Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 22 Mar 1960

Vol. 180 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1960—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is long overdue. The last revision of Deputies' allowances took place after the war in 1947 when practically all salaries and wages were revised upwards. Since then there have been several increases of wages and salaries. We are just emerging from the seventh round. The allowances to members of this House have stood still while the increases of the intervening five rounds were being provided for most salary and wage earners.

It is within the power of members of the Oireachtas to fix the remuneration of themselves and of Ministers and other officers and nobody can say that that power is used either too frequently or irresponsibly or extravagantly.

The Government decided some time ago that the question of revision of salaries and allowances should not be further postponed and I am now asking the House to approve the Bill to implement that decision.

In 1923 the allowance for Deputies was fixed at £360 per annum, free of income tax—free of income tax because £360 was considered at that time to be necessary to meet a Deputy's expenses and there was no element of salary in it. In 1938 it was decided that the expenses of a Deputy had increased and his allowance was fixed at £480. In 1947 this was increased to £624 in line with the general pattern of increases at that time.

When the remuneration of Deputies was first considered in 1923 there was no experience of the time that might be required to fulfil their duties, and, consequently, a sum for expenses with no element of salary was agreed. The duties of a Deputy since that time have increased enormously. The expansion of social services since the 1930's, the many provisions connected with housing, the great variety of schemes introduced to help agriculture—to mention just three Departments—have made the Deputy's attention to the needs of his constituents much more onerous. Legislation is more voluminous and more complicated and every year Dáil sessions tend to become longer. While the job of a Deputy cannot strictly be regarded as full-time, it is, on the other hand, impossible for him to hold another full-time position. A farmer or a business man can pay some attention to his business as well as attending to his duties as a Deputy. A professional man, if he is conscientious in the performance of his political duties, must inevitably neglect his own profession and suffer a consequential loss of income. The manual worker or the office employee must vacate his position when he becomes a Deputy and must try to live on his Deputy's Allowance.

If the Deputy had got increases pari passu with others his remuneration would now be more than 50% higher than it was in 1947. Not only is the Deputy entitled to an increase to meet the higher cost of living but he could make a good claim for a revision of his basic pay on grounds of increased work and increased responsibility.

I am satisfied that the present conception of paying a Deputy only for his out of pocket expenses is unjust and that Deputies should be paid for their time as well as being recouped for expenses.

The Bill provides £1,000 per year and the Deputy will be exempt from Income Tax on whatever part of that sum that is agreed for expenses arising out of his duties as a member of this House.

I have been asked by some Deputies what the change will mean and I have been told by some others that the change will mean no increase for them. Some Deputies say that £625 did not cover their expenses while others are doubtful if the Revenue Commissioners will allow them more than half that amount. I am not, of course, in a position to say what amount may be agreed for expenses, but if we take the mean of these two and assume the amount allowed for expenses to be £450:

A single man with no other taxable income will pay less than £70 in Income Tax.

A married man will pay less than £20.

If a Deputy has £1,000 from other sources he will pay £330 if single and £270 if married.

If he has £2,000 from other sources he will pay £680 or £610.

Deputies hitherto got an allowance for expenses but no reward for their time. Henceforth it is proposed to give them some small reward for their time and the right, like every other taxpayer, to claim for relief of Income Tax on expenses.

In some quarters there is a belief that Deputies are a prosperous class. They are regarded as a good mark by those who solicit subscriptions for a worthy cause. We have some well-to-do Deputies amongst us but their fortunes were not made in Leinster House. I have been in public life for more than forty years. I have known many who came into this House and who went out again. I have never known one to go out better off than he came in.

Senators were treated the same as Deputies in 1923 but in 1938 their allowance was reduced to 75 per cent. of the amount paid to Deputies. The same relative position has been maintained but I believe that in the end this Bill will be less favourable to Senators because their expenses will probably not be agreed at the same level as those of Deputies.

If a Senator has no other income except his allowance as a Senator— his bill for income tax will be very small and his gain will be substantial, but if he has say £1,000 taxable income from other sources his gain will be relatively small and if his income from other sources is £2,000 or more his case is problematical.

A Minister's salary was fixed at £1,700 in 1923. Of this amount he was allowed £360 free of income tax for his expenses as a Deputy. The remainder was taxable income. To-day a Minister has £2,125 of which £625 is free of income tax. It is proposed in this Bill that a Minister would receive the Deputy's remuneration fully taxable except for whatever amount may be exempted for his expenses as a Deputy. In addition, it is proposed he should be paid £2,000 fully taxable, of course, making a total of £3,000.

Making the same assumption in reference to expenses as I did in the case of Deputies, a Minister, if he has no other income and is unmarried, will pay about £620 in income tax. If he has £1,000 from other sources his income tax would be about £1,150 if single, and £1,050 if married, and if he has £2,000 from other sources the amounts would be about £1,650 and £1,570.

Ministers got no increase since 1947 and I do not think I need labour the point that the present salary is inadequate. There are many instances to my knowledge where Deputies on assuming Ministerial Office were compelled to surrender more remunerative means of livelihood and thus suffer a financial loss. Most of us live up to our incomes whatever they may be and it is not easy to retrench on personal expenditure, with the result that Ministers have sometimes had to encroach on their savings or run into debt to maintain their standard of living when they took office.

It is true that some Deputies find their income increased as a result of occupying Ministerial Office, but are they financially better off? A Minister has a full-time job. He must live in Dublin. He is obliged to maintain a fair standard of living. His duties take him not only to his constituency but to places outside his constituency. He is expected to pay his way, in fact, to do a little more than his share of the casual entertainment that follows many of those meetings.

A Minister is asked to many functions, political and non-political, and he cannot be so churlish as to refuse them indiscriminately. He may be, and usually is, treated hospitably, but my experience is that you often have to pay sometime, somewhere, somehow, for free hospitality.

A Minister's job requires constant attention and it entails a high degree of responsibility. Positions in industry of less importance are much better remunerated. A Minister is the head of his Department and he should be the most highly paid person in the Department. In 1923 a Minister had £1,700. The Secretary of his Department had £1,463. Now the Minister has £2,125 and the Secretary of his Department has £2,825. The Bill increases a Minister's remuneration by about 40 per cent. but his net income will not go up by anything like 40 per cent. when income tax is deducted.

Increases proposed for Parliamentary Secretaries, for the Ceann Comhairle and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle are proportionately the same as those for Ministers.

Since 1947 the cost of living has increased by 44 per cent. The wage rate in industry has increased by 70.7 per cent. The farm price index has increased by 44 per cent. and the income per head of those employed in agriculture by 89 per cent. for agricultural labourers, and by 79 per cent. for farmers and the members of their families working with them. The national income has increased by 73 per cent. There is no index figure for social welfare benefits but the amount spent on social welfare has more than doubled since 1947.

Various representations have been made from time to time about the desirability of having some form of pension scheme for members of the Oireachtas. It will be for the Houses themselves to consider this matter. I have provided in this Bill, that, if a joint Committee in the Houses formulates a pension scheme, power is made available for the Minister for Finance to make regulations prescribing that whatever deductions are deemed to be appropriate by the scheme may be made by the Minister from the members' allowances. If no agreed scheme emerges the section will, of course, be inoperative. If a scheme does emerge the power to arrange for deductions will be available and there will be no need to introduce a separate statute.

The Bill proposes an increase in pensions for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. If a Deputy severs his connection with his business or profession or occupation for a number of years he is not likely at the end of his period of office to resume at the point where he left off and certainly not at the point he might reasonably expect to have reached if he had not interrupted his career. The ex-Minister is entitled to compensation from the State for this loss of income. This principle was recognised in 1938 and certain scales were laid down. It is proposed to increase these scales for those who serve more than five years. If a Minister has served more than five years he must necessarily have been elected for at least two terms of office and the disturbance caused to his former occupation is all the greater. The increased scales will go part of the way to compensate ex-Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries for the losses mentioned. I know that the new scale will not provide full compensation in all cases.

The payment of allowances to Leaders of the Opposition to enable them to pay office staff which is necessary to facilitate them in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties has been accepted in principle by the Dáil and has been enshrined in our statute law. It has been represented that these increases first provided for in 1938 are now inadequate. In response to these representations I indicated that I was prepared to give sympathetic consideration should an opportunity of doing so present itself. I am availing myself of this legislation to increase these allowances. In doing so there has been a certain change in approach. Instead of a stated amount for each specified Party a gross amount is now being provided to be allocated in the proportions set out in the text of the Bill. The allowance will, as heretofore, continue to be a charge on the Central Fund.

I have so far seen little comment on this Bill and any criticism I have received is more against its parsimony than its generosity. If this is the verdict I feel the Government have been right in their approach. The labourer is always worthy of his hire but due regard must be had for the taxpayer who has to pay the hire. In formulating these changes the Government have not at any time lost sight of the interests of those who are being asked to foot the costs.

There are those who are prone to take a subjective view of human nature, and who cannot believe that Deputies will be fair to the taxpayer when they come to review their own allowances. I am quite satisfied that this House will approach objectively the conflict in interests between the taxpayer and themselves with a view to reaching an equitable solution.

Involving, as it does, the amendment and repeal or, as the case may be, the partial repeal of various sections of earlier statutes I have thought it well to circulate with the text of the Bill a White Paper explaining what sections are being changed or altered and setting out how this new Bill fits into the earlier legislative pattern.

Mr. Dillon

This matter of increased allowances for Deputies was canvassed some time ago and we then informed the Government unofficially that we considered the time inappropriate for such proposals. We see nothing in the present situation which materially effects that fact but we are confronted with the information that there are certain Deputies in the House who cannot carry on on the basis of the present allowances and so one is faced with the problem as to whether it is proper to make it physically impossible for individual Deputies, who have been freely chosen by their constituents to serve them here, to discharge the duties of their office as Deputies. I do not think we can and, in those circumstances, we do not propose to oppose this Bill.

It may well be that there are individuals amongst us who in their desire to give full and generous service to the constituents they represent are in the position that they cannot make ends meet on existing allowances. If that is so, it would be a very grave responsibility indeed for any of the Deputies in this House to assent to the proposition that economic considerations of that kind should make it impossible for any citizen of the State to represent his neighbours if his neighbours chose to have him represent them in this Dáil. As the Minister has said, it is true that there are some Deputies here amongst us who will derive no benefit from these amended proposals as the income tax liability will cancel out the differential that is now proposed.

I want to say that I consider the provisions of this Bill providing for ministerial salaries to be long overdue. I think Ministers in this State have been grossly underpaid for many, many years and, so far as we are concerned, we are glad that steps are now being taken to bring the remuneration of Ministers into some relation with reality.

I think the Minister for Finance has an obligation to examine the question of the amenity at present and in the past enjoyed by Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries by way of cars. It does seem hard to see how, in the light of the Finance Act of 1958 and the new basis of allowances provided under this Bill, an amenity such as the provision of a car free can be ignored for income tax purposes. Heretofore the salary of a Minister in our Government consisted in part of salary and in part of an allowance. Hereafter a Minister's salary will be altogether salary because the whole principle of allowances is being swept away by this Bill. Perhaps the Minister would let us know what his view is in regard to the liability that may accrue to Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries on foot of the transport amenities that they have heretofore enjoyed or whether he proposes to provide for such amenities in some other way?

There is one other part of this Bill to which reference should be made. It is a desirable thing to make available to the Opposition Parties adequate facilities for secretarial assistance. The growth in the volume of business that has to be disposed of in this House is steady and continual. If adequate consideration is to be given to legislation which comes before the House, the Bills and other matters submitted require preliminary study. It is common experience for all of us who have been in office or in Opposition to see a Minister, whatever Government he belongs to, come in here with a Bill, supported by an exhaustive brief reviewing in detail the provisions of every section of the Bill which he is charged to recommend to the House. The Opposition have the Bill and sometimes a White Paper to assist them but the preliminary work involved at present devolves almost entirely on the personnel of the Opposition Parties unaided by technical assistance of any kind.

Personally we would prefer, if it were possible, instead of an increased monetary allowance, that staff would be supplied from the establishment for the assistance of the principal and secondary Opposition Parties in the House. That may not be possible administratively but from our point of view we think it would work better.

One of the great difficulties that confront an Opposition in getting the kind of help it requires in these circumstances is that if you seek to get technical assistance of the standard you want, you may be fortunate to get a man who is in a position to take a part-time occupation of that character but to offer a man of the status or the standing who would be really valuable full time employment when there is no prospect of its being of a permanent character creates very serious difficulties, because if you go into Government you cannot necessarily transport him into the public service at a level which would be appropriate to his attainments. On the other hand it does not seem fair to throw him on the waves of the world and tell him to go and look for another job, if he has spent three or four years working for the Opposition.

I do not believe it would be impossible—but here I would be much influenced by the views of the Minister for Finance himself—to arrange that the Civil Service would provide the kind of assistance we require. That may seem strange to certain Deputies who have no experience of it but anyone who has worked in Government knows that you can be a Minister in charge of a Department and deal with your civil servants, never guessing what their political convictions for the time being may be and yet receiving from all of them the same excellent service one grows accustomed to expect from the personnel of the Civil Service we are fortunate enough to have in this State.

Therefore, the fact that the civil servants would be temporarily seconded to the Opposition to do for the Opposition work analogous to that which is ordinarily done for the Minister for the time being does not sound so anachronistic a proposal to us who have had experience in office as it might to those who have not had such experience. I think it would work better and would prevent the kind of person it is desirable to have in this position being led into dead-end employment because in the ordinary course he would remain in the channel of Departmental promotion and would not feel himself destined seriously to injure his professional prospects in whatever profession to which he belongs.

