It is quite a time now since it became publicly known that there were proposals in hand to increase the salaries of those who are engaged in parliamentary work and who are parliamentary representatives. So far there has not been any public comment from me as the Leader of the Labour Party, because I believed that this Second Reading debate was the appropriate time to give not only my own views but those of my Party as well. In view of some of the criticism by a limited number of people in the country, it is necessary that all the facts in regard to Deputies' and Ministers' salaries, their duties, functions and responsibilities, should be made known in a debate such as this. The Minister has outlined most of these facts, and Deputy O'Higgins has done the same. I think I am a little longer in the House than either Deputy O'Higgins or the Minister for Finance and can claim to have the same appreciation, if not a slightly better one, of this subject than either of the two who have spoken before me.
In this we are discussing the fifth round of salary increases for Deputies. When we are talking about rounds of increases, they are usually related to the post-war period, but what we are discussing is the fifth round increase since 1922, since the establishment of the Second Dáil. I suppose if anybody is at fault in this matter it is Dáil Éireann itself, because it ought to be said that the figure which is now proposed should have been gradually aimed at over the past 45 years. I do not think the public are generally aware—if they are, they do not want to believe this fact—that there have been only four increases since 1923 and that there have been very long intervals in between.
As Deputy O'Higgins has said, the salary or allowance in 1923 was £360; it was not increased until 1938, to £480; nine years afterwards, it was increased to £624; and 17 years afterwards to £1,000. It is true that the question of increases for Deputies and for Ministers was mooted many times over the years but was postponed because it always appeared to somebody to be inappropriate. My view and that of my Party always has been that there should have been a proper rate fixed for the job and that the salaries should have been increased at much more frequent intervals.
The question that has been posed by the Minister and by Deputy O'Higgins is: Do we want the choice of the people to represent them here in Dáil Éireann or is representation in Dáil Éireann be the preserve of those who can afford to be Members of Parliament merely because they have other means? One of the co-founders of the Labour Party, James Connolly, whose 100th anniversary we celebrate this year, commented on MP's salaries when the Home Rule Bill was on the Westminster Statute Book. In this particular piece of legislation, there was no mention of payment of Members and to this Connolly objected strongly. He said it was a deliberate attempt, and it can be recognised that it must have been, to prevent proper Labour representation in Dáil Éireann, particularly at that time. He insisted that MPs should be paid and paid adequately.
That is one of the reasons why we believe that the proposal of the Minister for Finance is fully justified today. If we underpay, only those who can afford it will enter politics. Politicians as such are not very popular people in this country and they are subjected to the type of abuse and sneer and denigration to which Deputy O'Higgins referred. We are talking about salaries of Members of Parliament; we are discussing Parliament and those who constitute Parliament and not necessarily those who are here today but Members of Parliament in the future and for many years to come. Along with a discussion on the salaries for Members, we ought on this occasion to avail of the opportunity to discuss other matters as well, the functions of Parliament, the duties of Members, fair salaries for them, and a revision of the functions of Parliament and whether or not we should have full-time politicians.
The Members of Parliaments are elected by the people and there is not sufficient appreciation of or deep thought given to Parliament and those who constitute it. The Parliament elects the Government and the Government run the nation's affairs. Parliament is in effect the supreme authority, although of course we have the President in certain circumstances and the courts of law. The Minister mentioned this and I should like to emphasise it so that the people will understand what Parliament is and what responsibilities the Members have. Parliament decides how much money should be invested from the money raised for housing, agriculture, industry, harbours, transport and power, hospitals, schools and other things. It decides the yearly current expenditure on such things as social welfare, health education, justice, and agriculture. It decides how money is to be raised, either by way of loans, taxation or savings. It decides what laws are to be enacted for every section of the community and the betterment of the community as a whole. In fact, Parliament decides the type of society we live in and influences our way of life. I do not want to appear to criticise in any way, but as I say, we are discussing Members of Parliament and their salaries. I suppose the temptation in a discussion like this is to compare salaries here with those of other people.
I know that the professions I am going to mention are an important and integral part of the community but we should relate their functions, duties and responsibilities to those of Ministers and Members of Parliament. There are people who say that £2,500 is too much. The average economist, or should I say, the economist who receives the average wage, earns by the time he is 30 years of age £1,500; by the time he is 40 he earns £2,500 and by the time he is 45 years of age, he averages £3,000. The accountant by the time he is 30 gets an average £1,400; by the time he is 40, £2,000 and by the time he is 45, he gets £2,400. The architect by the time he is 30 years of age receives £1,600 per year; by the time he reaches 40, he gets £1,900; and by the time he reaches 45 he gets £2,300. One could go on ad infinitum about engineers and others in the professions and in private industry to demonstrate how much higher these salaries are than the present salary paid to Members of Dáil Éireann and indeed the salary proposed in this measure.
