is a grant to his dependents if they need it, provided the member has had ten years' service. I recommend the consideration of that to the Minister. If you were to do a thing like that, you would raise the status of this House and you would do general good. I support this Bill.

If there is any justification for an increase in the allowances to Deputies, it should be considered by an independent body rather than by the members of this House who are in a privileged position to vote allowances to themselves. I think it is very unfair. There is no section of the community and no section of employees here or in any part of the world in a position such as we occupy, where we can vote ourselves allowances. If there is any justification for an increase, it should be considered by a commission independent of the House. That would be the fairest and most reasonable approach to the matter. I still consider that the present allowance is adequate.

There is a case to be made for Deputies down the country, who have to travel long distances and are a much longer time away from their homes. Maybe they are more exposed from the entertainment point of view than Deputies in the Dublin area would be, in so far as many people who journey to the capital wish to see the Houses of the Oireachtas and they always rely on the local Deputy to entertain them and to bring them through the buildings here. It is usually expected that the local Deputy will do his share in cases like that. There is also the problem of keeping a motor car when travelling over long distances through a constituency. In that way there may be some justification for the better treatment of certain Deputies, but I still maintain that this House is not the place in which to make a case of that type. If you wish to make certain regulations or stipulations for Deputies in different areas, this is not the place to do it. It should be done by an independent body without any representations from this House.

We have taken the wrong line of approach to the situation, in view of the position of other sections of the community. It has been mentioned by several Deputies, and I thoroughly agree, that there are sections of the community, such as old age pensioners and widows, who are denied in many cases the allowances provided by law because of the means test which is so rigidly operated against these unfortunate people. I hold that such people should receive more consideration than Deputies, who have no obligation other than to do their duty to the people. There is no obligation on them to come here. If they consider they have a right to represent the people, they do it voluntarily and there is a certain allowance put aside for them, and I think that should be adequate to cover the expenses of coming here to the Dáil:

Some time ago I was one of those who tabled a motion with the object of bringing relief to people who suffered considerable losses during last year. If we take into consideration the amount that this will cost the State —the allowances to Deputies will be £24,000—plus the increases to Ministers and to the President and the Taoiseach and the High Court judges, you find the total will come to £50,000 or £60,000. We could not, under any circumstances, when people are making a gallant effort against adverse weather conditions to provide food and fuel, assist them. They were denied compensation out of State funds for the losses they suffered during the bad harvest. Along the mountain sides the sheep owners, during the bad winter, lost 75 per cent. of their stock, and we could not provide any compensation for those unfortunate people. We can come forward now and try to feather our own nests. I have in mind one glaring case of neglect on the part of a Department of State. It is the neglect of the Department of Health in providing hospital accommodation throughout the country for tubercular cases.

That is a matter of administration.

I know, but in my opinion the moneys that are being provided under this Bill to increase allowances to Deputies could be much better allocated in alleviating the distress of those who are suffering in every part of the country to-day. I have listened very attentively to Deputies stating that if others did not wish to take this money they could leave it. I would not, under any circumstances, take the allowance. I would like to contribute the increase for another purpose. I would give authority to have that money placed at the disposal of the local health authority to enable it to make adequate provision for the unfortunate tubercular cases awaiting hospital treatment in my own county, people who have no hope in the world of recovering unless some such provision is made for them. I think it is a glaring case of hardship. I think it is uncalled for at this stage that we in our privileged position should try to improve our own position financially while the most treasured thing that any nation can possess, namely, the health of the people, is being neglected by the Department responsible.

There is in this measure a great temptation to try to score off the Government but I do not think it right that the series of disputes and arguments which have gone on for the last 25 years should be revived on an occasion of this kind. The people are tired of them. Some years ago when the Government Party were in opposition, they indulged in a considerable amount of political playacting and made a lot of capital out of the salaries that the Government were then paying. The Taoiseach himself said that no man was worth more than £1,000 a year.