Beyond that, I have nothing to add except to say I hope our apprehensions in regard to the general situation of the country may be proved by the event to be illusory. At present we feel the circumstances of a great many elements in our society are such as to make proposals of this kind extremely distasteful to them. If economic circumstances greatly improve, then these proposals may be looked on in another light. At present we see no evidence of that but, nonetheless, we are not prepared to say that economic considerations should be allowed to exclude any Deputy elected to this House whenceever he may come, discharging the duties his neighbours, the electorate, have chosen to put upon him. For these reasons, we do not propose to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Corish

Without any qualification we welcome the Bill. There has been quite a delay in its introduction since the necessity for an increase, especially to Deputies, was publicly admitted and advocated by the Taoiseach at the beginning of Autumn. Up to recently, there has not been much sympathy or support from the public for an increase, especially to members of Dáil Éireann, but it is only in recent times that the public have begun to appreciate how much a Deputy is paid, first of all, and, secondly, the duties of a reasonably conscientious member of this House.

The general conception has been that Deputies are well paid. If anybody in this House meets his constituents and the matter of wages and salaries come up, the invariable remark of seven out of ten constituents is to this effect: "You people are well off. You have plenty of money." If you ask the seven out of the ten how much by way of weekly allowance or salary the Deputy has, not one of the seven would be able to say. If you indicate at the end of the conversation that a Deputy is paid £12 per week, it takes about ten minutes for that to sink in. They have no conception as to what the allowance is for a Deputy because they have never bothered to inquire. They merely assume a member of this House is paid much more than he is in fact paid.

Until recently the public had not begun to realise that Deputies have not received an increase since 1947, but they are very conscious of the fact that practically every other section of the community has received some compensation for the various increases in the cost of living since 1947, that is, 13 years ago. The Minister has given some examples as to how the various costs have been increased and how different items have increased. However, this example will show how the Deputy has been treated as against, say, the civil servant during that period from 1947 to 1960. As far as I can gather, a civil servant of a certain grade with a wife and two children had £652 in 1947; to-day he has £942. Even from that small example it is clear that the Deputy who in 1947 had an allowance of £624 granted to him is fully entitled to the increase proposed in this Bill.

It is true that many people were critical of the fact that no income tax was paid on that allowance, but a Deputy who is solely dependent on what has been described as the allowance of £624, a Deputy who is married with an average size family, would have a long way to go in salary or allowance before paying a penny tax on the £624. Many have said that it is the principle involved. Many people described it as an allowance and the Act up to now has described it as an allowance, but many of us have regarded it as a salary for services rendered.

I said, in 1947, when a similar Bill was being discussed, that I preferred to regard the allowance as a salary. I think in all fairness it should be regarded, and described in legislation, as a salary. I do not oppose the idea, nor does my Party, of income tax being paid on the salary which is proposed in the Bill. The Minister has mentioned certain expenses, certain very substantial expenses, which a Deputy must incur, and again, the public do not seem to want to know the details of the expenses that must be met by the average Deputy. As I say, they are a little taken back and sometimes it does not sink in when you tell them a Deputy is paid £12 a week and if you start telling them about expenses, they can put a different slant on that as well.

There is no necessity for the members of this House to be told what their expenses mean. It means that when a Deputy comes to Dublin, as he does this week, for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, he has to get hotel accommodation for at least two nights. Many long-distance Deputies have to get accommodation for three nights. That accommodation is not given free, nor are the expenses given for it. Seven out of ten people in this country think that hotel expenses are given over and above the allowances of £12 per week. Of course as far as meals are concerned, how many are there who believe that the meals are free? There is no doubt that many people believe that the meals are free and there are others who believe that one gets meals at a reduced rate. I shall make no comment about the meals or about the prices which are charged, but the fact is that meals are paid for and substantially paid for. Some people believe that by some small manipulation we can get free cigarettes and some others believe that so far as the bar is concerned, there are reduced rates.

I mention these points not to preach to Deputies but to try to bring home to the public that Deputies, as the Minister said, are not half as well off as some of the people believe they are. Again, the people are amazed when one goes to a post office and pays for postage stamps. They ask: "Do you have to pay for postage stamps? We thought you got them free". We know that in certain circumstances postage costs could be exaggerated. Every Deputy has his own assessment of what he pays during a week for postage but it can come to quite a formidable sum in the week, in the month and in the year to a conscientious Deputy. Mark you, to retain a seat in this House, a Deputy must be conscientious. If he is not conscientious, he may make one or two general elections, but after that he will not succeed.

I do not want to go into details of the expenses with which Deputies are familiar but there are telephone calls to be made. A Deputy may be requested to telephone the Department of Social Welfare from Tralee or Donegal by somebody who says: "I did not get my sickness benefit this week" and the Deputy does so. He may be asked to telephone the Department of Industry and Commerce for a duty-free import licence for somebody or to telephone the Department of Local Government for somebody who says: "I am waiting for a housing grant from them." One might argue that that is not what Deputies were elected for but the fact is that we shall not be allowed to come in here unless we serve the public in that respect. The Minister has referred to what is expected of Deputies in the matter of charitable societies and cultural and sporting organisations. These subscriptions are not provided for by way of expenses; they are expenses that must be paid out of the £12 per week.

I subscribe to what both the Minister and the Leader of the Fine Gael Party said with regard to Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. I do not think anybody will disagree when I say that the compensation they may get by way of salary is anything but excessive, in view of their heavy responsibility and in view of the fact that in some cases their own permanent secretaries have much more than they who are administrators, if you like; more than the Minister who makes the policy decision, presiding in his Department and making decisions as a member of the Government. Chairmen of State companies, men in professions and men on the Bench receive substantially nigher salaries at the present moment than Ministers, than the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, and that should not be allowed to go on for a long time.

I notice that there is provision for an increase for the Attorney General. Not being conversant with the duties of an Attorney General, the detailed duty of an Attorney General, I should like the Minister to say whether or not he considers an Attorney General should be a full-time Attorney General attached to a Government, as Attorney Generals in the past practised in the Courts. I should like to know the reason why that practice has grown up and why it prevails at the present time. I am not objecting to it but it is something on which, as a member of this House, I should like to be clear.

For a long time, suggestions have been made with regard to a pension scheme for members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. This seems to me to be a concrete step towards promoting such a pension scheme—at least, I hope it is. It is true to say that there are dozens or scores of men who have devoted themselves to the service of the public at some personal financial loss to themselves. They have been in this House for 15, 20 or 35 years and some of them for 40 years. At the end of their time, they have either been defeated at elections or have withdrawn from public life, to discover then that they have no profession, nothing which will provide them with a reasonable income. It is our duty as members to provide a pension or provide a pension fund which would do something for these people who served for so long and who, at the end of their time, have very little income on which to live.

I also welcome the increase in the allowances given to the Opposition Parties. It could be regarded as a reasonably generous gesture by the Government in making these allowances available to the main Opposition Parties, with, of course, certain qualifications, so that certain very necessary work can be undertaken by an Opposition through the employment of a secretarial or research staff. Parties in this House, especially the smaller Parties, have been at that tremendous disadvantage for quite a long time. These allowances may enable them to provide this very necessary help by way of secretarial assistance and by way of research clerks and officers.

The Minister covered most of the ground in justification for increases to the bulk of the members of this House, that is, the ordinary Deputies, and I do not propose to continue any longer on that line except to say that without qualification the Labour Party supports the main provisions of this Bill, and trust that from the discussions in this House for the next few hours, or the next few days, the public will learn a little more, not so much about the salaries of the members of this House, but about the duties and responsibilities we have towards the public.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I have only one or two remarks, largely expressive of a purely personal point of view, to make on some of the provisions of this measure. Of course, I follow the general outline of the attitude adopted by he Leader of the Opposition, but there are one or two points to which I think expression should be given. I may say at the outset that if I had any criticism to make of the Bill, it would be a criticism that the increases granted are not adequate, particularly in the case of Ministerial salaries.

We are entitled to congratulate ourselves that we have reached the stage in this country where public opinion has been so educated at last that, not merely is there no criticism of the proposal to increase Ministerial salaries, but there appears to be pretty general approval. That is a matter for congratulation. The time has now come when at least the majority of decent people in the country recognise the responsibilities of Ministers, the sacrifices they have to make and the losses which inevitably ensue on the taking of Ministerial office.

One point I want to make is to express my own personal regret that the Minister has seen fit to abrogate, in this Bill, the distinction between "allowance" and "payment"; in other words, to introduce the idea of payments to Deputies, the idea that it is remuneration of some kind for services rendered. I have always felt, and I still feel, that it is a high privilege for any Irish citizen to be a member of Dáil Éireann and that the approach ought to be that a person who wants to become a member of Dáil Éireann, to attain that great privilege of being an Irishman in an Irish Parliament, should do so in pursuance of a public duty, giving at least a measure of voluntary service.

It would be a pity if this Bill were to lay down a precedent—and I regret to have to disagree with my friend, Deputy Corish, on this matter—or a principle, of payment for services rendered. I should hate to see this Dáil composed of a majority of professional politicians. I realise that there are very few people in this country who are able to give sufficient time from their business, and from their duty of earning their living, to the exacting tasks that fall upon any Deputy, in the discharge of his public duty as a Deputy.

There are few people privileged to have sufficient leisure to devote their full time to service in this Parliament. There are some—particularly Deputies of the Labour Party—whose circumstances demand that they give their full time and that Parliamentary service should really be their career, but these are the exceptional people. I think it ought to be the object of this Parliament to see that the professional politician is the exception in this House.

Of course, if the principle I am appealing for is accepted, it necessarily involves giving increased allowances— whether you call it payment, remuneration or anything else—to every Deputy who comes here and has to earn his living by giving a whole-time service. He must be given a sufficient allowance to compensate him for having to give full-time service here. There are numbers of people in this country who would like to devote some of their time, perhaps a considerable amount of their time, away from their business or their profession or their various avocations, but who cannot do so because the sacrifice is too great. They would be willing to give some public service of a voluntary nature and they should be given an adequate allowance to compensate for loss of their time, loss of income, disruption of business. The allowance should be given to meet the situation where people of experience, of character, of a particular type of mentality, with equipment and training, would come to this House and give of their experience and their service here in the very exacting duties required by a modern Parliament.

I agree with the Minister that the situation in modern times in a democratic Parliament is such as almost to demand full-time service from everybody, but you will not get the type of people who will be useful in this House to come in here and make the necessary sacrifices, unless it is recognised that they are wanted here. If they are wanted, and if it is recognised that they are making the sacrifice of disruption of their business or loss of income, an allowance should be made —not a payment but an allowance.

I regret that the Minister seemed to accept the idea that it was in the old times that there was no element of payment for service given. I should like to see that continue. I do not care what the allowance is. I should be prepared to sponsor here an increased allowance of a substantial character, provided that principle was adhered to. We should not come here as professional politicians. Some people must be professional politicians and are valuable in that capacity, but the general body of this House should be composed of people who leave their offices, their professions or their businesses, people of all classes, professors from the Universities, economists or any other people you like, and come here to give a specialised contribution to the debates in this House and to the solution of the very complex problems which fall for discussion and for solution in the course of Parliamentary duties.

I should like to direct the Minister's attention to the fact that the principle I am advocating appears to be embodied in the Constitution. The idea of an allowance was one which the Constitution required to be carried into effect by legislation. I do not want to give a lecture on constitutional law—far from it—but I should like the Minister to direct his attention in pursuance of the principle for which I am appealing to the clauses of the Constitution to which I shall now refer. I do not advocate the question of non-payment of tax or anything else. That is a matter which can be adjusted one way or another, but if the Minister will look at Article 15 of the Constitution, he will see that it provides that the Oireachtas shall make provision for the payment of allowances to the members of each House. In the Article of the Constitution which deals with the payment of Ministers' salaries, the word used is "remuneration" and in Article 35, dealing with the salaries of judges, the word "remuneration" is used. So the Constitution, when it provides for what Deputies are to get, speaks of "allowances" and when it provides what Ministers and Judges are to get by way of payment, speaks of "remuneration". There is a very clear distinction between "allowance" and "remuneration" and if, as the Leader of the Opposition said, this Bill turns its back upon the distinction between "allowance" and "payment", then, I think it is going very largely in the teeth of the provisions of the Constitution.

I mention this because I feel very deeply on the subject of Parliament containing nothing but professional politicians. I think that would be bad for the national interest. It would keep out of Parliament many persons whose presence would be of great value. I emphasise again that I fully appreciate the desirability of having some whole-time members, if men of the proper calibre can be got, and if the people want them, but I think it is better that there should be people from all classes of life who would come in here with their experience and their knowledge of life in their particular avocations, farmers, businessmen, traders, professional men or any such men. They could come in and give some voluntary service and, being compensated for that voluntary service to the people through the Dáil in pursuance of a public duty, the country will get far better service than it would get by a Parliament composed largely of paid professional politicians.

Mr. Sherwin

Let me make clear that I did not see Deputy J.A. Costello stand up or I would immediately have given way. Deputy J.A. Costello raises a question as to whether the House ought to be composed of professional or just part-time politicians. That is a difficult question to answer. I looked up Hansard to read the debate on the introduction of allowances for Members of Parliament by Lloyd George in 1911. He put his finger on the issue when he said, in effect, that in the past hundred years they had dummy politicians and divisions because only a handful of people did the work. He pointed out that times were changing and that there was a demand from democracy. He said the work had become more voluminous and that the job was whole-time. I recall Mr. Lloyd George's speech in reference to the point raised by Deputy J.A. Costello that this is a whole-time job. For representatives living in their constituency, it is a morning to night job. By reason of the amount of legislation and the many divisions, it is necessary always to be here. It would be a poor Dáil if members dropped in only now and again. How could we carry on business in such circumstances?

To a large extent, membership of this House is and will be a professional job. With regard to salaries or allowances—call them what you will— naturally, it is unpopular to raise one's own salary. That is why some other body should have the responsibility. Nevertheless, we constitute the House and we make the law. I criticise politicians a lot but nobody makes money out of politics. People are in it for the love of it or because they have got the bug. It is not just a question of the money.