The Minister referred to the duties of Members of the Dáil, to those who must be legislators, debaters, public speakers and public servants. Apart from this, because they are Members of Dáil Éireann, they have public engagements outside the Dáil. Few people referred to the fact that this is a seven-day per week job with no special hours. This is no nine to five job and it need hardly be mentioned that there is no overtime. A lot of people assume that the work of Members is confined to the 100 days on which the Dáil meets. They assume that a Member has nothing to do during the Summer Recess or during the breaks at Easter and Christmas. This indeed is not the end of his work for he must travel his constituency, and indeed a majority of the Members of the various Parties must now travel outside their constituencies during by-election periods. The letters, the calls to the Departments and the interviews with people and various other work of this kind take time and there is not much time left for leisure. Every Deputy will agree that one of the worst things is that he is engaged on political work on practically every Sunday in the year.
It is about time the critics of Members of Dáil Éireann and the proposals in this Bill remembered all these things and had regard to these facts which I have mentioned and which were mentioned by the Minister and Deputy O'Higgins. Again every Member knows that every person one encounters is a potential client. Everyone assumes that you are very busy, that you are very hardworking and they say that they would not have your job for £10,000 and they ask you how do you stick it, but as soon as they say that, they mention some problem they have either in regard to themselves or friends or relations. That does not concern us. We know this and we gladly accept the problem or the job that is given. The Minister mentioned that there was little privacy at home. This again is something to which we do not object but I emphasise it as another one of the difficult tasks the Deputy has to meet.
These services are rendered—the letterwriting, the calls to local offices and to various Departments and so on—because the public want them. This sort of service is not peculiar to Ireland; it is done by practically every Parliamentarian in Western Europe. Somebody described us as ombudsmen and I suppose we are. The Minister was right when he described us as the liaison between the Government, Government Departments and the ordinary people. In my view, it is a vital role and a role which must be engaged in by the Members of Dáil Éireann. As far as these salaries are concerned, I believe, and I am sure every Deputy believes, that every citizen over 21 years of age is entitles to become a Member of Dáil Éireann and no one should be debarred because he finds it financially difficult to do so. The policy of the rich and the well-off is to keep the salaries low. Indeed, the last time we had a similar discussion here there were comments from some Members to the effect that this should not be a salary at all; it should be an allowance and should be regarded as such. I have always believed that it should be, as it is now and has been for the past four or five years, a salary because this is a full-time job.
Let me emphasise again that if we keep the salary low, the result will be that many people who could contribute to the public life of the country here in Dáil Éireann will be debarred from doing so. If Deputies' salaries are to be less favourable than the salaries of others, whose responsibilities are not nearly so great, who do not work as long hours, or bear the same expenses, then we shall be blocking efficient politicians from Dáil Éireann. We shall limit the choice of politicians to those who can supplement their incomes by some other means.
There is an attitude in the country on the part of a number of people that the Dáil Deputy on a salary of £1,500 a year lives a life of luxury. Is it to be suggested that a TD should be regarded as inferior to persons with larger salaries who have not the same responsibilities and who are not subject to the same glare of publicity—aye, and in recent times, personal criticism, not alone by word of mouth but in the written article by people whose salaries are not so much depleted by expenses as are the salaries of those they criticise?
The Minister referred to the various expenses Deputies have to meet. I am sure every Deputy can detail his own. It may sometimes look like putting on the poor mouth to mention all the little expenses that have to be met. There are people who assume that every time we step into our cars our expenses are paid. The travel that a Deputy does in his constituency and the cost of that travel every year is formidable. He has to pay hotel bills inside and outside his constituency and they can be a pretty big item. There is scarcely any necessity, I suppose, to talk about the subscriptions that are demanded every day and every week in the year. These subscriptions must be paid. The Deputy who would refuse to contribute to this or that fund, to this or that football, hurling, rugby or soccer club would very soon find himself out of favour with his constituents.
Again, and I do not know why it should have to be repeated, but it must be emphasised, the newspapers are pretty poor in their approach to this. I do not know whether or not they know it, but Deputies pay income tax. How many more times will this have to be said? Letters appear in the evening papers—it is usually in these papers that the criticism appears— which usually end up with something to the effect that Deputies' salaries are not subject to income tax. It should be known, once and for all, by those who write to and in newspapers that Deputies have the same obligations as other individuals where income tax is concerned. The only difference is that the first £500 is not subject to income tax. When that is mentioned, it is, of course, assumed that there is a saving of £500 in income tax. The salary of £1,500 that a Dáil Deputy receives is not a net sum; it is not a take-home pay packet. It is a return for labour. It is also for the purpose of meeting expenses and, if one deducts expenses from that £1,500 and calculates the amount of income tax paid on the balance, there is very little left. Yet, there are people who regard this salary as luxurious.