I think the Government would be very well advised at the present moment publicly to repudiate these statements and admit candidly that they find now that they were absolutely wrong in the attitude which they then adopted. The people would then get a headline for their future conduct. The Government would be well advised, as I say, to repudiate these statements and the Minister should do so in winding up this debate because the people of the country were misled and fooled at that time and the country will never forget that. The Government sowed the wind and they are now reaping the whirlwind. The idea prevailing throughout the country is that we are trying to feather our own nests. That, of course, is a totally erroneous idea. I never tried during the time I have been in public life to feather my own nest.

I do not believe that this contentious Bill should have been brought before this House at all. If we had the same spirit of unity that prevailed a few years ago, this measure would have been made the subject of prior consultation between the three or four different Parties. I am sorry that on this occasion the Government did not seek such consultation with the chief Opposition and other Opposition Parties and have a heart-to-heart talk with them. I am satisfied that if that were done, a case could be made for this legislation just as a case can be made against it. It could be argued from both standpoints, and argued very well, and I think it would be far better if we had a Bill brought in by common agreement. I am satisfied, however, that the day has not yet arrived when we should start increasing Deputies' salaries. I do not think a case could be made out for it at present. One thing we should have clarified years ago is the value of the £. Some people argue that it is now worth only 10/-, as compared with its pre-war value, while others hold that it is worth 12/- or 14/-. I do not see why the Government should not have clarified the position in that regard and then start at the bottom by giving the lowly-paid workers adequate compensation for the depreciation in the value of money. We could then give the proper ratio of increase to all those dependent on salaries and wages up to the very highest.

The increase given to widows and orphans and old age pensioners was not in keeping with what we are now proposing to do for ourselves or with the increases provided for the President's establishment. Therefore, I say, that an injustice has been done to these lowly-paid people. The place to start is at the bottom and the biggest ratio of increase should be given to those most in need. Goodness knows, the people occupying the President's establishment are not the people most in need. There are people in destitution down the country who, after eight years of suffering, have got an increase of only 2/6 per week. That is something of which the Government cannot be proud. Therefore, I say that it was very ill-advised to introduce a Bill of this character at the present juncture and I do not blame the people down the country who have raised a regular howl because such a proposal is made. The farmers have gone through a very bad harvest, the people generally are undergoing all classes of privation and here we come in, a few years after having increased our salaries to £480, with a proposal for a further increase, almost doubling the salary of some years back. I say the Government are very ill-advised in introducing this Bill because they are opening the floodgates of ridicule against the House. Goodness knows, we have got sufficient unjust ridicule from people outside without putting into their hands and into their mouths the type of propaganda they need. The people generally will fall for that type of stuff when they see legislation of this character introduced.

In any case if sacrifices have to be made, who should first make them? Is is not the people at the top? Sacrifices are needed to-day and I am satisfied that we, as Deputies, should make this sacrifice and give a headline. I am equally satisfied that a Deputy who works hard and does his duty to his constituents makes no money on his present allowance. He is pulling the devil by the tail most of the time but that is better than leaving public life with a certain amount of money in his pocket as a result of what he received whilst he was supposed to be serving the public. I do not believe that any honest man comes into public life with the idea of making money. If our salaries are too big there are plenty of ways in which the money can be spent, but I do not know any man who left public life for the past 25 years who was any the richer as a result of having been in public life. In fact, I know many men who are much poorer and some of whom are living in misery and destitution to-day.

So far as this Bill is concerned, although undoubtedly we have power to increase our own salaries, I do not think we should do so. In my opinion, there should be an independent tribunal outside the House altogether to deal with this matter. No Deputy should sit on that tribunal. It could consider the pros and cons of the case and come to a decision and this House should abide by that decision, whether it meant reducing our salaries or increasing them. It is certainly in very bad taste that we should propose to increase our own salaries, while the under-dog in this country gets very little consideration. After eight years of emergency, the old age pensioner is expected to live on 12/6 a week. How can he do it? He simply cannot do it. How can a man of that class be expected to have any respect for the Minister or for any of us when we say that we cannot live on £480 a year? The thing is ridiculous. I think we are getting too big for our shoes and suffering from swelled heads. The more we receive the bigger we get; the nearer we come to the City of Dublin the grander we become.