I am quite satisfied that if the active members—the professionals, if you like to call them that—were to give their whole time to their own business they would be better off. I know that in dozens of cases people have ruined themselves by being members of this House. They neglected their business. They spent so much time on their constituents and perhaps indulged in more drink than they ought, merely because they were members of the Oireachtas, that they brought themselves to financial ruin and in some cases bankrupted themselves. That is a fact.

If a person takes a drink he will do so in his own time and he will take what he can afford. If he is a member of the Dáil or Seanad and takes a drink, the trouble is that he meets so many people in so many unexpected places that, whether or not he wants to drink, he is obliged to do so and he is obliged to spend money.

Mr. O'Donnell

He does the spending here.

Mr. Sherwin

Advantage is taken of him. People think that because he is a member of the Oireachtas he is made of money. A woman said to me a short time ago: "And with that terrible amount of money that you have." It must be remembered that a fair amount of this allowance goes on entertainment. It is not that the members want a good time. The trouble is that they are invited here and there and if they want to have a drink it involves them in the expenditure of money. No matter how tight a member of the Oireachtas may be, he finds himself out of pocket. He finds himself out of pounds per week and sometimes per day. These are matters that the man in the street does not understand.

The ordinary person thinks that when we get the £12 10s. we can go out and have a good time buying porter with whatever is left over after we give a few pounds to the wife. They think of the amount of porter they could buy if they had that money. They seem to forget that a member's money is not his own. They seem to forget that money is expected from him. It is either a "touch" or a drink or he is invited here and there. He must meet travelling expenses. If there is a raffle, he is expected to give at least £1. All that is involved in being a member of the Oireachtas.

Some members are a bit lucky. While I am making the point that there is no money in politics and that people are in it for the love of it, nevertheless, some members are a bit lucky. I am in politics for the love of it. I was a fairly well-to-do fellow a few years back before I seriously touched politics. I can assure you that I went into a library yesterday and when the girl told me there was a penny due on a book I had not a penny to give her. That is the truth. For the last 10 days of any month I have not a penny to spend. I have a business on which I make a little on the quiet but it is very little.

I am trying to bring home to the House that I am certainly not in politics for the money. I did very good business one time and was independent, and the important thing was that it was my own money. When I was not in politics, if I had £12 in my pocket it was my own money. If I did not want to give something to a fellow I did not have to do so. Thanks be to God I do not drink or I would not be a member of this House because I simply could not afford it.

I sympathise with members of the Oireachtas because, no matter where they go, they are liable to be set upon and frequently have to hand out money. Every Deputy fears that if he offends somebody it will mean a bad word for him at the next general election. Therefore, he is subject to a form of persistent blackmail which the ordinary person does not experience. The ordinary person can refuse to give a fellow a drink. He could not care less. Members of the Oireachtas are in a different position.

I said earlier that some members are fortunate. They may have a job or a business. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that if they neglect their business they will ruin themselves. There are some very unfortunate people who, when they are elected to this House, have to give up their jobs. That class are actually paupers. I mean it. Consider a tradesman or a carpenter. Take the former Deputy Murphy's case. He was a carpenter. He could not continue in employment and carry out his duties as a T.D. at the same time. What had he? He had £12 10s. a week, 30/- of which he paid out in the form of differential rent. That left him with £11. He had to give £1 of that to the crowd who put him in. He gave his wife £8 and he had a miserable £2 for himself. He had to dress himself and his children. The day before he resigned he said his heart was broken because people were expecting money when he had not got it. He said he would be better off on the dole. If he got only £2 on the dole, he could call it his own and nobody would expect anything from him.

It was not that he was disappointed in the House. Perhaps he was; we are all disappointed but we fight just the same; it was because the man could not make ends meet. The man was in debt. He told me that he had not a penny and had to hide from his constituents. These are the people in whom I am interested. I want to see poor people, labourers and tradesmen, if they have the ability and the interest, in a position to come in here and do their duty.

Some of the people who cry, moan and begrudge are poor themselves. These poor people seem to forget that in complaining about this alleged increase in salaries they are complaining against their own kind. They are actually trying to keep their own kind out of Parliament—the very people who would fight for them. They adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude. That is why I say the Bill would help Deputies to come in here who would fight for these people and be in a position to make ends meet at least. That is all the increase will do.

I am satisfied, judging from the terms of the Bill, that the increase will help only a small number. Actually, those who pay surtax will lose. The bulk of the members will get little or nothing. This is a poor man's Bill. It is a measure that will give the representatives of the people who are moaning a chance to come here and be able to stay here.

I welcome the Bill. There is no increase really involved. As Lloyd George put it, this is a demand from democracy. It will help people to come in here who otherwise could not come in. Although I am here, I do not drink, I do not smoke, I own no car. I have nothing except a hair shirt. Only that I have a hair shirt I would not be here. It is not right to expect people to wear a hair shirt. I welcome the Bill thinking solely of the people in need and those who should represent them. I want to enable those people to come in here and that is what the Bill does. It gives them a chance to come in and stay here.

Dr. Browne

It would be wrong to allow a Bill of this kind to go through the House without comment. I support the Bill. I think there is a question of principle involved. It was mentioned by other speakers. The principle, of course, is the right of every individual in society to come into the House without finding it financially impossible to carry out his duties having regard to the hardship it could impose on himself or his family.

There can be no doubt in regard to the case made by the Minister and particularly by Deputy Corish. Both emphasised the difficulties of Deputies and particularly of Deputies who become Ministers. They emphasised particularly the case of rural Deputies having regard to the expenses they have to bear, the hotel expenses they have to pay and the meals they have to take once they come to the Dáil.

I was particularly interested in the point made by Deputy J.A. Costello. He felt that we should not accept salaries; that we should continue to accept allowances. He spoke about the desirability of retaining our status as part-time politicians. I do not think he developed that case as fully as he might have done. I was not very convinced by the arguments put forward. If the members of the public were here at the moment and able to answer us, I think it would be suggested that one of the reasons we have over the past 40 years been such an unqualified failure in most of the great things we tried to do—and I am not excepting myself in so far as I had any responsibility for failure—is that we did not have full-time instead of part-time politicians. We might have done a better job in that way.

Again, he seemed to feel that there was something undesirable about taking salaries as opposed to allowances. I think this whole business of the name of the money one takes for doing a job, whether it is an allowance, remuneration, salary or wages, is a class label which is of no significance. Certainly, it is of no significance to me. As a Deputy, I do not think I particularly mind what it is called.

The whole matter of the part-time politician is a very important one. In the light of the evolution of modern political activities, it is quite conceivable that it is not possible to be a part-time politician. I think a case could be made for a fulltime politician. Anybody who gives any serious study to the legislation put before us from time to time must accept that, when you try to master the intricacies of finance one day, agriculture another day, local government the next and education on still another day, together with the extraordinary advance in the complexity of the questions one has to consider, it is debatable whether the old democratic idea we have established here, with discussions in the Dáil and our attempts to debate legislation to the best of our ability, is an efficient or effective instrument at all.

The Leader of the Opposition spoke. The Leader of the next biggest Party rightly felt that he should have at his disposal trained personnel as an advisory secretariat to assist in the assessment of the merits of the different propositions put forward by one Government or another. That emphasised the fact that the problems we have to consider now are much more complicated and difficult than they ever were in the past. Looking around Europe, it is debatable whether these Parliamentary institutions are as effective as we would like them to be. Greater consideration will have to be given to the question of the secretariat made available to Deputies.

There is no doubt at the moment that the idea of Deputies contributing usefully to debate when different subjects are considered here from time to time is a dream, a fiction. The only worthwhile contribution comes from the front Benches—and I do not wish to be offensive in saying that because I happen to be a backbencher myself. It is only from the Front Benches and the Government side that the worthwhile contribution can come because they have the advantage of the Civil Service and the secretariat or individual Deputies who tend to interest themselves in particular issues or have associations with past Governments. The most useful contribution comes from a very tiny minority, so that one ends up, it seems to me, not with a Party or a Government or a Dáil in the democratic sense and government comes not really from the mass of the people in Parliament but from a minority in the Government and the Opposition, through the Government and thereafter to the people. One does not in fact have debates here, according to the theory of democratic government. The policies and points of view put forward here are really policies and points of view of minorities of Parliament and one does not get, in fact, Government by the people just because 140 or 150 Deputies are elected from the country as a whole.

Deputy Costello, I think, raised a very important question in discussing the part-time idea. I have an open mind on the matter but I should like to hear any observations the Minister may have to offer in regard to it. But if we take Parliament and consider its effectiveness over the past 40 years, most of us will see that it leaves a lot to be desired in the results achieved in those years. I have spoken on this subject because I think one must realise that there may be quite a good deal of public opposition to these increases. Most people who go looking for increases in salary, pay, wages or emoluments—"a rose by any other name..."—approach their employers —the public, in our case—with a record of success or satisfactory service. I do not think we can do that and for that reason it would not surprise me if the public wondered why we seek these increases. At the same time, there is a matter of principle involved. I think the fact that the former Deputy Murphy was unfortunately not able to continue in public life provides its own comment. It is very important that that should not happen again, that any individual must feel that because of financial considerations, he cannot take up a public career if he wants to do so and carry out his duties to the best of his ability.

I completely approve of the suggestion that the salaries should be taxed as income in the ordinary way, as suggested by the Minister. This will weight the advantages of the proposition against the wealthy or fairly well-off Deputy and in favour of the Deputy who is not so well-off. I am in favour of that. I share the view of Deputies who wondered whether Ministerial salaries were adequate. When one hears that heads of State companies get—and many of them deserve—£4,000 or £5,000 a year the disproportion between that salary and the salaries of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries makes it clear that there must be some upward adjustment of Ministerial salaries. I am certainly prepared to support the general principles of the Bill.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I welcome this Bill which is long overdue. I was glad to hear the contribution of the Opposition which shows that they have come out from under the umbrella of hypocrisy and are about to face realities. No Deputy wants to get anything out of this House but his expenses. I have reckoned what I have paid in postage, telephone calls and telegrams in the 16 years I have been in the Dáil and it is almost £3,000——

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Deputy will pay more from now on.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It has been alleged that we are free of income tax but those items alone have cost me about £200 a year. Let each Deputy speak for himself. I can prove my figures. If that is not income tax, the State is getting a contribution of £200 a year from the allegedly large salary of £12 a week I have.

We must be honest with ourselves and we must try to make it possible for a man who has no sideline to come to this House. Deputy Dr. Browne spoke of making it a full-time job but if you did that and prevented a Deputy from doing anything else, deprived him of entry into any private business, then you should give him at least a couple of thousand pounds a year. He would need a full secretarial staff. While the public, or perhaps a section of them, may criticise Deputies for giving themselves increases, it must be remembered that we had the experience of a Deputy coming here who was unemployed and who had to leave the House again—the former Deputy Murphy. Other Deputies had good businesses when they came into the House. Where are they now? Some of them have been defeated; some lost their businesses and some are now very poor men. We also had experience of Deputies losing their professional incomes in various walks of life. When they finished here, they could get nothing. I know a former Deputy living in my constituency who was on home assistance. I knew another Deputy who after 27 years in the House was drawing the old age pension.

Provided we are serving the public honestly and doing our best and are honourable in our dealings with the people, I do not see why they should begrudge us our allowance, which is all we want to cover our out-of-pocket expenses as Deputies. I am in total agreement with some of the speeches made on the other side of the House regarding allowances. This Bill will benefit the man who has nothing; the man who has anything will lose, or will get very little out of it because it means that everything under this Bill will be taxed. If you have any income, all this Bill means is that you will get a lesser allowance from the Dáil. We have reached the turning point. Are we to have a salary or an allowance? I shall be very dogmatic on this. If we are to have a salary, let us have a bigger salary; if we are to have an allowance, let us have an allowance increased according to the cost of living. We are not looking for any back money as other workers did. If we did so, we would be entitled to a good deal.

These are matters about which we should be very honest with one another and about which we should speak our minds in regard to what we feel is right or wrong. I am a Dublin Deputy, but I have bought five cars in 16 years, and I could buy only second-hand cars. Some weeks, my entertainment allowance is very high and other weeks, it is moderate. A Deputy is expected to attend all charitable functions, and I reckon my contribution to small charities and attending functions, at approximately £50 or £60 a year. Of course, I should like to give a good deal more. If one were to keep an account of all these things, of what it costs when a poor man or woman comes to one's door and says he or she is unemployed, one would require a private secretary.

I believe there was a certain amount of hypocrisy and that Deputies were asked to do things they were not in a position to do. Why should a Deputy not be independent? Why should any Deputy be placed in the position of having to ask for a loan of money or seek an overdraft in his bank? Why should a man have to pull out of his own business? I am living out of my own business; otherwise, I should not be here. All we are asking is that a Deputy should be allowed to act the part of a gentleman and not have to carry out his duties owing money here and there. Is there any Deputy who can tell me that his personal expenses going around his constituents at election time are not £200 or £300, even if he bought them only a bottle of milk?

Mr. Coogan

Milk has gone up now, too.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We are told the Party does everything for you, but you have to do a lot of it yourself. God help any Deputy who has to depend on his Dáil allowance.

It is time the Ministers got an increase. It was ridiculous to see a Minister drawing a lesser salary than the Secretary of his Department. It was a most invidious position. It showed how we carried on just because the public might say something about it if we objected. I believe the decent members of the public would prefer to see us stand up, tell the truth and face the position rather than carry on the hypocrisy of saying: "I shall vote against this increased allowance." The increase the Ministers are getting is not sufficient. The Taoiseach and the Ministers have to meet foreign and other representatives and their expenses are very high. I do not think the allowance is sufficient to enable them to carry out their duties in the way I should like to see them carried out.

I want to welcome also the provision made in the Bill for contributory pensions for Deputies. That is something which is long overdue. I believe that no man who was a member of this House for a considerable time should become a pauper, if defeated. I welcome that provision and congratulate the Minister on introducing it. For once in my life, I find myself in agreement with Deputy J.A. Costello and I feel that, in conscience, I must support the points he made this evening in regard to the allowances and the constitutional position.

