Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Jun 1964

Vol. 211 No. 1

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1964 —Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

I move that the Bill be read a Second Time.

For many years the allowance paid to Deputies was regarded as sufficient only to cover their expenses and as such was not subject to income tax. In 1960, for the first time, it was considered necessary to pay Deputies for their time and when the allowance was increased to £1,000 the Deputy had to come to terms with the Revenue Commissioners on what would be an equitable sum for expenses and the remainder of his allowance was then subject of income tax. The increased allowance of £1,500 will be subject to the same terms. Deputies are aware of these conditions and they are made aware of them by having to meet a demand for income tax on their earnings as Deputies. It is necessary to mention this fact because some people appear to believe that neither Deputies nor Ministers pay income tax.

When the proposal for higher allowances was submitted to the Dáil in 1960 and when the principle of paying Deputies for their time was first introduced, the question was posed whether the sum granted was sufficient in all the circumstances. The Dáil Deputy is not compelled to give his whole time to his Dáil duties and it cannot be argued, therefore, that a Deputy is precluded from engaging in other remunerative occupation—part-time at least. In theory the Deputy may be allowed to pursue another occupation but in practice there are limits to what he can do.

No employer is inclined to offer work to a man who must stipulate that he would be precluded from serving his employer for at least three days in the middle of the week and perhaps for other days when he might feel obliged to accompany a deputation to see a Minister, or attend a meeting in his constituency or go to the funeral of a valued friend. Some employers too are reluctant to take on a man who might feel obliged to express himself forcibly on occasions on matters of public importance and maybe advocate a policy that would be hurtful to his employer or to his employer's customers.

It can be assumed, therefore, that employment during his spare time from Dáil duties is almost impossible. A professional man who is elected to the Dáil suffers in his practice. Be he a medical or a legal man he cannot hold his practice if he is absent for the greater part of the week from his home or from his office. A proprietor of a business or a farmer may be able to control his business, but his ability to give full and proper attention to his affairs is seriously impaired.

The country requires the best material that can be got for the Dáil. The primary duty of a Deputy is legislation. All Deputies are equal in their power to direct the destiny of the country. Every vote counts and each Deputy has to decide how he will vote on every issue whether important or less important.

The popular opinion is that the great majority of Deputies are just "yes men" for their Parties. In all democracies the party system prevails, but a member of a party has rights as a full member to mould the policy of his party.

In the party system the discussion on a particular question is first taken at a party meeting and there democracy is exercised. There every member claims his right to express his views and as we know that right is exercised both forcibly and effectively.

As time goes on Deputies are getting more involved in problems arising between their constituents and Government Departments or local authorities. Schemes are multiplying and some of them more complex than others under which people may benefit in many ways. It is only to be expected that when applicants are unsuccessful they may feel that they are not treated equitably—many cases of this kind come to the Deputy for his attention. He may have to call to or communicate with the relevant Department by 'phone or letter and then write to his correspondent either to seek further information or to convey a decision on the matter. It is not uncommon for a Deputy to have to attend to as many as 300 letters per week. In the modern world, a Deputy does not share the benefits of a five-day week or a 40-hour week.

It may be said that a Deputy should confine himself to the Dáil where his talents and time are required. In theory there is a lot to be said for that but in practice his services are required by his constituents as an advocate and adviser on many matters.

The suggestion has been made that officials should be located at convenient centres throughout the country who could do this work more efficiently and more impartially than Deputies. I am not entering into the merits of this suggestion. Sufficient to say that this alternative is not available to the people and, consequently, the Deputy must fill the gap.

On the basis, therefore, that many Dáil Deputies must in fact regard their job as full time or so near full time that they cannot do anything else we must consider what the remuneration should be.

We should then fix the remuneration or allowance of Deputies at a level that will enable them to live even if they are not in a position to supplement their incomes from other sources—and even if they have no other resources to fall back on.

If the increased allowances proposed for Deputies and Senators were to be determined solely by reference to the movements in remuneration which took place under the eighth and ninth rounds, an increase of the order of 25 per cent would be warranted. A Deputy would then get £1,250 in lieu of his present allowance of £1,000 and a Senator would get £937 10s. in lieu of his present allowance of £750.

However, I do not accept the standard of these two rounds as the sole criterion for the reason that sufficient weight has not been attached in the past to the representational and similar demands made on members, and in particular on Deputies. More and more demands are being made on public representatives and, in my view, any increase in their allowances should reflect this steadily growing demand. It is in recognition of this development that the rates of increase in this Bill have been set at 50 per cent for Deputies and 33? per cent for Senators.