I am satisfied that the day will come when the Government will be glad to repudiate many of their own statements of 25 years ago. They did not hesitate in those days to use a lot of false propaganda against their opponents. Deputy Corry here to-night also used a lot of vile, dirty abuse against Opposition Deputies. I thought we had left all that behind us but apparently we have not. The Deputy should realise that the men he was abusing were the men who founded this State, the very State of which all Deputies from the Taoiseach down, are so proud. Why are they being abused by the Deputy? Because they were men who had the courage and the honesty to stand up to dangerous thuggeryism in the past. Thank God some of them are alive and well and can still fight their own corner but others are gone who should be with us.

I say to the Government that they should withdraw this measure. It may be that if the matter were referred to an independent tribunal the case for an increase could be justified but we have no right to increase our own salaries at present, seeing that there are so many people in this country at the present moment living in hardship and that there are so many farmers who have to face the prospect of inspectors coming in at both doors. The Minister told us the other night that he will tear down the fences, if necessary, and compel them to till whether they like it or not. That is the very type of statement that is likely to antagonise our farmers. Our farmers are in no mood to listen to talk of that kind. They are being insulted and that is one of the biggest insults we could offer to them.

Therefore, I ask the Minister to remember the attitude that he adopted to the Government of the day 20 years ago. Thank God, we are a nobler type of people and we are not going to give out the vile stuff that the people opposite gave out at that time. I do say to the Minister that he is putting the writing on the wall, that it has been done deliberately, and that it will bring the country and the House into contempt.

Is the Deputy going to take the allowance?

I certainly will if it is the law, and be proud of it.

I listened carefully to the Minister when moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The only case he made for it was that the pay of civil servants had been increased. I think that was a false comparison to make because the civil servants does not belong to what I call the privileged class. What I mean by privileged class is that Deputies draw what, in my opinion, is a salary, which is free of income-tax. I had thought that that one terrible snag in the lives of Deputies, a snag which makes them stand out as members of a privileged class, would be done away with. Some years ago I had a motion before the House on that very issue, and I know what the result was. One of the great objections that I have to this Bill is that Deputies are still to be in a privileged class. The Minister should know that what is causing great disgust amongst the people is that legislators do not mind how much they pile on them while they themselves have not to bear the burden. I remember the time when only ratepayers could be members of a county council. It was thought at the time that that was a good idea because being ratepayers' themselves, they would not do anything outrageous. The same applies to Deputies as far as payment of income-tax is concerned. I think that is something that should be remedied. What Deputies get is called an allowance in order that they may evade the payment of income-tax. I thought that privilege would be done away with.

I listened to-day to the speeches of Deputy Flanagan and Deputy Burke of the Fianna Fáil Party. Deputy Burke and other Deputies like him who live within a certain distance of Dublin can get back to their homes at night. In my opinion they have no case at all to make for this increase. I think it is only Deputies who come from rural areas, Deputies living in Mayo, Kerry, Cork, Wexford and other places who can, to a certain extent, make a case for it. It has been said that there are some members who have other ways of making a living. It would be a bad day I think, if only such people could come into this House. It may be said of myself that I am a farmer. Well, the farmer who is taken away from his bit of land and has to spend four days in Dublin as well as a day coming up and a day going home—six days in all —is more at a loss than anything else through being a Deputy. He has to pay a man or two men to do his work in his absence. I think that the man with a bit of land is at a greater loss than a Deputy who follows some other profession. It may be said that the man who makes a case like that is going to vote for the Bill, and that certain people will hold that the Deputy who stands up against this Bill is a hypocrite.