Mr. Manley

What I feel about this Bill is that it is a complete departure from the traditions we have had in this House in the past 38 years. The moment the word "salary" is mentioned, one associates it right away with commercialism and the tendency under this Bill is to commercialise public life. I fear that mention of the word "salary" for Deputies takes away the dignity that was associated with this House over the years. I readily assent to the fact that no Deputy depending on the allowance alone could survive here. It is a wonder to me how they could survive unless they had some alternative means of livelihood—many have, of course.

For the first time, we are changing from an allowance to a salary. I think that is contrary to all the national conception of those people who in various times in the past came together and gave of their service voluntarily to try to get freedom for this country, particularly the men of our own time, the men of 1916 and onwards. They never thought of self or of salary. They never had any idea of any material gain whatever. For that reason, I think the word "allowance" should have been preserved. Deputy J.A. Costello this evening pointed out the differentiation between remuneration and salary in certain categories of servants in this State. That is a point the Minister should bear in mind.

With regard to Ministerial salaries, I wholeheartedly contend that the salary of a Minister was far too small. Not alone is it a full-time job but it is a whole 24-hour day job, and nobody but a Minister can have any idea of the exacting nature of a Minister's duties in this State. In addition, it was entirely incongruous that Ministers in charge of and responsible for Departments should receive a lesser payment than the Secretaries of those Departments. On the other hand, the Minister had a free car and a free driver. With regard to these free cars and free drivers, I believe they have created a very erroneous and false impression in the public mind. I cannot see in our community to-day why we should maintain an institution of that kind. I do not mind what you pay a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary in lieu of the car but I can see no reason for the maintenance of these cars in present circumstances. In the early days of this State, there were no such things as Ministerial cars. That was a later innovation.

Under this Bill, the opportunity now arises of paying Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries and removing the need for the provision of a State car. so that the officers who drive them, who are servants of the State, will not be taken away from their ordinary avocations. Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries should be made sufficiently independent financially to purchase their own cars and employ their own drivers. That would be a very worthwhile departure, a departure in keeping with our traditions and our circumstances, and a departure which would dissipate the false idea people have that Ministers live in the lap of luxury.

A great deal of work falls on the shoulders of Ministers because of clamour from outside. There is not a hospital, a housing scheme, a dispensary or a school opened but a Minister must be present. Do people realise, when they ask Ministers to attend such functions, that they travel at State expense or that such invitations make inroads on the time Ministers have in which to fulfil their obligations? Unless it is an event of national importance, Ministers should be left to give their full time to their Departments and people should give them some peace of mind and time in which to relax. I sympathise entirely with Ministers in that respect and I think the opportunity is at hand now, when we are dealing with allowances and salaries, of dealing with them in a practical and original way and making Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries independent enough to have their own private means of transport and to employ their own private drivers. In that connection, I would not mind what a Minister got under this Bill.

This Bill may tend towards commercialising public life and it may, as other Deputies said, introduce the full-time politician. That would be a pity and the very fact that the word "salary" is being applied will, I think, tend in that direction. If we are to commercialise public life in that way, it is better we have all full-time politicians, but I think that would be disastrous and entirely wrong because we get a better cross-section of representatives under the present system and nothing which would change it should be encouraged.

With regard to Deputies' allowances, as I said, I cannot understand how Deputies were able to survive on them. It is no harm to say that there is no comparison whatever between Deputies who have to make long journeys from their homes to attend sittings of the House and travel back at night again and Deputies resident in Dublin. There is no comparison between their expenses, though I should be the last to cause any division between rural and urban Deputies or between rural and city Deputies. Nevertheless, that fact is there and I think it is a point which should be considered.

One would have thought that the extra finance involved in this Bill would have been secured by certain economies in this House. There is no doubt that there is a lot of time wasted in the House. Every hour the House sits means more money and means a greater impact on the Exchequer. Every Deputy knows though, quite obviously it is very unpopular to say so, that, parliamentarily speaking, we are the most over-represented country in the world to-day and I think that with a little goodwill, a little commonsense and a little realism we could arrive at a decision to reduce the number of Deputies to the point——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid that does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Manley

It would be more in keeping with our circumstances and more in accordance with our economy in general. When I first heard of this Bill, I did not like it. Deputy P.J. Burke spoke about hypocrisy but I think there was no hypocrisy on our part when we were first given the Bill. I think the circumstances were not opportune, but, as Deputy Dillon explained, there were Deputies who would have to leave this House if something were not done in order to recoup their expenses and I think that influenced us to support the Bill. Personally, it does not make much difference to me, because, with the help of God, I shall not be coming back here and I think that to people in the same category as myself it does not make any difference because we will pay the extra amount in income tax. However, I would appeal to the Minister to keep to allowances at all costs and not to change the concept we have had over the years, because, as I said, it will take from the dignity associated with representation in this House.

We have to think of the First Dáil. We have to think of the men who made the First Dáil and of how little they thought of any material gain, or salary of any kind. For that reason, and that reason alone, I think we should fall back on the concept that an allowance is the proper appellation for anything a Deputy gets here.

Mr. Russell

I welcome the principle behind the Bill. We must have regard to the fact that we are living in very different times from those when the Conservative Party in England, or a section of it, very strongly opposed the payment of allowances to M.P.s. If we are to get what all of us would like to see, a Dáil representative of the country as a whole, we must feel the time has come when we must pay a salary, or an allowance, at least adequate to ensure that a citizen of the humblest origin can take his place in the national Parliament, provided he has the requisite talents to do so.

Some criticism has been made of the Dáil and of what it has failed to do over the past 40 years, but, when we listen to criticisms of that kind, we should recall that we are all here because the people put us here. Bad as we are and bad as our predecessors were, apparently we are at least sufficiently appreciated by enough of the electorate to secure our election at successive general elections. I do not take the view that public representatives, either in central government or local government, are as bad as they are generally painted. Having regard to what they have to put up with from time to time, it often amazes me that the standard of integrity in public life is as high as it is and I speak from my 18 or 20 years' experience of public life, not in this House but outside it, in local government.

As Deputy P.J. Burke pointed out, this is a golden opportunity to indulge in some hypocrisy at the expense of the Government, though I think they are to be congratulated on introducing the Bill. It is by no means perfect and there have been certain valid criticisms levelled at it, but, at least, it does ensure that some cognisance is had of the fact that over the past 13 years, there have been changes which called for a revision of the allowances or salaries which Deputies get. Act a basic minimum a Deputy should get a salary sufficient to ensure that he will not be at a loss if he wishes to pursue a public career, though I do not think the salary should be big enough to entice the type of person into this House who wants to make something out of this public career, and I do not think the changes envisaged in this Bill will ensure that that type of person will find his way into the House.

I have an open mind as to whether a Deputy should be a part-time or a whole-time politician. The changes envisaged in the Bill will not make any substantial difference to the fact that the majority of Deputies are part-time politicians. Most of them have other professions and avocations outside the House. That, I think, will continue to be the position even with the proposed alteration in the allowances now. By and large, that is a good thing because I, for one, should not like to see a House constituted of 147 professional politicians. I do not wish to be misunderstood when I say that; far less should I like to see a House constituted of 147 wealthy men who would take up politics merely as a kind of hobby and who would do very little for the country as a whole. As I said earlier, the ideal is that the Dáil should be fairly representative of the body politic. By and large, over the years, we have achieved that here.

I should like to add my voice in support of those Deputies who have spoken in favour of the increases in Ministers' salaries. It is vitally necessary, whatever may be said for the individual Deputy, that we should encourage men of the requisite calibre into public life so that they may in due course take up Ministerial positions. I feel far more strongly about the increase in Ministers' salaries for that reason than I do about the increase in Deputies' allowances. I consider the increases set out in the Bill only barely adequate. So strongly do I feel on the point that I would be prepared to support far higher increases. In all aspects of our life, even outside the Dáil altogether, it will be a very poor look-out for the country if we are not prepared to pay the best men. It is only fitting that the example should be set here in the national Parliament.

There are mixed opinions as to whether our emoluments should take the form of allowances or salaries. Again, I have an open mind on that. I do not think it matters much what one calls them. Over the years there has been criticism in certain sections of the Press because the allowances paid have been free from income tax. Those who levelled that criticism failed to appreciate the high level of expenses incurred by the average Deputy, expenses which he cannot publicise, for obvious reasons, in his own defence. It might have been a solution if the Minister had made part of the emoluments tax free as legitimate expenses and subjected the remainder to tax. That might have been an easier way out. If legitimate expenses can be charged against the salary of £1,000 a year, it might have been simpler to decide on a tax-free £300 or £400 per year for expenses and make the remainder subject to tax. That would ensure that the Deputy who is not obliged to pay income tax would get the full value of the £1,000 and the Deputy then subject to income tax or surtax would bear the brunt of any increased taxation that might arise.

With regard to the allowances payable to the Leader of the Opposition, I should prefer if that were paid as allowances to the Opposition Party, or Parties. I do not think the figure is adequate. I think it should be increased. It should be such a figure as would enable the main Opposition Party to maintain an adequate secretarial staff and whatever other assistance is necessary for up-to-date operation. I do not think the figure in the Bill, something a little over £2,000 a year, is adequate. It is important that we should do all we can to maintain a healthy Opposition—either one Party or a group of Parties—which would be fully conversant with all aspects of our political economy and have every possible assistance to equip them to step into Governmental shoes should the electorate decide on a change.

I agree with the principle of the Bill. The proposed increase means nothing to me personally. I shall probably lose rather than gain. It does, however, provide some opportunity for the man with a family, who is not subject to income tax, and whose normal way of living may suffer severely because of his compulsory attendance here and because of the nature of his duties as a T.D. outside the House; indeed, these duties take up more of his time than does his actual attendance in the Dáil.

There is a certain feeling abroad that those who come in here and who already are established in business or a profession can well afford to play their part in public life. I should like to comment on that. The professional man can lose very substantially over a period of years because of neglect of his profession. That argument applies equally to the businessman and to the worker, whether skilled or unskilled. The mere fact of being away from one's profession or calling must of necessity have a very adverse effect on one's position in that calling or profession. That is another argument for ensuring that the damage done should be as slight as possible so that when the time comes and the public grow tired of any of us, rendering it necessary for us to return to our normal avocations as whole-time avocations, the adverse effect of our absence in political spheres will be offset to some degree.

Mr. Corry

Whilst I welcome this long delayed increase, I must admit that the commercialising of the position of a Dáil Deputy fills me with nothing but nausea. I can take my mind back a very long time. I can go back to the time when I first joined the Volunteers in 1914. I can travel from that to the time of my last spell in jail in 1926. In all those years, my services to the nation were given free. Any expenses I had to bear were met out of my own pocket. The only return I ever saw were free lodgings from time to time and an odd bit of starvation.

I remember in 1924 when my comrades came and said to me: "We want you to go into the County Council." I asked them: "What the dickens have I done out of the way that you want to make a danged old politician out of me at the end of my days?". I had the utmost contempt for politics. However, I went into the County Council in 1924. I spent a great deal of time there up to the last few years. One went in there at one's own expense too. I came up to this House 33 years ago and when I came in here first the allowance was £360 a year. Compare that with the civil servant who was getting £360 then. What is he getting today? That will give you a fair comparison.

Up to now payments to Deputies were by way of allowance to meet expenses. I can honestly say that over the last seven or eight years the allowance I received has in no way covered the expenses in which I have been involved. Now part of the moneys paid are to be by way of salary. I suggest to the Minister that he ties that part to the comparable Civil Service salary and that, like the civil servant, we get an increase each time the cost of living goes up. Had that been done in 1947 we would today be in receipt of an increase amounting to £408 a year. Every two or three years, according as the cost of living increased, civil servants' salaries were increased.

I am wondering how the income tax will be assessed now that Deputies will be liable for income tax. I have contested 14 general elections and the least that any general election cost me was £200. On the average there is an election every three years. Because of the fact that the system of proportional representation has been retained, it is probable that there will be a general election every two years in future. That means that a Deputy must earmark £100 a year out of whatever allowance he gets for election purposes. A Deputy has to fight his corner and that costs about £300, which means £100 a year, for a start. Will I be allowed that amount by the income tax authorities for that purpose? That is the first question.

When I go home on Friday morning I find a letter awaiting me informing me that some people interested in a drainage scheme around Youghal would like to see me on Friday night. Will I be allowed my car expenses for the journey there and back? Most Deputies have to undertake such duties every week. Will I be allowed my expenses for entertaining? When one visits, one has to do some entertaining; one is not entertained.

The expenses of a rural Deputy are about £400 a year more than the expenses of a Dublin City Deputy and at least £200 a year greater than any city Deputy. I expected that when changes would be introduced regard would be had to these matters and that provision would be made for subsistence allowances for Deputies who would have to be away from home for two or three days. A Dublin Deputy can attend to his business all day, dine at home and return to his own home to sleep. The positions of rural Deputies and city Deputies are entirely different. I should like to know how the income tax authorities will deal with these cases.

I have kept an account of my expenses as a Deputy and as a local representative. They are between £300 and £400 a year more than I am getting. There are Deputies who came into this House in 1927 to do a job, to finish a job that we had started. We have gone a long way since and I hate to think that at the end of our days our position will be commercialised and we are to become salaried officials. That should not be. I have studied this matter. I have considered the allowances made to Opposition Parties. The principle may be right but there was an Opposition Party in this House from 1927 to 1932 that did its job and did it well; there will never be an Opposition again that will do the work that they did and they had no allowance such as is given to the second largest, third largest or fourth largest Party. We came in here to do a job and we did it and there was no question of an allowance at that period.