I am confident that the public, who have become increasingly aware in recent years of the need to uphold the standards of the legislative assemblies and to afford adequate compensation to those who undertake the arduous task of representing them in Parliament will recognise the need for these increases, all the more in that the revised rates of allowances will still fall well short of those payable in the case of the majority of European legislatures. On that basis £1,500 a year is surely not too much.

As members of the Oireachtas, we can fix our own remuneration and I think I can say with conviction that we have over the years been diffident to raise the figure to an unreasonable level. People may have ambitions to seek Parliamentary honours but they are surely not tempted by the pay. I am a long time in this House but I have never known anyone leaving it better off than when he came in. I have inquired how Deputies are paid in many other countries. Nowhere except in Stormont is the allowance as low as £1,500.

Mr. A. Barry

Where?

Dr. Ryan

Stormont. It may be said that a 50 per cent increase is out of line with general increases for employees. Deputies got no eighth round. Let us take some examples from the public services.

Many of them have got not only the eighth and ninth rounds but what is known as a status increase as well. In 1960 when Deputies had £1,000, a superintendent of the Guards had £1,010. The superintendent now has £1,546. Where the status increase has been decided, increases, for example, in the case of Post Office clerks, superintendents and inspectors of the Garda have been more than 50 per cent. In the three categories of teachers, the increase is over 40 per cent.

Up to now, Senators' allowances have stood at 75 per cent of Deputies' allowances, but in this Bill the proportion has been reduced to two-thirds which I think comes closer to a realistic appraisal of their respective duties.

It is proposed to give the Taoiseach and Ministers an increase of ten per cent. On that part of their remuneration which applies to their duties as Deputies, Ministers receive 50 per cent, so that in the aggregate they get an increase of 23? per cent. The ten per cent increase will also apply to Parliamentary Secretaries, to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of each House and to the Attorney General. The allowance made to the Leaders of Opposition parties to cover secretarial expenses is increased by 12 per cent.

Sections 4 and 5 make changes in the existing law dealing with travelling expenses. Those changes are to a great extent aimed at administrative convenience. One change where Leinster House is named as the focal point instead of Dublin removes an anomaly and will enable Deputies living in the city to claim expenses. The implementation of this amendment will give rise to an increased charge on the Exchequer.

When the Money Resolution comes up for the approval of the House, I shall be able to give an estimate of the total cost of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the Dáil.

Mr. Sweetman

As the Minister is aware, we in this Party take the view that the business a Deputy is called upon to do on behalf of his constituents has so varied over the years, and more particularly in recent years, that the method of reimbursement which was formerly the case no longer can have, or should have, any real relative effect. It is a fact, as the Minister has said, that a Deputy is called upon to do things for his constituents at all hours of the day and night. Certainly a 40-hour week has no relevance at all for the Deputy who does his work to the best of his ability.

That does not mean to say that we approve of the method adopted by certain Deputies in trying to ensure that their constituents believe that nothing can be done without the Deputies sticking their finger in the pie. It is an undoubted fact that of the cases that come to any Deputy, at least 50 per cent would be dealt with by the officials in the ordinary way, if the Deputy did not intervene at all. Nevertheless, I regret to say that certain Deputies delight in trying to persuade their constituents that they have no chance of obtaining their rights unless a Deputy intervenes. That type of pressurising by Deputies does no credit to this House, and tends to degrade the standards of public life rather than to raise them.

It is, however, a fact that people now believe that if they want anything to which they are entitled, they must get a Deputy to intervene on their behalf. That is not true. However, it does not prevent a Deputy having to deal with the matter, because if he scrupulously tells his constituent this is a matter of right and not of favour and that the constituent will get it in any event, he will find that a less scrupulous colleague will pretend he did something about it and claim benefit for it. Even though the Deputy concerned may know that without the slightest intervention by him, the housing grant will be paid, in his own defence, he must make representations to the Department concerned. That is a fact which must be accepted.

There are, of course, other cases in which a Deputy can put a point of view very much more clearly and succinctly than the constituent himself would be able to do. Naturally enough, everybody is not able adequately and clearly to express his views without their being drawn out of him, and in this matter the Deputy has experience in these matters, enabling him frequently to get at the kernel of the matter and see that the kernel of the matter is properly brought before and considered by the Department official concerned. That is a duty and function which it is right and proper Deputies should exercise.