I was not able to attend the Dáil yesterday. I was in Galway and met some people there and what they said to me was this: "Have you not gone up; this should be an important week for you; is not this the week that you are going to raise your salaries by £3 a week; we bet all the Fianna Fáil Deputies have gone up to do it?" I believe this is the wrong time to make the change, and that this Bill which says that £624 a year is an allowance is the greatest nonsense in the world. I have never regarded it as an allowance. Surely, there is no use in going before the ordinary people of the country and saying: "Well, we are getting £624 a year but it is an allowance." Personally, I do not think it makes much difference what Deputies get. If we were only getting £300 a year I think we would manage to live within that amount. On the other hand, I believe that if we were getting £1,000 a year that we would spend it.

I want to be honest about it. I think that we can live on the £480 a year that we have. I do not want to do the hypocrite by talking about the road workers and the old age pensioners, but we must consider how they have got to live. I honestly believe that calling this £624 a year an allowance so as to evade the payment of income-tax is the biggest sham that was ever carried out in Dáil Éireann. I honestly think that the Minister should withdraw the Bill. Of course, we heard threats during the past week that the Bill was going to be withdrawn. I had hoped and expected that it would, but it appears that the Government Party of to-day is somewhat like another Party when they were the Government. It appears that, after ten years, any group in power will come to believe that it can act like a steamroller and decide for itself without consulting the people. I wonder what the result would be if the Minister were to put the issue before the people of rural Ireland as to whether they considered his proposed £624 a year an allowance, as it is called, and whether it should be free of income-tax, and whether the members of Dáil Éireann should be set up as a privileged class. If these questions were put before the people, I know quite well what their answer would be. I know what the answer of the people who elected me would be. I know their view. It is my view and I am expressing it in that way.

Most Deputies seem to treat this matter from the point of view that the allowance is a salary. I entirely disagree with the type of comparisons that have been made. Deputies are far from being merely legislators. At least, for the Deputies I know from country constituencies, it is not a matter simply of getting time to read a Bill that is circulated to-day with a view to saying something about it to-morrow. Country Deputies when they leave Dublin and return to their homes have to meet people from their constituency; they have to meet deputations during the week-end; they have to reply to an enormous correspondence. That is not denied by anybody who is opposed to the Bill. The people are expecting a service and for that service we on this side of the House are not asking a salary. We are not asking for remunertion of any description. We are asking for what is in this Bill, that is, for an allowance that will cover our expenses, our overhead expenses, if you like. I am quite satisfied that, no matter how they may try to draw red herrings across the trail, those who have spoken here to-night are just as anxious as I or any other Deputy on any side of the House to collect this allowance. I am quite satisfied that if the Minister for Finance put a clause into the Bill providing that Deputies would have to make application for this increase in allowance, the Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches would not be the first to apply. I cannot understand, when something like this is at stake, why Deputies cannot be honest and say what is in their minds.

I was in this House in 1938. I listened to speeches made then that had a somewhat similar basis to the basis of some of the speeches made to-night. Deputy Cogan was then the only farmer's representative in the House. Later he helped considerably in the organising of Clann na Talmhan. I remember Deputy Cogan's statement at that time. Deputy Cogan and a number of other Deputies were prepared to hand the extra allowance back to the Department of Finance, if my memory serves me right, and I think it does. But the people on the Clann na Talmhan platform in an election campaign that followed shortly afterwards, were prepared to put the penalty on every successful candidate who was prepared to stand on their platform of handing the sum over to that organisation. I distinctly remember reading that, I think it was Deputy Burke of Clare, said to them when he was asked, "Whatever I am getting I am earning and there is nothing more about it." I cannot tolerate hypocrites for a moment, people who say they will do all these things that they never did and never intend doing and who have no more intention now of doing it than they had in the past. It would be very interesting to know if Deputy Cogan's colleague in the new Farmers' Party— I do not know what it is because he switches so often—is going to do what he says now. I have not seen it done yet and I do not believe that I will see it done in the future.