We all know what the position of Deputies is. I shall put it frankly in this way: about 30 per cent. of my time is spent chasing around Departments trying to correct mistakes made by civil servants. Another large portion of my time is taken up trying to correct blunders made by gentlemen of the legal profession. I would not care to give instances here but I could give them. A large portion of the time of Deputies, which should be devoted to studying legislation going through the House, is taken up in that way.

Comments are made in the Press that only so many Deputies were present in the House on occasions. Such comments ignore the fact that a Deputy brings a little notebook with him containing a list of jobs that have to be done in various Departments, such as inquiring why a grant has been withheld for six or nine months, and so on. Such tasks are common to Deputies of all Parties. I had to call about 35 times to the Department of Agriculture in one six months, when Deputy Dillon was Minister, to correct blunders made by him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must keep to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Corry

I am giving instances of how Deputies spend their time.

Mr. Dillon

I understand that they would not let him in at all when his own Minister was in charge. The Deputy was never thrown out while I was there.

Mr. Corry

These are the ordinary, every day jobs a Deputy gets to do. There is no use in referring to them as part-time politicians. Any Deputy who wants to do his duty towards his constituents has a wholetime job and has, not an eight-hour day, but a fifteen or twenty-hour day, because he must also be a member of a local authority.

Mr. O'Sullivan

He should not be.

Mr. Corry

If he were not a member of a local authority and if he wished to stay here, he, like Deputy O'Sullivan, might perhaps, be out after the next election.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be wandering from the Bill before the House.

Mr. Corry

I am dealing with the duties of Deputies and I am not wandering in that respect. I am giving instances of the time Deputies have to devote to their work as against the comments that have been made about part-time politicians.

Another matter with which I should like to deal is the pension scheme for Deputies. I am wondering what is the position in regard to this pension scheme. I have 33 years' service here. Am I entitled, when this scheme goes through, to receive a pension and continue to be a representative here? I take it this pension is payable only when a Deputy ceases to be a Member of the House. I wish in that respect to call attention to Section 15 of the Bill which provides for pensions, pensions which apparently can be drawn by ex-Ministers and ex-Parliamentary Secretaries while they continue to be Members. That is wrong because I think sufficient allowance has been made here for them. If it has not been made already, it should be made by way of salary. I abhor the idea of a Deputy coming in here and becoming a Minister, perhaps, the day he comes in, having in some cases to sell out the Party to which he belongs in order to become a Minister——

Mr. O'Sullivan

There are some who never become Ministers.

Mr. Corry

——and then, when he is thrown out of this House after three years, being entitled to a pension of £300 a year for life. That is ridiculous. I have in mind one Deputy who was here about 22 years ago. He was here for three years and has drawn over £5,000 in pension since. It should be possible to prepare legislation which would not lead to such a ridiculous situation. I can see no justification whatever for the payment of pensions to men still in this House as Deputies. A pension is usually payable when a man leaves a position and it is not right that that distinction should again be made as between the ordinary Deputy serving here and the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary. Taking into consideration the allowances in respect of the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench and the pensions the Government side get when they move across the House, they are as well off on one side of the House at the other.

These are matters which should be dealt with now that an opportunity has arisen of reviewing the whole matter. I hope we shall have an opportunity on the Committee Stage of dealing with the many other provisions in the Bill which I believe are wrong.

Mr. Blowick

I agree with those Deputies who support the provisions in the Bill making Deputies' salaries subject to income tax. We in this House have the privilege of voting ourselves whatever allowance we wish to give. A majority in this House could vote £20,000 a year to its members, if it so wished. Therefore I do not think it right to place ourselves in a different category from that of any other person who is in receipt of public or private money in the State. I think the same applies to the Seanad. It is only right that money received in this way should be subject to income tax; otherwise we create the impression in the mind of the people that we are using our privilege as Deputies to feather our own nests. If the people get that impression it is very hard to blame them.

Many Deputies have spoken on the question of this so-called increase in salary. I should like to place it in its true light. Up to now Deputies have been in receipt of an allowance of £624 a year. Henceforth it will not be an allowance; a salary of £1,000 will be paid to each Deputy. However, it means that out of the increase of £376 the Revenue Commissioners will be taking back £350 from the £1,000 at 7/- in the £, so that the net increase for some Deputies will be £26. Those who are already paying income tax will actually lose instead of gaining.

There are, apparently, some Deputies—and it has come to my knowledge only since this debate began— who cannot make ends meet because they have a large family and no other income from land, a business or a profession. If it is the case that a Deputy with a large young family is in difficult circumstances, I do not grudge him the increase to which he is entitled under this Bill. I think we should look at the whole of the Bill, exactly as it stands, and realise that it will not mean an increase for the great majority of Deputies. It will be an increase of £26 a year. That is what it boils down to, and it is only right that the public should know that.

I suppose in every constituency there are a few grumblers who are always ready to tear everybody to pieces, let it be the T.D., the county councillor, the clergyman, or the judge on the bench. There are always a few ready to dismember others and they seem to thrive on that kind of thing. However, they are not in the majority. The majority of the people are decent and understanding and know quite well what is happening. I do not think there should be any need to make a parade of all the work we do for those who elect us. I, for one, and I am sure this applies to all Deputies, get a great kick out of winning some case—perhaps a borderline case—or getting some work done quickly, for a constituent who has no means of doing it himself. I think that is payment in itself.

Over 12 months ago we had the rather shabby spectacle of a member of this House not alone having to resign but having to emigrate. That is something I should not like to see happening. When the people elect a man, that man should be in a position to stay here and represent the people. Economic circumstances should not force him to leave. On the other hand, I should not like to see a situation arising in which only an aristocratic class could come in here because I do not believe that if the people elected a Dáil full of aristocrats, we would have a good House. We would not have a good chairman. First of all, they would regard themselves as being superior to the people who elected them. They would sit down and do nothing. They would be of a class that the ordinary man could not approach to make representations for some little thing he wanted.

For that reason, I should not like to see the Dáil commercialised by the payment of too high a salary. Due to the condition in which agriculture is at the present time, if the Minister were proposing an increase of £376 free of income tax, which would be a net increase, I would oppose the Bill. I may as well say straight out that if he were proposing to give an increase of £376, I would feel bound to oppose it until better times dawned for the country. Last week, on the Vote on Account, the Taoiseach promised that the Government were considering doing something for the farmers. That has not been done yet and many farmers are in a pretty bad state. The reasons I am not opposing the Bill are, first, it is doing something which should have been done a long time ago to make Deputies' allowances subject to income tax, and secondly, it does not mean any increase for the great majority of Deputies. As a matter of fact, speaking for myself, I shall have exactly the same as before and not one penny increase, but if it meant a £376 increase, I should feel bound to vote against it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The point that arises on this Bill, in my opinion is its timing. I have no fault to find with the contents of the Bill. I am rather in agreement with the majority of its provisions, but whether or not this is the right time to introduce a Bill of this kind is another consideration, bearing in mind, so far as the economy of the country is concerned, that we have now passed the stage of the seventh round of increases. Whether a trend of that kind is in the best interests of the economy of the country in general is a question which should be examined and considered. I wonder will the passage of this Bill lead us to the beginning of the eighth round of general wage increases throughout the country?

I feel that a Bill of this kind should have been introduced a long time ago, but while the increases are warranted and while a case can be made for them, I wonder if this is the proper time for them. I have often wondered if the people are in a proper state of mind to receive such a Bill and I feel worried about the frame of mind of the community at the present time when agricultural prices are at the lowest, when business is practically at a standstill, when there is mass unemployment and emigration and the general economic framework of the country in a state of collapse.

A Deputy

That is calamity indeed.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

While that position exists, and it cannot be denied that that situation prevails, this House cannot offer any suggestions of a useful or practical kind for providing work for the many thousands in search of it and relieving the very serious agricultural depression which affects the entire community or for giving a fillip to industry or to business. That is why I say that while a case can be made for the terms of this Bill, and Deputies on all sides will agree that the present allowances are insufficient, I should like to direct the attention of the House to the timing of this Bill and the frame of mind of the public for receiving such legislation.

There is no doubt that the duties assigned to Deputies are very great and no one knows that better than the Minister for Finance. But the original intention, and the original obligation on members of Parliament, was to legislate and to legislate rightly and not to be a tuppence-ha'penny messenger for the general public. As a matter of fact, there are some people who would like to have the satisfaction of wiping their feet on Deputies and using them as doormats just because they are public representatives.

A few moments ago, Deputy Corry pointed out that he has to run in and out of the various Departments. His own Party is responsible for building up a state of affairs which turned Deputies from legislators to messengers and penny boys. Deputies were intended to participate in the consideration of suitable legislation and the passing of suitable laws for all our citizens. Now his time is taken completely away from legislating and from examining the merits and demerits, the pros and cons, of the various Bills presented to this House for consideration. He cannot possibly concentrate on them because he must perform his tuppence ha'penny work outside the walls of this House because the Fianna Fáil Party from 1932 on——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that has no relevance to the Bill before the House, which deals with allowances?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I want to point out the duties of Deputies. I want, if possible, to paint a picture of how a Deputy spends his allowance.

Mr. Loughman

The Deputy is a bad painter.

Mr. Moher

He is a dauber.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

His time is devoted to calling on the various Departments because of the system which was built up which led the people to believe they would not get what they were entitled to by law unless they had a T.D. to use his influence and seek it for them. Everyone knows that a person can get an old age pension without the aid or assistance of a T.D. if he conforms with all the rules and regulations and is entitled to a pension. Everyone knows that in the case of an application for a housing grant to which Deputy Corry referred—and this was denied in strong terms by the Minister for Local Government in this House last week—if the applicant completes his form——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be embarking on a new discussion. The matter before the House is the question of allowances to Ministers and Deputies, and the Deputy may not deal in detail with the duties of Deputies.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I was endeavouring to make a case in justification of the increases. Why are these increases proposed? Why has this legislation been introduced? Why is it necessary to increase the allowances? Deputy Corry pointed out the many duties which members of this House have to perform, but the facts are, as I have already indicated, and as everyone knows, that half the jobs we as Deputies get to do could be done by the general public for themselves, and would be as effectively done in so far as the threepence ha'penny trips to Government Departments are concerned. A state of affairs has been built up which led the people to believe that unless they had the aid or assistance of a T.D., they would not get what they were entitled to under the laws of the land.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has said that already. He should not repeat himself.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I think it is worth having such a position on record in this House. In so far as the justification for the increase is concerned, I want to say it is my sincere and honest belief that the people who are most deserving of the increase are Ministers. That may be an extraordinary statement, even to members of the Fianna Fáil Party who may not be familiar with the difficult duties of a Minister of State. Down through the years, our Ministers have been very badly paid for the amount of hard work and the industry and attention demanded of them and the responsibilities they have to carry. This Bill to increase the salaries of Ministers is applying a remedy which is long overdue. We had the state of affairs whereby the Civil Service head of a Department was paid more than his Minister who was responsible for the laying down of the policy of that Department, who was responsible for the execution of Government policy in that Department, who had duties in regard to the presentation of legislation in this House, who had to receive deputations, attend various conferences with the heads of his Department to discuss the running and proceedings of the Department, and attend the long and tedious consultations and conferences that took place outside this House and far from the Cabinet Room.

Deputies on all sides of the House should recognise that the Ministers of this Government, of the previous Government, and of every Government, have been very badly and poorly paid for the amount of work they are obliged to undertake. I am glad an effort is being made to at least bring the salaries of Ministers of State to a level at which they will not be operating in the national interest at a financial loss to themselves. Members of Parliament ought not to be in a position in which they may fall to pressure groups from outside this House in the discharge of their duties. Like judges, they should be independent, and when I say independent, I mean completely independent from financial worries or financial disability of any kind.

One way in which a Deputy might be forcibly driven to do what his conscience would not direct him to do would be if he found himself in any serious financial difficulties in his private life and had to conform with the wishes of those to whom he was under a very serious compliment. It would be most undesirable that a member of Parliament could not freely express his opinions or his views. It is equally important in any democratic State that the member of Parliament who is elected to legislate for the people, to speak for them freely in Parliament, ought not to be in a position of financial embarrassment. If we are to maintain the proper standard—and the standard of this Parliament should set a headline for all free Parliaments in the world—we should see that our Ministers are properly paid and that we ourselves are in a financial position which will enable us to live independently, and without feeling under a compliment or an obligation to anyone outside.

That is why I say that a long and careful debate in this House on the question of allowances for members of Dáil Éireann is long overdue. No member of this House can deny the fact that for a long number of years, Deputies have been labouring under financial difficulties and have been working in their constituencies at a complete loss. It is true to say that there are Deputies who, because of financial difficulties, could not properly and fully discharge their duties in their constituency. Everyone knows that in the times in which we are living money is required for every beck and call.

While I am inclined to agree with the theory that the professional politician should be debarred from this House—I do not think there ever was such a suggestion—the professional politician is a very useful man and side by side with the industrialist, the businessman of private means, he deserved great credit for being elected to the national assembly. I look upon it as no disgrace to be a politician. That is where we have something to hang down our heads in shame for. We are valued by the people on the valuation we put on ourselves. If we have a poor opinion of our own value, we cannot expect the general public to put a higher valuation on us.

To be elected to Parliament and to serve one's constituency in Parliament is one of the finest and greatest of callings, whether one is a businessman with private means, with a very substantial income, or whether one depends entirely and completely on the allowance one receives as a member of the House. I feel that honour is due to the professional politician. He can give first-class service to his constituents and to the Party of which he is a member, so I fail to understand why the professional politician should be in any way decried.

I do not say that because I am practically a whole-time politician myself. I am very proud of the services I have rendered to the people I have had the honour to represent for the past 17 years as a full-time politician. I feel I have devoted and given good service to the people I represent. If I were paid on the same scale as a civil servant or if I were paid on any professional scale, say as a solicitor, for the number of letters I have written or the number of cases I have negotiated successfully, I would be a millionaire today much less a wealthy man.