All these things mean that the work of a member of this House, or indeed of the other House, is entirely different from what it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago. As the Minister has clearly said, the primary duty of a Deputy is to deal with legislation and it is essential that Deputies do that, and they are doing it. The fact of their being swamped in other regards in the manner in which I have indicated, does mean that the calls on their time are so many that it is essential to consider the matter from an entirely different angle from that of 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

As the Minister has said, a Deputy cannot seek employment in the same way as an outside person because no employer will regard it as easy to fill the gap if the man concerned has to be away suddenly to act on a deputation, to transact business in the constituency or to attend this House, though I must confess I deprecate the other reference the Minister made in his statement. I should not like it to be thought that increased payment was necessary in relation to honouring the memory of one's friends. Be that as it may, however, the fact is that if the person who seeks the suffrages of the electorate is one likely to seek employment, he is debarred from that employment by being a member of the House.

As the Minister has said, professional people are undoubtedly subject to heavy disabilities in the same way. The Minister, I feel sure, was aware of that when in Opposition and I and my colleagues on these benches can bear witness to it in the same degree. It is an undoubted fact that the Deputy who does his work and his business properly certainly makes nothing out of being a Deputy.

On the contrary, he loses pretty heavily. That has been the general experience through the years. Those who have other income, be it earned or otherwise, are aware that the Revenue Commissioners will see to it that the amount of the increase given in Oireachtas cheques by this measure will be more than suitably diminished. It is a correct principle that once we have moved from the reimbursement of expenses under the old system of Deputies' and Senators' allowances of 40 years ago, we should equally move to the basis that what we are paid in this House is now subject, as are salaries outside, to income tax and other general taxation.

These are things that must be considered in their proper perspective in relation to the Bill and I wish to put on record categorically that I do not pose at all as a Deputy who does more than his fair average share of work but that I am aware the amount of work I do as a Deputy would far outweigh even the increased allowance given in this Bill if I were free to give the same amount of service to my profession. I know that is equally the experience of all of us who are professional people in any way. It would not be in terms of this figure that one would be thinking if it were a question of reimbursement for what one takes away from one's profession by taking the part we are proud to take in the public life of the country.

The Minister and the House will have to consider in the future whether, the way things are going, with the work here becoming more and more a completely wholetime occupation, the assessment will ensure that Deputies are able to maintain their position in the constituencies vis-à-vis people who wish to spend their entire time going to funerals or endeavouring to persuade their constituents that nothing can be done without their intervention and who believe that that sort of thing elevates public life.

I think I speak for the majority on my side of the House when I say that sort of thing degrades public life. Deputies should be at the service of their constituents where service is needed and should not try to claim an electoral advantage from services that are not needed. After all, grants, blue cards, whatever they may be, are given to the people as of right by the legislation and by the appropriate orders of the various local authorities, and it should not be necessary for Deputies to intervene to see that people get those rights. They are entitled to them as of right, not as of favour. The more that is stressed, the more it will inure to the benefit of public life as a whole.

I do not think the payments proposed for the Taoiseach and to other Ministers are excessive. On the contrary, provided a Minister is worth his salt, provided he is a good Minister and is working properly as a Minister, the salaries payable under the Bill will not in any way be excessive. I need hardly say there are certain people at whom I look on the benches opposite —I avoid being personal to anybody opposite—and who are not worth their places as Ministers; and just as a bad Deputy may perhaps be overpaid and a good Deputy underpaid, so too the bad Minister may be overpaid and the good Minister underpaid.

It is proper also that the allowance given to the Opposition Parties should be increased because those allowances are utilised in so far as we are concerned—I do not know about other Parties—for the purpose of paying the staff it is necessary to retain to run the parliamentary Party and assist Deputies in their work in it. That staff have properly been given increases and this amount must be added in order to meet it.

There is something to be said for a suggestion the Minister threw out, without saying on which side he stands himself, that we have an official in various parts of the country. As I understand it, that is another way of referring to what is commonly known, after the Swedish example, as the ombudsman. It is a matter of some doubt whether that is the solution for our problems, but it is one everybody is anxious to consider at some time or other. Whether it is the final solution is entirely another matter.

It is undoubtedly a fact that, even with this increase in the salary or allowance, the Deputy who endeavours as far as possible to understand legislation and to answer the legitimate calls on him by his constituents certainly will not be overpaid, but far from it.