I want to make it quite clear that I am not at all in agreement with statements made by Deputy Corry to-night. I think there is a case to be made for this Bill without abusing or insulting any individual in this House. But I do say that the opposition to this Bill has been led by the front benchers of Fine Gael, principally. They seem to have completely forgotten all the things they said when, in 1938, a similar Bill was brought in. I have here before me the Official Debates of the time and I find that on the 24th November, 1938, volume 73, column 994, General Mulcahy said:—

"I welcome the fact that the Government has faced up to this question, in spite of the complaint that the Minister may have that Deputies did not avail of the opportunity offered them at the time of the sitting of the Committee to deal with this particular question. I think that anybody who realises the importance of Parliamentary institutions, and of democratic Parliamentary institutions, and who realises the position that a Deputy occupies as the connection between the people and their problems and the Parliament, which can do so much either for good or ill, cannot in his heart of hearts but welcome the proposal that is embodied in this Bill to increase the allowance that will be at Deputies' disposal to enable them to discharge their duties."

That was in 1938, when things were quite normal. At that particular time we paid 2d. for a stamp. Petrol would have been probably 1/- less than it is at present. Cars would have been a couple of hundred pounds less than they are at present. Everything a Deputy has to use in connection with his duties, in giving service to the people he represents, which they are entitled to get from him, was very much less than it is now. If we are to give the same service as we were expected to give then, surely no great effort is required to put a case before the people who are willing to understand the position as well as we understand it, that is, the people we represent in each constituency. If the entire speech made by Deputy Mulcahy at that time were read it would be very interesting and if the front benchers on the Opposition took time to read it they would sit down and would not say any more.

It would not have that effect on you, would it, to make you sit down and say no more?

Deputy McGilligan attends this House every evening and not in the same capacity as I attend. I have to leave my home on a Monday or a Tuesday and have to return there at the week-end. Although I have to pay £3 a week to a man to do my work, I do not think it is done as I could do it. Deputy McGilligan does not find himself in that position and, naturally, he can oppose a Bill like this. He never loses an hour but there are Deputies on this side and on all sides of the House who have to lose time. I think the Clann na Talmhan Party know as well as I that there is no farmer in this House who can employ a man who will be nearly as useful on his own farm as he himself would be. No matter how good the man you get is, you have to lay out his work for him when you are leaving home and, if weather conditions should interfere in the meantime, when you get back you find he does not know what to do, although he should be as well able to see what should be done as I am.

We are not counting this as a salary. After all, we all go up for election and there is nobody who begs or craves us to go up. We put our case before the people and are returned and when we come in here we have a duty to perform. It is not just for us to look for payment for all the things that are neglected in our homes, or for compensation for the careless way we look after our homes. If we have to consider these things, it is not after we come in here that we should make that case but before we go up for election at all. Despite what might be said by the last interrupter, he can do his business in the daytime and come in here in the evening, but that is not the way with us who have to leave home at the beginning of the week and return at the end of the week. For the Deputy's information, I will continue to quote what was said by Deputy O'Higgins on the 24th November, 1938, reported in Volume 73, column 1039. If these words were true at that particular time, they are equally true now. He said this:—

"I am afraid that humbug did not entirely pass away with the last decade."

Referring to the opposition to the Bill at the time, he said:—

"I have heard ... a number of arguments or alleged arguments against the Bill and I do not mind confessing that the more I listened to the type of opposition that there is to it the more firmly I was convinced that there was justice in the Bill."

Further on, he says:—

"We had a number of speeches that might be applicable to any Bill which proposed expenditure for any purpose. We had a contrast between times present and times past. We had a picture of the conditions of certain classes of the people....

We find exactly the same thing as is going on here to-night. We have the same sort of picture here to-night as that drawn by the Opposition in 1938, the only difference being that to score some petty point that seemed to be of political advantage these people are prepared now to swallow the words they used then and prepared to join in with the others to-day in the hope of some cheap type of publicity. That Party has no hope of gaining any sort of political kudos, as they were washed out years ago. There is no hope for them, no matter what sort of opposition they try to put up at a particular time. They have not the slightest hope of coming back here again, so long as their policy is of the type expounded here over the last few years. While that goes on, I fail to see how far they can go.