That is why I say that the professional politician has given good service all round and that the professional politician, devoting his whole time to Parliament, will be a great asset in examining legislation carefully, in answering the needs and the requirements of the community and in bringing to the notice of this House the many problems concerning and confronting his constituency. That is why I say that if there are any professional politicians here they should not be afraid to speak up in defence of their being professional politicians.

I feel that no matter what source of income I might have from any other business, if I had a thriving business, I would not be as happy at it as I am as a politician. I only hope and trust that in years to come when I am gone from this House—I do not propose to go in a hurry from it, if God spares me and gives me my health—my son will sit in these benches after me and carry on as a full-time politician in the service of the people. Therefore, to say that a professional politician is not a man who has given good service in Parliament or good service outside Parliament is not in my opinion fair or reasonable. Rather, I feel that that type of person should be encouraged to come forward and devote his talents and time to his political work and furthermore that he should be entitled to be in an independent position to discharge his duties here.

Deputy Corish said the general public outside do not realise the responsibilities of Deputies and that they are under a very wrong impression as to the allowances and facilities available for Deputies. I agree with the Leader of the Labour Party and I hope this debate will prove to those outside who like to criticise members of this House on all sides and who would belittle Parliament if they could that there are no facilities whatever beyond the ordinary allowance which is provided for a Deputy. That is why I repeat what the Leader of the Labour Party said, namely, that there are people outside who think that there are free meals in Leinster House for Deputies.

I have heard the view uttered within the past fortnight in my constituency—"Surely you do not have to pay for what you eat in Leinster House?" I do not want nor would I desire to criticise the restaurant or the restaurant management, because it does not arise, but I can say that it is the dearest place in Ireland for food. If a Deputy brought in a deputation or brought in a number of his local councillors and entertained them in Leinster House he might leave his month's cheque in Leinster House in order to defray the expense.

Again, people believe that because they see "Oireachtas" on the ordinary envelope, Deputies enjoy free postage. Some people outside are more attracted by the expression "Oireachtas" on the envelope than they are by the stamp and they say: "Surely you do not have to pay postage?" Whilst we are on that subject may I say that I cannot understand why it would not be possible on a Bill of this kind to have in the Library supplies of franked stationery so that Deputies would have free postage? The big part of a Deputy's expenditure is postage.

Deputies may exaggerate their postage expenses. One has only to look at the letter rack at the entrance to Leinster House to see that every member of this House, no matter what his Party, has to collect post and it is no small one. Some Deputies may have more than others. I cannot understand why it is outside the bounds of possibility that the Civil Service should recommend or the Minister would approve of such a suggestion because there would be no question of abuse. I cannot see why the envelopes in the Library of Leinster House for the use of Deputies could not be franked and used without having to pay postage on them. If that were done, I venture to say it would prove a considerable financial saving to Deputies and it would add to efficiency in dealing with correspondence in so far as the general public is concerned.

Any Deputy who takes his job seriously must agree that there is the good active type of Deputy and also the type who does practically nothing but comes in and votes and then goes out again. I am glad to say that the majority of the members of this Parliament on all sides take their position seriously. These people cannot, under present circumstances, discharge their duties in an efficient manner in the interests of this House or in the interests of the people they represent on the present allowance.

People may say and it has been said that there are too many Deputies and that the demand on the Exchequer is too great. I have not left Leinster House on any one day for 17 years without addressing to myself at nighttime, on leaving it, the question "Have I done good for any single individual today?" Thank God, every single night I leave this House I can answer that question in the affirmative and say that some good was done for someone in my constituency during my attenddance in Dublin.

I may say that the case may be put forward that the Deputy has a very substantial travelling allowance, apart entirely from the personal allowance he receives. That is where I find, again, that the general public are of the opinion that the Deputy has a travelling allowance for driving his car around his constituency as well, which he has not got. They also feel he has nothing to do but to go to his garage, collect his petrol bill and send it on to the Minister for Finance who will pay it. The attitude is: "Why should any question arise as to the payment of petrol bills? You are a member of the Dáil.

You have an allowance for attending meetings."

I represent one of the largest constituencies in Ireland. It is as far from the farthest part of my constituency to my house as it is from my house to Leinster House. I am sure that my four colleagues from my constituency will agree that whilst they are four fine, active and hardworking Deputies there is no part of my constituency in which I do not show up at least monthly; that there is no part of my constituency where I do not show up every week at a funeral; that there is no part of my constituency where I do not show up at every single meeting I am invited to attend; that there is no part of my constituency where I do not receive every single caller who desires to see me. That is the typical life of any active member of this House. That is why I am glad to see general agreement here that the time has come for an increase in the allowances.

Reference was made by Deputy Blowick and Deputy Sherwin to a member of this House who was forced to resign and, worse still, forced to emigrate because he could not possibly eke out an existence and discharge his Parliamentary duties on the allowance he was receiving. That may be a sad story but there is a still sadder one. In 1947, there was a Bill going through this House increasing allowances. One Deputy stood up fearlessly and courageously and, like a lion, opposed the increases bitterly. He said that so far as he and his constituents were concerned, he was not going to stand for Deputies' allowances being increased. He would not take it. The Bill was passed and that man sent back the cheque every month to the Minister for Finance. At the next general election, he lost his seat and everybody else got back.

The general public value members of this House as they value themselves and if you think lightly of yourselves, you will be thought lightly of. We on all sides of the House realise that since 1947 the cost of living has risen enormously. The cost of telegrams, telephones, postage and petrol, apart entirely from hotel expenses, has been drastically increased. We can justify in the country or outside the increases which are provided in this Bill.

The idea in the mind of the people that we can get a travelling allowance for driving round the constituencies brings me to another point. Most Deputies who motor up from the country and return home at night find themselves, even under the present system, suffering from a great disability in so far as travelling allowances are concerned, because, from the end of November to 31st March they do not get what will pay their petrol bills for attending the Dáil, much less anything else. I travel to Dublin four or five times a week as the records of expenses can vouch. I return to my home on days when the Dáil is sitting. A Deputy cannot do Parliamentary work in the various Departments and must, therefore, return on a day the Dáil is not sitting.

If he is a Deputy who wishes to discuss problems with higher civil servants in a Department and has to travel four or five times a week from his constituency to discharge his Parliamentary duties in Dublin, he will find, with the present scale of allowances for the use of a private car, that he will have to operate his car for attendance at the Dáil for three months of the year out of pocket having an allowance that will not pay for the petrol. That is why I hope that, when this Bill goes through, the question of allowances for Deputies will be rectified. The Minister may make an Order, which he can do without legislation, increasing substantially the allowances for the use by Deputies of private cars for attending the Dáil. The present car allowance is insufficient and does not in many cases meet the price of petrol. If the Minister wants a typical case, he can examine the file in connection with my case and he will see that many Deputies are in the same position.

There also arises on this Bill the question of a pension scheme for Deputies. I wonder would the Minister, when he is considering this matter, take into consideration former members of the Dáil so that if there is to be a pension scheme, men who have left this House and whose circumstances are not too good, financially, may be given the benefit of any such scheme. I do not know whether a favourable or satisfactory scheme can be implemented by way of contributions from Deputies. I feel that there would have to be a very substantial sum provided by the Minister for Finance in the early stages of the scheme.

As has been pointed out, there are many men in this country who gave good service. After giving the best years of their life in the service of this House, they failed to achieve success at a general election and because they lost their popularity in their constituency, their Party put them on the political scrapheap. The question of giving the benefits of whatever scheme we have to former members of this House ought to be considered.

The Minister and the Heads of his Department should obtain a complete list of the former members of this House and through their own channels of inquiry, ascertain what former members may be in financial distress. If there are such people in the country, they ought to be given the benefit of any pension scheme to which Deputies may be called on to contribute. The question of a pension scheme for Deputies with long service, or whatever it is the scheme will provide for when it is worked out, is a wise and useful one.

I do not propose to say anything further beyond commenting on the observations made here with regard to the salaries of Ministers and the Taoiseach. The Attorney General is provided for under this Bill. His duties are very difficult and very great. My own opinion is that the Attorney General is a person of very high integrity legally and has great standing. Nevertheless, I feel that the salary which is provided for him under this Bill should not be greater than that of a Minister. If a Minister is to be supreme in his Department and is to be one of a group of supreme persons, neither the Heads of his Department nor the Attorney General ought to be in receipt of a higher rate of salary.

In regard to the provision of cars for Ministers, the present system is, in my opinion, a favourable and satisfactory one. I cannot see how it can be improved. It is necessary that all Ministers should be at the beck and call of the community. A Minister ought to be driven and a car should be at his disposal. I do not think that in present circumstances the mode of transport for Ministers could be improved. That is why I have no complaint to make in regard to the present system. It offers a good service to the Minister. It is a service to which he is entitled as a Minister of State.

What we should endeavour to cultivate in this country is a higher respect for Ministers of State. I am not making an appeal for great respect for the individual but for the post that he holds. That is why I say a Minister of State should be worthy of the highest possible respect; not alone that but the greatest respect for him should be forthcoming from the general public and he should receive a salary which would enable him to discharge his onerous duties without involving him in financial loss.

No Minister for Finance will, I think, ever bring in a Bill that will get the approval of every Deputy. It is a very difficult task. There will always be certain circumstances in which fault will be found, but the only fault I have to find with this Bill is its timing in regard to the frame of mind of the general public. In my opinion, the Bill does not go far enough. If there had been a more courageous consideration of the allowances for Ministers, Deputies and members of the Oireachtas in 1947, the present position would not have arisen. I, therefore, make this serious appeal to the Minister although I believe that the main provisions of the Bill have been considered and more or less decided. I make it to obviate the same position arising in 10 or 15 years' time; the job should be well done now and if we are now to receive salaries instead of allowances I feel, if it has to be known as a salary, it should not be less than £1,250 a year. That is my honest opinion.

Deputies cannot possibly discharge their duties on £624 a year at present. If they are to devote all their time to their work and pay greater attention to their Parliamentary duties and have their allowances converted into salaries, these ought to be really salaries. In my opinion £1,000 a year will not attract the proper type of person. There are people who could give very valuable service in the House but, to do so, they would be obliged to leave their own businesses. In doing that they would probably be losing £2,000 or £3,000 a year. Nobody will sacrifice that amount to come in here for £1,000 a year and devote all his time to his Parliamentary duties.

I ask the Minister and the Department to reconsider the provisions of the Bill. Once legislation is introduced, let us decide on salaries, allowances or remuneration—whatever it is called—that will be a lasting job and be finished with it. I am sure the Minister will refer to that aspect of the matter when replying. Any commonsense person in the country will realise that this is a necessary Bill. I join with the other speakers who said that the time had arrived to provide increased allowances. I sincerely hope the matter will now be finally settled and that the Minister and the Government will be sufficiently farseeing to increase the allowances to an extent that will ensure that this position will not again arise.

May I conclude by saying that it must be borne in mind that this Bill is being introduced by the Government and it is the Government's responsibility. I hope they will face up to that responsibility bravely and see that proper remuneration is provided for members of the House for all time by dealing with the problem so that no Deputy will be asked to suffer any financial loss through discharging his duties.

Mr. McQuillan

When the last speaker referred to his hope that when he left this House, his son would replace him, I noted a look of dismay on the faces of members of the Government. I am sure they have often felt that, if they got rid of Deputy O.J. Flanagan from Dáil Éireann they would be very happy. I am sure it would be then desirable that if it was at all possible, he should not be replaced by another member of the clan. That was the worst bit of news the Government received for a while —the announcement of what was in store for a future Dáil.

I intend to be very brief and I mean that. I want to refer to the duties of a Deputy as I have seen them principally because of the slant given to the debate tonight by men of great standing in this country. For the past 40 years men who can be described as part-time politicians have had an open field and a clear run to solve many of the difficulties which are still with us today. The type of people to whom I refer are mainly those who have spent an occasional hour, perhaps, in this Chamber and have given the public the benefit of their great wisdom on various aspects of policy in regard to the wide field that has to be covered. Having said their say, they departed from the House, many of them to their professions and more to their businesses and it is not uncharitable to suggest that their professions and businesses came first. These people, however, are the first to laud and acclaim the virtues of politics and to point out and suggest that a politician's profession is a noble one. Yet, in the next breath the very same persons suggest that the individual they describe as a fulltime politician is somebody who should be treated with suspicion or is beneath contempt.

Some Deputies have already referred to the early periods of democracy when only the wealthy sections of the community were entitled to speak in, and be elected to Parliament. Is it seriously suggested to-day that we need a large proportion of so-called voluntary politicians? I think it has been suggested by a very prominent Deputy this evening that it would be desirable to have people who are prepared to come in here on a voluntary basis perhaps, and give of their time and wisdom for the benefit of the community. Let us see what the likely results would be. To-day we have voluntary boards in many spheres of life. If somebody criticises a member of a voluntary board a howl of indignation goes up: "How dare you criticise him in view of the time that unfortunate person is prepared to give voluntarily and freely for the good of the country?" He is doing it as a form of hobby.

The same position will arise in the case of those who came in here for the purpose of conferring in a charitable manner their wisdom on the community. It will be suggested it would be wrong to criticise these people because of their charitable approach in giving their service voluntarily. The sooner we get away from that sort of outlook, the better. The public want work from their elected representatives, and I believe they are prepared to pay for work well done. They are also prepared to put the different politicians to the test if they get an opportunity of doing so.

I should like to know could we get agreement here on what are the functions of a Deputy with regard to legislation? Is it admitted at this stage that the functions of a Deputy are purely those of a messenger for his constituents, for his Minister or for his Leader in a particular Party, or has a Deputy a duty outside of that to come into this House, to study legislation and, if possible through reading and recourse to the Library and other sources of information so to improve his mind as to be in a position to pass judgment on proposed legislation? If we believe that a Deputy has such a function, namely, to examine legislation and give his views here, that Deputy must be in a position to spend his full time in the field of politics.