Mr. Corish

The Labour Party agree with the proposals in this Bill. In his introductory speech, the Minister gave a fair and accurate description of the duties of Deputies, as apart from Ministers. Repetition of what is said cannot be made too often in view of the misapprehension of some people in regard to a Deputy's work, both inside and outside the House, and in regard to the salary or allowance he is paid. When there was a proposal to increase the salaries of Deputies and Ministers, a certain section of the public were critical and cynical about it. There has been no disagreement among the Parties in the House as to the merits of the proposals contained in the Bill. What the Minister is doing, and with which we all agree, is fixing a reasonable salary for Deputies.

The idea should be dispelled from the mind of the public that Deputies are well paid. At present a Deputy has £1,000 a year. It is not for me to mention other trades and professions that have similar amounts, and, in many cases, more. In addition to the £1,000, Deputies are told by some people that they also have their expenses. I shudder to think what would happen to the Deputy who makes his position as a Deputy a full-time occupation if he had to pay the various expenses a certain section would have him pay—expenses in regard to travel, subsistence and even postage. Those who criticise proposals of this kind are those who seem to make the greatest demand on Deputies in a constituency.

This proposal comes shortly after what has been described as the ninth round increase. Although this proposal is not to be compared with any of the other rounds, as far as public representative are concerned, there have been only three rounds. The Minister rightly said that we have been diffident in this matter of considering the increases that might be paid to Deputies over the past 40 years. It is not pretended that this is compensation for an increase in the cost of living. It can be described in trade union parlance as fixing the rate for the job.

It is about time this House and the country faced up to the fact that if public representatives are to be of a good calibre, there must be compensation by way of a reasonable salary. As the Minister says, so far as public representatives here are concerned, the salaries offered to them are indeed the lowest in Europe. Other people say that Deputies can engage in other occupations. That may be true in respect of some Deputies who happen to be living in a certain area, or it may be true in respect of those who follow a certain profession or are in a certain business. But from my experience of my own Party, the vast majority of them have devoted themselves entirely to the service of the people in their constituency and of the people of the country generally. How long would a man be tolerated in a job where he would tell the boss that he would give him a day's work this week or two days next week or that, when the Dáil closes down for the summer, he might be able to come back as well?

There are many demands on Deputies, particularly in relation to Departmental work. In recent times Deputies have had to concern themselves with very many more things, much more than ten, 20 or 30 years ago when the number of days the Dáil sat, I understand, was considerably less than it is now. I believe, therefore, that the proposals in regard to Deputies, particularly, are justified. I know Deputies will agree they are justified and that this is an attempt to fix a reasonable rate for a position which carries such responsibility both inside and outside the House.

My Party also agree with the proposals in respect of Ministers' salaries. One cannot measure adequately the responsibility thrust upon the head of the Government and the various Ministers. To many of us it often seems peculiar that those employed, for example, in semi-State companies have salaries 50 per cent or 60 per cent greater than that of the Taoiseach. No matter what we may think about them politically, all the Ministers have great responsibility and some of them have tremendous responsibility. For example, the Minister for Finance has tremendous responsibility in the planning of his Budget. On his proposals will depend whether we have progress or lack of progress. A decision to impose a tax may have tremendous effects on the economy and on various sections and individuals in it. If a Minister has such responsibility, he should be at least paid a salary comparable with that paid to individuals who have much less responsibility than the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Industry and commerce and certainly the Taoiseach himself.

Of course, there is the snide remark made by the cynics—whether they believe it or not—and the people who are generally critical of public representatives. They are critical not so much of their salaries but of the type of human animal they are. When they talk about a salary of £1,000 per year, they are inclined to say to themselves or their friends: "There is much more in it than that; these fellows can make a lot more money on the side". I think every one of the 144 Deputies in the Dáil, and those who were formerly in the Dáil and are still alive, can repeat what the Minister for Finance has said, that the majority come out rather poorer than they were when they went into public life.

I do not know what handouts and that sort of thing amount to in other countries but I know everybody in this House, particularly Deputies of my own Party and myself who have been in political life for the past 20 years, knows there are certainly no financial bouquets or handouts to public representatives in this country.

As far as allowances to the Opposition Leaders are concerned—I do not know whether Deputy Dillon will agree with me or not—whether they are to the First, Second, or Third Opposition, they are far too small. The Minister will know what I mean when I say that in reference to the allowance which is paid to the First Opposition and Second Opposition Party. I believe the allowance that is given to the First, Second and Third Opposition Party could indeed be greater than it is.