Deputy Flanagan paraded here to-night what he described as a reasonable estimate of his expenses over the week. He said he was getting £10 a week, which is not true, as he was counting 48 weeks in the year, but there happens to be 52. The people who are opposing this Bill should make up their minds and be a little more honest with themselves and they will find that the people will be much more honest with them if they do. I can understand certain Deputies using the type of opposition we heard. Deputy Donnellan asked why this remuneration was not subject to income-tax. I would ask him to be honest about this. He knows as well as I do that, if it is made subject to income-tax, he would not have to pay any.

How do you know?

I know the Deputy's family circumstances fairly well and I am quite satisfied that, if he thought for half a second he would have to pay even 1/- in £100, he would not make any such statement at all.

I always paid my way.

I do not say the Deputy did not. I would like him to be at least intelligent enough to listen to what I say.

I taught you a good deal.

I taught you more. I am glad you have improved in time and I hope the remainder of the Party will continue to improve, as there is an enormous amount of room for improvement. I believe that, by the time the Fianna Fáil Party has increased the remuneration, it will be something that may work a miracle by making Clann na Talmhan a little better and give much more honest service to the people than that Party has been giving. I hope they will cut out the twisting, the tricking and the dodgery, as it has not got any political Party very far.

Take a "sgealp" at Dr. Ward, while you are at it.

Whatever has happened to Dr. Ward or any other Deputy certainly has nothing to do with this Bill. If we want to have a discussion on Dr. Ward—we have had a number of them already—we can have such a discussion. The Government can always stand up to a discussion of that nature and does not intend to defend anyone who has committed a sin against this House. We certainly will not and we have set up ample machinery for dealing with that particular case. We have heard the cheap propaganda which others have tried to put across the House in connection with it. It shows how cheap they are.

We have been putting across the truth.

Deputy Commons must cease interrupting.

I would say it outside anywhere.

I would like Deputies generally to keep order. Deputy Killilea is speaking, and no one should interrupt.

I have not the slightest intention of going into the question of expenses. I try to give service as best I can to the people I represent, within my means, and I cannot do anything outside my means. I feel I am not giving as much service as I might give had I more time at my disposal. Some people have made comparisons between this, that and the other thing; old age pensioners have been mentioned, as usual, as well as the blind pensioners and all the rest, because the weak-kneed Opposition think they are the only people they can gull. They believe that they are the only people whose eye they can wipe.

You wiped their eye when you gave them 10/- a week.

I have this to say in reply to Deputy Keating, that I am very glad that, in 1918, I helped to wipe his eye in Wexford.

Deputy Keating must keep order.

Deputy Keating is all right. He is not going to accept this fellow's codology.

If the Deputy Keating does not like what is being said, he can leave the House.

It is not the first time you put me out.

If the Deputy does not like what is being said, he can leave the House.

This does not suit him. The Opposition can never take the medicine coming to them. They cannot listen to facts and do not understand the true meaning of facts. I do not see why any comparison between labourers and Deputies should be brought in. Every labourer is looking for an eight-hour day or less, to-day, but so far as Deputies are concerned, we get to work about 9 o'clock in the morning and often have people at our doors at 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning and we are working until 12 o'clock at night. People do not realise that it is work, but there is no heavier work than to have to listen to grievances of one type or another for threequarters of the day and to have to neglect many things which one would do for oneself.

The Opposition should be honest about this. There is nothing in the way of salary being asked. Deputy Dillon was fairly honest when he said that, if it was a question of salary, he would be prepared to look for a four-figure amount. Deputies give a service which is exceptional. Their hours of work are not regulated by any law, and when they are prepared to give such service, the people will not grudge them a sufficient allowance to enable them to clear their overhead expenses. That is all we are asking for in the Bill. That is all this Party is putting forward and we shall be very happy on this side to let the Opposition have the kudos and the bouquets, because I know they will build up a lovely case on this. I hope it may strengthen their Party, but we have accepted many things like this in the past and are still prepared to accept them. We fought similar issues in the past against people who had no sincerity whatever. I have listened to several Deputies criticising this salary, but I have yet to know one of them who ever handed back ½d., any more than I did.