I shall go further and say that no job or profession requires full-time attention more than that of a politician. Of course, we can have the position where the field of politics is left to the Cabinet on the Government side and to the Front Bench on the Opposition side. From some of the remarks heard in the course of this debate, it would appear that that is what it is hoped to achieve. I refer to the increased allowance for Opposition groups. It is highly desirable that funds be made available to the larger Opposition Parties. I have no criticism of that. It is essential that the people in opposition be fully equipped in order to be able to debate all aspects of legislation coming before the House. But it would appear that the aim of those on the Front Bench out of Government is to hold to themselves alone the right to criticise, to advise and to participate in all aspects of legislation. Surely those Deputies elected by the people who wish to take part in the discussion should be in a position financially to devote their time to studying the various proposals for legislation coming before the House? Is it too much to suggest that Deputies who are not on the Front Bench have as much right and as great a duty to examine proposed legislation as those who sit on the Front Benches?

I am not making any case for special allowances to enable Deputies in the back benches to study legislation. I am condemning the mentality which seems to suggest that only the Front Bench can study or have at their disposal the means of studying proposed legislation. It was suggested— if I interpret wrongly what was said, I am open to correction—that the function of the back bencher is to sit quietly and listen to the sound words of wisdom that come from the lips of the front benchers. I cannot accept that. What we need is sufficient Deputies here—they may be legal men or business men—prepared to cut themselves adrift from their outside occupations and devote themselves, while back benchers, to the examination of legislation coming before this House and who are in a position to criticise their own Front Bench as well as the Government. That applies to back benchers all round.

I do not want to deal in any great detail with this. The suggestion was put forward that in order to meet the wishes of members of the Labour Party, it might be desirable that those members of the Party who devote themselves to Party work both inside and outside this House on a full-time basis should be entitled to the means of existence. The implication in that speech was that that position applied only to a limited number of people in this House. The Deputy who made that statement seems to forget that, if things were right in this country politically, Labour in this House would take up at least 50 per cent. of the benches. That should change the viewpoint of those people who have the outlook: "I shall come in here for an hour at 4 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening, honour the Dáil with my presence and then disappear for the next three months."

It is the mentality displayed that has disturbed me. It is nearly time the ordinary Deputy in my position as a back-bencher made his presence felt here. There are men on both sides of the House, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, who spend quite a considerable amount of their time working in the public interest on behalf of their constituents. Very often, they are told to keep quiet in this House because it does not suit the gentlemen on the Front Benches to have opposition to their views at certain times. What would really suit the people on the Front Benches would be to have part-time politicians sitting in the back benches who would be available to come here, vote when needed and then go off out to their business or down the country and stay there until the phone rang again and they were summoned up for the next Division.

That is what many people seem to want—that type of part-time politician. In my opinion, that type of politician has done harm in this country. I make no bones about it personally. Since I have been elected, I have devoted my time completely to politics. Unless I work full time on behalf of my constituents and people outside my constituency, politically I would not last 24 hours. I would be snuffed out like a candle by the political Parties in this House, and I know perfectly well that would be a very desirable achievement on their part. Unfortunately for them, the people in the constituency I have the honour to represent have thought otherwise in the past.

I really think that when the intention is disclosed in this House to try to limit the type of person who is elected by the people, those who display that mentality are not really democratic in their outlook at all. They believe in a form of paternalism, in the old Greek system. They certainly are not democrats in the sense of believing that the people know what is best. They believe they know what is best for the people and their aim is to hoodwink them as long as they possibly can.

The only point I wish to refer to, in conclusion, is the increase for the Attorney General. Again, without in any way criticising the present occupant of that post—I have already done that elsewhere on other occasions —I want to say that I believe that office should be full-time. I do not believe that in any circumstances the office of Attorney General should be part-time and I believe that when it is full-time, the individual who holds it should be remunerated sufficiently to enable him, like a judge, to stay clear of private business in every regard. It is very wrong to have an individual in such a post on a part-time basis and I object to the idea of any increase at this stage in the remuneration of an individual who is only a part-time Attorney General. There will be other occasions when I can criticise that in a wider way, but, at this stage, I want to protest against any such increase.

Mr. Booth

The main point which has developed during this debate is that which was touched on originally by Deputy J.A. Costello, that is, the point as to whether the remuneration should be by way of allowance or by way of salary. I am entirely with Deputy J.A. Costello on this, and I also feel very anxious lest we should introduce an element of professional politicians into this House. I agree with him, too, that the provision in the Constitution does clearly indicate some difference between the moneys paid to a representative in the Dáil and Seanad and to a full-time Minister, and I hope the Government will consider this very seriously and try to clarify the whole position in the eyes of the public.

It is not a question of whether we are trying to avoid tax. It is a question as to whether this is to be our full-time employment and I agree absolutely with Deputy J.A. Costello when he states that there must be some element of voluntary public service in this regard. As soon as the element of salary is introduced, I find myself at a loss to understand how the amount of expenses is to be calculated. The Minister stated that he anticipated that an amount of about £450 might be allowed by the Revenue Commissioners as expenses incurred by a Deputy in the discharge of duties. I cannot quite follow that.

A Committee of the House, set up in 1947, decided, and the House approved that a sum of £624 was a sum which was proper to allow a Deputy in respect of expenses for his duties. That was 13 years ago and all expenses have gone up very greatly in the meantime. Now, 13 years later, the Minister suggests that the amount of expenses should be reduced from £624 to £450. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that all Deputies have been defrauding the Revenue very considerably since 1947 by drawing an amount in respect of expenses which was not properly attributable to expenses. I do not think that is right. All the evidence goes to show that £624 was the correct and justifiable amount to allow in 1947 and, if so, the amount should be proportionately increased now.

I believe it is possible for the Minister to fix an amount, without legislation, but the idea of leaving it to the Revenue Commissioners, or leaving it to individual inspectors of taxes, to assess this amount, is most objectionable. I do not for a moment want to give the impression that a Deputy is to try to cover up improper expenditure in any way, but obviously a Deputy would be considerably embarrassed by having to disclose the charitable, religious and other purposes to which he was subscribing, and those to which he was not, and there will always be a suspicion in people's minds that an inspector of taxes may be of a political persuasion different from theirs.

I should like to make it clear to the public that, as the Bill stands, we are not getting £1,000 handed into our pockets. Most of us will never see that, or anything like it, and it is placing Deputies in a very invidious position to have it broadcast throughout the country that we are voting ourselves an increase of £400 a year, quite gratuitously, when most of us— I insist on that—will not see an increase of anything like £400 or half that amount. We are being placed in quite an individious position and I think the Government did not realise the embarrassment that would be caused in that regard and that it would be very difficult for us to debate this matter in public.

It is very difficult for anybody to debate his own salary in private, but to debate it in public, is terribly embarrassing and I would hope at this stage that the Leaders of the Government and the Opposition Parties might see their way to agree to set up a Committee of the House, such as was set up in 1947, so that the matter could first be discussed in private. Then let is be brought before the public eye to be debated in this House. I believe such a procedure would give a long-term advantage to everyone. A debate in public, as matters stand now, will only confuse the issue. I shall close on that note, by making the suggestion, not an appeal, that the Leaders of the Parties might at this stage get together and agree to set up a Committee of the House to go into this matter quietly and dispassionately. Such a course would produce a far better result than that which is foreshadowed by the Bill as it stands.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Anybody who sat in the House listening to this discussion today cannot but be influenced by the obvious fear in everybody's mind that the proposed increase will have an affect in swinging the pendulum one way or the other between the members of the Dáil and Seanad who also hold positions outside, whether they be professional positions, farming, teaching or whatever they may be, and the number of members who find it necessary to devote their whole time to public affairs. I hold the view that despite any despondency that may exist in relation to our achievements since we obtained self-government, tremendous service has been given by persons who preceded the members at present elected to this Chamber, men and women who continued in their own professions and businesses, whatever they might have been.

Very many Deputies have referred to the fact that today there are more and more demands made upon Deputies. Deputy Oliver Flanagan was 100 per cent. correct in stating that those demands can be attributed chiefly to the policy of the Party now in Government. It was the Fianna Fáil Party which built up, bit by bit, the large volume of work which Deputies are now asked to perform, work which could be done by practically any member of the community. For many years the idea has been fostered that grants, pensions and land—things to which citizens are entitled under legislation passed in this House—cannot be obtained unless they approach some public representative. Does every Deputy not know that when he goes to the Department of Local Government about a grant for a new house or a reconstruction grant, to give just one example, in nine cases out of ten it is found that the applicant has failed to notify the Department that the work is ready for inspection? In nine cases out of ten the reason for the delay in the payment of the grant is purely an administrative one, apart from what has happened in recent months during which other circumstances have entered into the picture.

Would it not have been much better if the people had been treated after a different fashion? Only a few months ago a former Minister, Deputy Gerald Boland, came in here and made a most extraordinary statement in relation to the operations of the Land Commission. Have people desirous of increasing their holding, or making a change of holding, not been led to believe that members of this Legislature have some hand, act or part in meeting their requirements? That sort of thing has snowballed to such an extent that those who visit the Public Gallery feel compelled to comment adversely on the sparsity of attendances here. The reason is, of course, that Deputies are obliged, because of the volume of work they bring up with them from their constituents every week, to call on various civil servants in relation to a hundred and one different matters, matters which could have been dealt with quite effectively in other ways. If the result of this increase means that Deputies will in future have more freedom to give to the public the service they would wish to give, then this measure represents a step in the right direction.

Other speakers adverted to a possible consequence in another direction. This may tend towards an emphasis on the professional politician. That would not be a good thing. Actually the trend was in the reverse direction. As expenses increased, those who found that they had to devote all their time to public affairs were being squeezed out of politics. They could not afford to continue. In so far as this measure will help towards curtailing that trend, it will be a good thing. It would be very wrong if any man or woman who desired to devote his or her time to public affairs should be driven from that very laudable intent because of the exigencies of demands in other directions. If this measure stops that undesirable trend it will be a good thing. If, however, it goes too far and makes membership of this House attractive to people who would not prove to be good legislators, it will be a bad thing. I am not very concerned with that aspect at the moment. It has the desirable feature that it will save those members who have been placed for some years past in a very invidious position.

Some Deputies referred to a colleague who resigned because, owing to the economic demands made upon him, he could not continue as a Deputy. I am glad that it will now be placed on the records of the House that that was his reason for leaving. Some of the cynics would have us believe that he left for an entirely different reason; that he left because he was a pure-souled patriot who could not continue to mix with the types with whom he was expected to consort in this House. That was a reason advanced around the country. It is as well that the cynics should appreciate the real reason Deputy Murphy could not continue in public life and was compelled to leave the House, and the country, in order to maintain his wife and family.

In relation to the work performed here and the attendances required by Deputies—by Senators to a lesser extent—there was no equity in the allowances paid as between rural Deputies and city Deputies. I appreciate the difficulties that Deputies representing the city of Dublin have. I also realise that they are not divorced from their families while the House is in session. They can return to their homes at night. Very often they can eat at home. The rural Deputy is particularly hard hit; over the last decade hotel expenses have risen considerably and rural Deputies have had to bear the full burden of these increased costs. The fact that no cognisance was taken of those who work hardest was a disincentive to Deputies and prevented them giving of their best.

I know the difficulties with regard to postal expenses and free franking of envelopes, but there is one small concession which should be made. When a reply is furnished by a Department to a Deputy or Senator, relative to some matter affecting a constituent, it should be possible to enclose a franked envelope in which the Deputy or Senator could transmit that reply to the constituent in question. That is a small thing. But it would help those who work hardest and it would be impossible to abuse the arrangement.

Deputy Corry spoke of the length of time he has been a member of this House. I hope he has not some inside knowledge or information which is not available to the rest of us; he asked the Minister to link our allowances with the salaries paid to civil servants so that in future Deputies' allowances would increase pro rata with increases given to civil servants. As a Deputy supporting the Government, let us hope that Deputy Corry is not in possession of information so far unavailable to us. Deputy Corry wants to ensure that, in future, Deputies will be well cushioned against the effect of increases in the cost of living.

Deputy Corry also said that Deputies must be members of local authorities. There is no "must" about it. It was Deputy Corry's Party who decided—I believe this to be detrimental to the public life of the country—to make membership of local authorities a political matter. In so doing, they brought about the situation in which, to be successful in a local authority, one had to be a member of a political Party. The next step is that one's constituents now require a member of this House to become a member of a local authority.

It is a reflection on the public life of this country that we cannot provide enough personnel to man both Parliament and the local authorities. We could provide a better type of Dáil, a better type of Seanad and a better type of local authority, if members of these bodies could concentrate on one of these aspects of public life, but to-day, as Deputy Corry states, a member of the House who is not a member of a local authority is under constant pressure to become one. If he does not, he will not get recognition for proper attendance in the Dáil and proper attention to legislation. That militates against better examination of public business here. A Deputy's time is taken up in making journeys to Departments, in doing a lot of work of a messenger character and in giving the requisite amount of attention to local authority matters.

If, in the coming generations, we are to have a better type of legislator, the provisions enshrined in this Bill are desirable. In the foundation days of the State, those who entered this House, on both sides, came from the national movement. They were men of similar age. As time is marching on, these men are being replaced by younger men and women and I am glad to see the mixture of experienced Deputies and young Deputies who hope to learn from them and to be prepared, in time, to take their place. The heavier charge is on the young man, particularly the young married man, who enters this House and who has to devote his time and attention to the business here and to his constituents. We all know how difficult it is to get persons who could be of service to the country to enter public life. If this measure helps to get them to do so, we shall be doing a good day's work in passing it.

Much as I appreciate the difficulties of some Deputies who devote so much time to the business of the Dáil, I am very concerned about the timing of the measure. I should like to think that circumstances in the country were such that the people would realise that what is being done had precedence over all else, but it will be difficult to persuade many sections of the community that this is the time when this problem should be tackled and that there are not more pressing problems to be coped with. However, now that the Government have decided to introduce the Bill, we only hope that it will not discourage men of substance, men of business acumen, who have proved successful in a profession or business, from continuing in public life or from entering public life.