These Parties have to concern themselves with research into this, that and the other thing, trying to discover information with regard, particularly, to the EEC countries and to conduct research, not alone in this country but outside it. This research could not be paid for with the amount being provided for the Opposition Parties. The Government say in debates, especially debates of an international character, that they have a very efficient research staff at their disposal. They have the entire Civil Service at their disposal. I am not saying that such facilities as the assistance of the entire Civil Service should be provided for Deputy Dillon's Party or my Party. When one has regard to the allowance that is proposed, it can be readily seen that not a very big staff can be employed.

The Government, therefore, must have the advantage they have but I think consideration also should be given to Parliament as a whole and to the idea of trying to make Parliament effective by providing an allowance sufficient for any research work we consider necessary to keep us abreast of information which should be available to all public representatives. The Library in Dáil Éireann may contain a certain amount of information and we get from various Ministers, particularly the Minister for Transport and Power, a tremendous amount of information. All that in itself is not sufficient. I am not advocating this matter but in future the allocation of moneys for the purpose of research and general clerical assistance to Opposition Parties should be kept in mind.

I know, in my own case, one of the phrases that has been used and will continue to be used is: "Those people in Leinster House are fixing themselves up again." It does not make any difference what the criticism is: it does not make any difference to us at all. We have, in the heel of the hunt, to account to the people who elected us, whether we do right or wrong in Parliament. Every four years approximately, I have to go back to the people of Wexford, the Minister for Finance has to go back to the people of Wexford, Deputy Dillon has to go to the people of Monaghan and my colleagues here have to go to the people of Waterford and Meath. Those people will tell us whether we have done right or wrong. Every one of us —here I am talking about us as individuals—is elected by people who will ensure that we do a good job as public representatives. Everybody will agree that the man who does a good job should be paid for the responsibility he has and the work he is prepared to do.

Mr. Sherwin

I welcome this Bill to give increased allowances to Deputies and Senators. The former Deputy Murphy, who was elected by the unemployed of Dublin, was an unemployed man who came in here full of hope and within a year he handed in his resignation. He did this because of lack of money and nothing else. At that time, as recently as six years ago, members of this House had £12 10s. a week. Imagine a man like Murphy, who had no business, having to keep his home and children, pay the maximum differential rent and pay for a hall for the unemployed people who elected him out of his allowance. Murphy could not pay his grocery bill. I know that because he spoke to me the night before he left. He liked a drink but he was so desperate that he used to hide himself when he saw his friends.

This House is not for gentlemen farmers and aristocrats. It is for all types of employed people, working class people and all sorts of people. In fact, James Connolly was the first to advocate a substantial allowance because he foresaw the future when the workers, to a large extent, would be public representative. How could they become public representatives if they could not afford to keep their families? In the past, only aristocrats were members of Parliament. Nowadays it is largely workers, and well-to-do workers, who are members of this assembly.

As far as Independents are concerned, we actually get less than the Party members because we have to pay all our own expenses at elections. That must all come out of an Independent's hand. An Independent, in order to have any chance of being elected, must also be a member of a local body. Let nobody say we get in here easily. An Independent must not only work hard but must pay his way in municipal and Dáil elections. When you take all that into consideration, it does not pay us, but we love it.

I love political life. I know some bureaucrats outside have been sniping at us about getting £500 and they are only getting 12 per cent. There have been nine increases since 1946 not only for all workers but for all civil servants and there have been only two increases for Dáil members. Between 1947 and 1964, wages, calculated by reference to 23 industrial occupations, have increased by 183 per cent. Skilled industrial workers have received an increase of 183 per cent since 1947. It is because we pay ourselves that we shied away from doing it. We acted in cowardly fashion. Some of the leaders here thought that they would create a bad image among the begrudgers and they sacrificed some of their members, instead of ignoring the begrudgers and doing justice.

However, we seem to have grown up and we are agreed now that justice should be done. Actually, what members are getting is simply what they have been denied since 1947 but they are not getting as much as industrial workers have got. If members of the House were members of a trade union and if it were some other body that gave us an increase instead of ourselves, and if we had representatives to make our case, we would probably be demanding, not merely the increase that others have got, but retrospective payment. Do not forget that all other people—and I am not merely talking about workers —all the higher civil servants—got these nine increases. Assistant principal officers, principal officers, higher executive officers, all the top brass of local government and the State, got the nine increases. An assistant principal of a local authority gets £1,500. In local government, salaries rise to £3,000 or £4,000. City managers get £3,000 or £4,000. They have got the full money which Dáil Deputies were denied because some of the leaders thought they would lose a few miserable votes because they thought begrudgers would be giving out.