I am not surprised by Deputy Keating's attitude. Deputy Keating is an honest man and it is very hard to listen to the case the Fianna Fáil Deputies are trying to make for this increase in salary. I am a Deputy who could make the best case for it, if I wanted to. I was a worker before I came into this House—I was 25 years in my last employment—and I believe in the policy of one man, one job, because, if Deputies devoted their time to looking after the interests of the people they represent, they would have a full-time job.

Most Deputies are not prepared to regard it as a job.

You do not.

The ordinary skilled worker, such as a carpenter, in my constituency has up to £6 5s. 0d. a week. I consider that I am paying income-tax on my allowance through postage. I have no motor car. I travel by bus. I get a voucher for the train and when there is no train I travel by bus and get a refund of 8/-, so that I am not a very expensive Deputy. I heard Deputy Dillon say that when he comes up here on a certain day, he draws £2 1s. 0d., and if he comes on another day, he gets £5. That is a good game that I was not aware of. It was news to me. The people who are trying to make this case are not honest with themselves or with the people they represent, because there is no use in talking about going down to their constituencies when they are Deputies who live in Dublin, having left their constituencies. The Minister for Social Welfare, for instance, does not live in his constituency. He merely goes down there at election times and there are several other Deputies in that position.

These people are not giving service and cannot give service. So long as there are people, as there are in my constituency—in the street in which I live—old age pensioners on 10/- a week, widows and orphans and others in receipt of home assistance, I will vote against any such increase, and I am the poorest man in the House. I believe we should not do it and I appeal to the Minister to withdraw the Bill. We have a position in which a man who helped to found this State hands back his service medal, as happened in Wexford on Monday. After having been before a board in Bricin's Hospital, he got this letter:—

"You are not incapable of self-support by reason of permanent infirmity."

Deputy Keating and I know that that man has only one arm. That is the treatment for old I.R.A. men. Here is his medal to prove it and here is the letter dated 12th June, 1947. So long as that condition of affairs exists, I will vote against any increase. Deputy Corry said he was worth £4,000 or £5,000 but I believe there are people in his constituency who say he is not worth fivepence and I believe that many others in the House are in the same position—Deputies who do not see the people except at election times.

There are 138 Deputies in this House and each Deputy will get £12 a month increase. Ministers will get more. I understand there are many Deputies who are on different committees and who are paid for their work on these committees, and, in addition, their work outside is being done for them by some other person, as in the case of national teachers. Deputy Killilea, who has a job down in Galway, says he is paying £3 a week to a man in Tuam to enable him to come up here, but he gets £10 a week here, so that he has £7 profit. These are the things Deputies should face up to and they should not try to hoodwink the people as they are doing.

We have seen from letters in the Sunday Independent and in other newspapers that there is much controversy about this increase of salaries for Deputies. I can say definitely that this is not a popular measure. Deputy corry has remarked that he has been a member of this House for many years. I would like to point out that he got in here on a machine that was working on promises to the people, and probably if that machine were broken up there would be very few Fianna Fáil members in this House. It is that machine which has kept him here, and the sooner that machine is broken the sooner a lot of those members will be out of here.

I would like if Deputies would refrain from running out of this House when an Opposition man gets up to speak. I find that when a member of this House has made his speech, be it for or against a measure, he immediately clears out and he will not know what has been said about him until he reads the official report of the debate a week afterwards.

A good job for himself !

I think the reason is that the members of this House do not understand each other. I think every Deputy should sit in the House during any important debate instead of trotting in when the Division Bell rings and asking someone else: "What is up now"?