Much as I sympathise with the Deputy who devotes all his time to public affairs—and I am as near to that as any member of the House— at the same time, if the great majority of Deputies were full-time politicians, their association would be with those actively supporting them in politics. When one meets a rabid supporter, he tells you that everything you do is right, that what you say is 100 per cent. correct, whether he believes it or not, whereas an opponent will tell you that everything you say is wrong. The man in a profession, in business or farming meets every class and gets a cross-section of opinion. Such a man is very valuable to a political Party as a member of the Dáil. I would regret any action that would drastically reduce the number of such Deputies. On the other hand, I agree that the situation is very serious in regard to Deputies who are devoting so much time to the House.

I think the House can give positive proof to the public of the necessity for this Bill. If, when this Bill is passed, there is a better attendance in the House on every occasion the Dáil meets, if more attention is given to legislation than heretofore, it is possible that this Bill will be appreciated by the people as a worth-while contribution, which will ensure that in years to come, there will be members of Parliament who will be a credit to the country and will succeed in truly representing the people and securing for them the most suitable legislation and proper examination of the ordinary business of Parliament.

Dr. Ryan

The first question mentioned by Deputy Dillon was the question of Ministers' cars. First of all, I want to correct what appeared to me to be a false impression created by another speaker, that this is an innovation. In 1927—of course, I was not in Government at that time—cars were supplied to Ministers and have been supplied since. In this matter of cars being supplied to Ministers, there was always the question, not only of travelling, but of protection. That was perhaps the major factor in the beginning and it did arise on some occasions since.

At the present time, I do not think one could claim that there is any great need for protection but the question did crop up in the beginning and it arose from time to time. As a matter of fact, on one occasion when I attempted to drive my own car during the weekends, at home, say, to Church on Sunday, I was asked by the police not to do it, to get the car to come out. I do not know what view the police authorities might take of it now, but I do not think they would take such a serious view as they did at that time. Seeing that there are these implications and complications with regard to security as well as travelling, it is a matter that would have to be considered and it would have to be considered also with a view to the possibility of the question of protection arising again, as it may, of course, at any time.

I think Ministers of all sides would prefer not to have cars supplied to them but the difficulties I mentioned have prevented that taking place up to the present. A Minister who has to make long journeys, as some Ministers must from time to time, would need a driver. It would be very difficult for him to get through his business if he had to drive himself. If ever we reach the stage where we can safely and equitably allow Ministers to provide their own cars and their own drivers and let the State make whatever allowance is thought fair in the circumstances, it may be some economy but it will not be a great economy. On a few occasions I personally had some pity on two drivers. If you have three or four late nights in the one week, you cannot expect one driver to do all that duty. There are those complications to be dealt with but I certainly would have them all considered.

In one respect changing the system would be a great satisfaction to Ministers on all sides if it would stop the controversy that goes on on this subject. A question is put down about expenditure on cars for the last three years back to March, 1957. If that follows the usual pattern, there will be a question down next week to know what was the expenditure for 1954 to 1957 and the following week from 1951 to 1954. The information is given all over again. It all amounts to the one thing. Nobody gets any satisfaction out of it and there is a certain amount of annoyance. Therefore, I should like very much if the whole system were abolished and that Ministers would provide their own transport and have appropriate allowances given to them.

Deputy Dillon referred to the amount provided for secretarial allowances. The Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues say they would prefer to have secretarial assistance given to them rather than cash, in other words to have certain civil servants seconded to the Opposition during their term of office. Personally I do not like that idea because when the period of opposition is over and the Opposition become the Government, those men go back into the Civil Service. Every Deputy will, I am sure, be only too willing to agree with me that our civil servants have given a very good account of themselves in that respect. I am sure they have their political views but they have never allowed those views to interfere with the discharge of their duties. However, let us imagine that those civil servants are serving Fine Gael—it does not matter whether it is Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil—while in Opposition and they go back into the Civil Service. If a Fianna Fáil Member is directed to go and see Mr. So-and-So he might say: "If that is the man who was looking after Fine Gael in opposition, what satisfaction will I get from him?" He would not have the same confidence in that man as he would have in the civil servant who had been remote from active politics in the past.

The present system is working fairly satisfactorily. Every Deputy knows that the people who look after the Opposition and who are paid by the Opposition out of this sum voted by Parliament are looked after when the Party becomes the Government by way of being made private secretaries or being given some other position. Although it is a bit irregular it is a better system on the whole. I am not mentioning this in any controversial spirit; I am merely giving my opinion. I am prepared to be convinced by the Opposition that I am wrong but my opinion at present is that the system now in operation is better on the whole.

On the question of secretarial help for the Opposition, both Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy McQuillan said it is only the Opposition Parties that are catered for and that Independent members and others received no such help in the past and do not appear to be provided for under this Bill. That is true. I do not know how it could be done, but I am prepared to listen to any plan that might be put forward which would give some sort of help to smaller Parties and Independent members who cannot avail of the help given to the main Opposition Parties. If any feasible scheme is put up I shall certainly be prepared to listen to it.

I do not think it is right to suggest, as Deputy McQuillan did, that this money is used entirely by the Leader of the Opposition Party and that the rank and file of the Opposition Party receive no benefit from it. My own experience from being in an Opposition Party in the past is that any member of the Party is welcome to come along and seek assistance. If he wishes, let us say, to make a speech on a certain subject and there are some points he wishes to have looked up, the facts are supplied to him and he is helped as far as possible in regard to the matter on which he wishes to speak. Therefore, it would be unfair to say the provision there does not cater for ordinary members or back benchers.

I am glad Deputy Corish and other Deputies such as Deputy Flanagan and Deputy O'Sullivan, to some extent, went to some pains to make it clear to the public that Deputies have not all the amenities the members of the public appear to think they have. It is true, of course, that Deputies must pay their way in the restaurant and in the bar. They have to pay for postage, for stationery, for their telephone calls, and so on, the same as any other member of the public.

Mr. Coogan

And hotels.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, hotels.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister is mistaken in one detail. We do not have to pay for stationery.

Dr. Ryan

I agree he gets free stationery here. I am glad Deputies mentioned the items Deputies do not get free. Another point mentioned was in regard to the Attorney-General. Attorneys-General have always insisted on the right to engage in private practice if they think fit, to appear, even during their term of office as Attorneys-General, as advocate for a client who is not connected with the Government. Most of the Attorneys-General, to my knowledge, have insisted only on the principle, as it were, and have used their privilege of taking a brief perhaps once a year or every two years. I do not know when they insisted on that right and, therefore, I am hardly in a position to argue the case here.

Deputy Costello said—and I think we all agree with him—that we should regard it as a great privilege to be sent by the people to represent them in the Dáil. I am sure every Deputy must feel proud to be selected by his constituency to represent that constituency here. However, Deputy Costello was more idealistic than realistic in his approach as to how Deputies should be treated. I agree with him that a Deputy should not be described as receiving a salary for his duties because there is something queer about that word "salary". As a matter of fact, in the Bill it is described as an allowance and in my introductory speech—I looked back over it—I did refer to it as remuneration but I did not describe it as a salary. However, I may not have been as particular about using the word "allowance" as I should have been and as Deputy Costello and some other Deputies would have liked me to be. But it is an allowance.

I did say that some Deputies here had no other means of livelihood and it was for their benefit principally that these increases were brought in. As every Deputy has pointed out, they benefit to the full, because a Deputy who has no other income will pay a negligible amount of income tax, if he has to pay any, whereas the Deputy who has an income to any great extent will have to pay a fair amount of tax and therefore it will not be of much benefit to him. We have to be realistic and to recognise the fact that some Deputies have to live on their Dáil allowance. Therefore, we have to face the fact that in addition to giving him his out-of-pocket expenses, we must also give him a certain amount of money to live on. He must get a certain amount over and above his out-of-pocket expenses and then, of course, according to the law, what is over and above those expenses is taxable. I cannot see that we can avoid that. If we have a law that applies to the ordinary citizen and taxpayer that income over and above expenses, and of course personal allowances, is taxable income, then the taxes must be paid.

Deputy Dr. Browne spoke about the activities of Parliaments here over the past 30 years and he made a comparison with Parliaments elsewhere. I cannot say that I have very much knowledge of the proceedings of Parliaments elsewhere though I have on some occasions looked up the proceedings in some other Parliaments, principally the British Parliament, on particular items. I must say that having read the debates in some of these places, I was just as much impressed by our own Parliament as I was before reading them. We do quite well here compared with other Parliaments, considering the size of the House and so on.

Deputy Manley's objection was in regard to Deputies getting salaries. As I explained, it is an allowance. Ministers have always got salaries and in the Bill, the reference is to "salary". The same would apply to Parliamentary Secretaries, the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and so on. I agree with Deputy Russell that professional men lose heavily by coming into the House. In fact, I mentioned that in my introductory speech, because where a person has to give his personal attention to his work, and of course a professional man must do that—in fact he cannot do anything except give his personal attention—he is certain to suffer by giving his time here and neglecting his profession. Though I said in my speech that I felt that businessmen and farmers could look after their businesses fairly well, as well as doing their job here, I must agree with Deputy Russell that where a businessman is an essential factor in his business, then he suffers. In big business where you have a large number of executives, if one of these executives comes into the Dáil, the business is not likely to suffer very much, but where you have a business which is largely personal and a person is looking after that business, then that business is likely to suffer.

Deputy Corry asked a question which can be answered without any great difficulty. If a Minister is entitled to a pension, then he gets the pension when he ceases to be a Minister, whether he is a member of this House or the Seanad. It would naturally be different with a Deputy if a pension scheme comes in. We have not got a scheme and I do not know what the scheme will be if there is one. That will be decided by members themselves—I imagine by a committee appointed by both Houses—but it is almost certain that if a Deputy is eligible for a pension he will not be eligible until he ceases to be a member and therefore he will not get a pension until he is out of this House.

In connection with that, I was asked if the scheme comes in will it apply to ex-Deputies. I am not in a position to say. The clause I put into the Bill was in anticipation of a scheme and to avoid the necessity of bringing in a new Bill if a scheme were brought in. If a scheme is brought in, it will be approved, I take it, by resolution of both Houses and whatever provisions are laid down will apply. If Deputies and members of the Seanad who are on that committee decide to include ex-members, they will be included.

I think Deputy Blowick was wrong in his calculations on income tax. Deputy Blowick assumed that under this Bill when a Deputy draws £1,000 per year by way of allowance, he will pay tax on the full £1,000. Of course, there is no doubt a Deputy is entitled to exemption from income tax on that amount of his allowance which is regarded as expenses and that should be a fairly substantial amount. We heard many Deputies recounting the various expenses which a Deputy has and when they are totted up, it will mean that a substantial portion of the £1,000 will be free of tax and he will have to pay tax on the remainder.

I agree with Deputy O.J. Flanagan that a Deputy's first, and indeed his fundamental, duty is to legislate. His secondary duty, if one could call it a duty, is to look after the interests of his constituents. Unfortunately, many constituents have the idea that they will perhaps do better by getting a Deputy to plead for them for an old age pension, or a housing grant, or whatever it may be, but we realise here that a Deputy can do very little for a constituent in many of these cases. If his case for an old age pension is all right, then he gets it and if it is not, he does not get it. It does not matter whether a Deputy intervenes on his behalf or not. Sometimes, of course, the applicant may have made a mistake in his application and maybe that can be made right but that occurs only in some cases. Deputies have more to do now in their constituencies than they had in the past and some Deputies appear to draw more of this work on themselves than others. Maybe they are a little more oncoming when their constituents ask them to do something and they perhaps answer their letters promptly, while the man who does not answer letters promptly has not so much to do.

The case for free postage was discussed very freely some few years ago —I cannot say how long ago—by the Committee of Procedure and Privileges. They went into all the arguments in favour of it, and all the arguments against it, and in the end they decided that it was better not to provide free postage for Deputies. Certain modifications were mentioned here this evening where there might be no danger in giving free postage in these modified ways. They would be worth considering, apart from this Bill altogether.

No Deputy, so far as I can recollect, said that we were giving too much to Deputies or Ministers. I do not think anybody criticised the Bill in that way. Some Deputies thought we were not giving enough to Deputies and some thought we were not giving enough to Ministers. As I said in my opening remarks, that criticism of the Bill is perhaps a good thing, because it shows that the Government, in drawing up this Bill, were a little more solicitious, if you like, for the taxpayers than for themselves or Deputies.

Deputy O.J. Flanagan made a positive suggestion—very few other Deputies did—that the allowance should be £1,250. I do not think that would be too much. However, the Bill is here and we should not attempt to amend it by way of increasing the allowance. I do not look at it in the same way as Deputy O.J. Flanagan, that we should provide for 10 or 15 years ahead. The great mistake we made in this House was that it is 13 years since the last revision. If we had revised these allowances for Deputies and salaries for Ministers every four or five years, the jump would now be small and there would be more satisfaction in every way. I hope that if circumstances warrant it, it will not be left too long in the future.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Would the Minister consider that a good time to review the position would be on each occasion on which revision of the constituencies takes place, which as provided in the Constitution is every 12 years?

Dr. Ryan

That is nearly too long. I would think, every five years.

Mr. Corish

Things could go mad in 10 years.

Dr. Ryan

I want to thank Deputies generally for the help they have given me in this Bill, and I hope that we have produced, in all the circumstances, as satisfactory a Bill as we could.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Would the Minister be prepared to consider the question of the existing allowances instead of the use of private motor cars?

Dr. Ryan

I should have said that free postage and expenditure on motor cars are apart altogether from this Bill. Those matters can be taken up another time. I do not know enough about them at the moment to say whether or not they should be revised.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 29th March, 1960.