A small measure of justice has been granted, but not full justice. If full justice were to be done and if we were members of a trade union, we would not merely be looking for what others have got, but we would be looking for it retrospectively, which we are not doing. Although a small measure of justice is now being done, we are losing a substantial sum through having been denied the increase given to other people over the past number of years.

I am only making the case for the poorer Deputy. I am visualising such people as the former Deputy Murphy. I should like to know that if the Deputy had no job, he could keep his wife and family and have a little money which he needs because he cannot ignore the public. If he does, he will not be re-elected.

I have listened to Deputy Sweetman talking about the lengths to which Deputies go. The public force a Deputy to do lots of things he does not want to do. In fact, I know some very able men, such as Seán MacBride, who cannot secure election because they do not go around working for the people. A Deputy has to do that. Competition forces him to do it. The most popular Deputies, those who get the best vote, apart from the brass, who will always get the No. 1 vote among the hard core of Party supporters, have to work hard, independent of the Dáil. It is well known that it is those Deputies who are also local representatives and who work hard who will be re-elected. A Deputy does a wholetime job and competition forces him to do all sorts of work.

While I know that certain promises are made that certain things will be done when they cannot be done, nevertheless, as has been said, Deputies know how to go about things and the public do not. In that way a Deputy can help people considerably. For instance, I get hundreds of letters from constituents seeking houses. Very often they are denied a house due to their own ignorance. They may have had another child or two children which would entitle them to a house and they may not have conveyed that information to the housing authority.

I am merely pointing out how Deputies can be helpful to the public. I do not want to enlarge on this matter. I say that justice is being done and we should ignore the begrudgers.

There is one further comment I should like to make. The members of this House ought at least to attend the House. I am not suggesting that they should sit in the House all day.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not see how that point can be debated on this Bill. It has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Sherwin

Our duties have been referred to here and the public have made comments. I suggest that there should be some form of attendance record here and that Members should at least come in and sign a book to show their attendance. I do not think it fair that some Deputies who may not be seen here for two weeks or more should draw their salaries like everyone else who has been attending and keeping this place going. While I would make allowance for some period of absence, in the case of prolonged absence, there should be some deduction.

Apart from that comment, I would say that as far as the Members of this House are concerned, this business does not pay. It is a job of love as far as I am concerned. Certainly, if I wanted to make money, I would get out of this House and resume the business I left, where I would make twice as much.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with Deputy Sweetman that certain Deputies appear to take on more than they need, intervene where they are not required, and so on, and certain people appear to think that they will not get their legal rights unless they call on a Deputy. The peculiar thing is that my experience as a Minister is that that is prevalent in certain counties and not in others. I would conclude from that that either the people in these counties demand that service from their Deputies or maybe I should reverse matters and say that the Deputies in those counties offer their services to the people. I do not know which. But I would indeed welcome any suggestion, as thrown out by Deputy Sweetman, that would make it unnecessary for Deputies to intervene in that way and also try to convince people that it is unnecessary for them to go to the Deputy to get what is their legal right.

It must be said, of course, that where a person is refused under some scheme, he generally believes that he has been wronged and, of course, he will go to somebody to try to get matters right and sometimes a Deputy does get matters right because he is a better advocate than the person himself and also because the Deputy may have some facts from the applicant that were not on his application form and therefore the Deputy may succeed where the applicant has failed. That being reported in the district induces other people to call on the Deputy for intervention of this kind. So it is a difficult problem to know what we can do about it.

Deputy Corish was able to support my statement that certain Deputies have to live on their allowance from the Dáil because it is not possible for them to get another job which would be remunerated. I agree with Deputy Corish that there are cynics who say that Deputies have more than they get by way of remuneration, that they have other ways of making money. There is an old Irish proverb which deals with people of that kind, which says "Sás a dhéanta a chuimhnigh air"— the person who thinks that has a bad mind and the person who has a bad mind is capable of doing the act himself.

With regard to the question of the allowance to Opposition Parties, this, of course, was introduced some years ago—I do not remember exactly what year it was—but it was fixed at that time on what might be called an empirical basis. We had no experience to go on. We could only make a guess at what would be required by Opposition Parties to enable them to do their duties properly and, naturally, the Minister for Finance at the time did not want to make it too high. There has been a certain number of years of working. We would have some experience to go upon and perhaps the matter should be investigated and examined with a view to seeing if this service could be improved in any way. That, I take it, will be a matter for another time, not by way of amendment to this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 18th June, 1964.