The country Deputies come up to town on a Tuesday and have to remain here until the adjournment at 2 o'clock on the following Friday. It has already been stated that the Dublin Deputies are here on the spot and that their expenses, therefore, are not as high as those of country Deputies. Everyone knows that. The Dublin Deputies should attend, that is, the Deputies representing constituencies in Dublin and those representing constituencies in Wexford, Tipperary and other centres who live in Dublin and not in their constituencies. These people can live cheaper than country Deputies. Take, for instance, my £40 a month. I have to keep a wife and family and I have, in addition, to keep myself here in the city. I have, just the same as other Deputies, to meet people. I have to hire a motor car if I go to my constituency because I am not able to buy one. I came in here in 1943 and I was a Deputy only ten months when An Taoiseach, in the middle of the night, declared a general election. A general election was declared on the Transport Bill even though the people of the country did not want it so soon after the previous general election. Deputy Killilea says that there have been eight general elections since he started. I say that that is an expense on the country. A general election costs the country a lot of money and the last one could have been avoided but for the fact that we have one man who will have no Party here but his own. I am not going to support this Bill in any way. I am prepared to carry on as I am.

It has been remarked in this House that no Deputy dies worth money. That is a sad affair. It is sad to think that Deputies of this House and Senators get letters from relatives of deceased members, often men who had national records, appealing for help. I have got such letters from relatives of men who served the State—men who did good service during the time they were in this House on behalf of the people they represented. It is very sad to think that relatives of men who were members of the Fianna Fáil Party and who have passed from this world have to appeal to Deputies on all sides of the House to help them. I think it should be the duty of the Government to ensure that provision will be made for the widow and family of any Deputy who has served a certain number of years in this House. If the money were going in that direction, I certainly would vote for it. I think it is only right and just that the widows and children of members should be looked after. I think that would be much more equitable than to come along here and by taking advantage of circumstances, give increases all round. No doubt the Government is thinking that this is the last time they will have a majority and that they might as well get all they can while they have it. It is quite possible that that is what they are thinking. If the Dáil were dissolved to-morrow and if some of the Ministers were not returned, they would draw £500 a year pension while, on the other hand, an ordinary Deputy can go on the scrap-heap. The wife and family of a Deputy, if he passes away during his time as a Deputy, are not provided for. I say to the Minister that as long as injustice is done to the down-trodden people of my class I will, at all times, rise on my feet in this House in order to put their case in a plain, straight, and honest way.

I will not agree to this measure under any condition and I ask the Minister in all sincerity, as the poorest man in this house, to withdraw this Bill. I say to the Minister that if he withdraws this measure he will be doing justice to the country and he will be doing justice to the people who are not able to bear the burdens which are already imposed on them. I can say this, also, that if the means test were applied in this case, as it is applied in the case of old age pensioners and other sections, very few members of this House would qualify for the increase in salary. I consider this method of coming in here and, on the one hand, bringing in laws to suit one section of the people, such as freedom from income-tax, etc., whereas, on the other hand, there is increased taxation all round—even the ordinary working man who has to work hard for wages has to give a certain amount back to the Government—too much of a good thing. That is not what we are told when the Government was trying to get into power. We were told they would reduce taxation. I say to them that if they put every man to work we would have no unemployment. Yet we, in this House, have last week and this week been trying to increase salaries for people, the majority of whom do not need any increase, and if the means test were applied I can definitely say that perhaps not more than a dozen Deputies would qualify for such increase.

It is very hard for an ordinary man such as myself or Deputy Keating to have to listen to some of the speeches from the Fianna Fáil members in which they try to make a case for themselves. We do not, of course, know the minds of those who do not speak but we do know the minds of those who have spoken. They are interested in nobody but themselves and they are not thinking of the country as a whole. They are thinking of themselves only. They introduced a measure into this House whereby a worker would have to go to the Labour Court before he could get an increase in his wages. To-day I saw men with placards walking up and down O'Connell Street outside one of the offices of the Irish Assurance Company, in which company some members of this House are interested. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 26th June, 1947.
Top
Share