I and the other members of my Party visualise part of this increase being used for secretarial assistance. One of the great defects in our system here is the fact that there is no provision for secretarial assistance. Let no one be under the misapprehension that a full-time assistant can be employed even out of £2,500 per year, but I firmly believe that secretarial assistance, even on a part-time basis, will allow Deputies to engage more extensively in the more important work of attendance here in the Chamber and participation in legislation.
I said, and the previous speakers agree with me, that letter-writing and phone calls are a necessary part of the work of a Deputy. I do not accept that Deputies of an Irish Parliament should have to spend so much time answering letters by hand, as they do now, and as they are required to do under our present system. They answer hundreds and hundreds of letters every week.
The Minister said that it was possible for some Deputies to engage secretarial assistance. It is not possible for those whose only income is the salary they receive as a Member of Dáil Éireann and anybody who engages secretarial assistance does so out of some other income. I fail to see how such assistance could be afforded out of £1,500 a year.
The public do not seem to appreciate the fact that approximately every three years Deputies, and others of course, have to contest a general election—a long, strenuous and expensive campaign. As far as our Party is concerned, those contesting elections get some financial assistance from the trade unions, but there are others who find themselves after an election with pretty heavy bills, bills they try to pay off over the next two, three or four years.
In the end, it is the people who will decide. If my constituents believe I am wrong in voting for an increase for Members of this House, they will tell me so in the next election. They will tell me either by reducing my vote substantially or putting me out. I am prepared, for the reasons given by the Minister and for my own reasons, to put myself before the people on that particular issue. I have sufficient confidence in my constituents and in the electorate in other constituencies in which we have Labour representation to believe that they will appreciate the reasons for fixing a proper rate for the job.
We have been asked of course what qualifications have we? There are people who would suggest that we should all be university graduates or have undergone some special courses. The only qualification we should have is that we are elected by the people. One does not have to be a university graduate to know what people want. One does not need any special training to ensure that the wishes of one's constituents or of the country as a whole are represented here in debate. We are elected by the people, as has been emphasised, for a while. We have the strictest employers anybody could have. A civil servant is recruited through examination or interview and he remains in the Civil Service, unless he does something very drastic, until he is 65 years of age. The same position obtains in local government. Some of these people have far more by way of salary than Deputies or Senators have. We have, as I said, the strictest employers. Our security of tenure is most uncertain. We have to go before our employers to be re-elected, to get our jobs back, every three or four years. On this particular issue, on the issue of the Budget, on the referendum, or anything like that, it is the people who will judge and decide whether or not we should continue to represent them.
There are other arguments also that should be commented upon. Deputies are put into different categories. We are told that there are the legislators, the letter writers, a combination of legislators and letter writers, and professional people who give part-time service to the position of Deputy of Dáil Éireann. There are arguments, of course, that some Deputies should get the increase and others should not. Of course, when a constituent meets a Deputy, he is wont to say: "I think you are worth it all right but there are others in Dáil Éireann who are not worth it at all." This is a daft sort of argument. If we are to bring this to its logical conclusion, we should have different rates in accordance with their alleged ability for dispensary doctors, civil servants, plasterers, carpenters, labourers, journalists. This, as I say, is the rate for the job and the people will find out the laggards, the people who do not answer letters, those who do not make contributions in Dáil Éireann and those who are very part-time politicians and attend only occasionally in Dáil Éireann.
It is suggested, of course, that £2,500 is excessive and comparisons are made with social welfare recipients and the lowly paid workers. As far as the Labour Party are concerned, we have nothing to be ashamed about as far as our record goes. We need no reminding that old age pensioners, widows and orphans, those on the dole and those who are sick have a very low level of allowance. We understand and appreciate, particularly those of us in the trade union movement, that there are tens of thousands of lowly paid workers, even in the Government service, and tens of thousands all over the country who have inadequate wages but I do not think that anybody on any side of the House would suggest that this is because of lack of effort by the Labour Party or by the trade union movement. As far as we are concerned, we will try, as we always have tried, to ensure that as far as these people are concerned, and those who are lowly paid, they will be "upped" as soon as possible.
It is only fair in a discussion on salaries that we should also discuss the functioning of Parliament. Frankly, I must say that my Party have been discussing the functions of Parliament over the past few months. It would be an understatement to say that we are entirely dissatisfied with the type of machinery that we have here to consider legislation, to consider Estimates and different other business that comes before Dáil Éireann. I may be corrected on this, but, as far as I know, we have the same machine and the same old routine we have had for the past 46 years. I do not believe that the best use is being made of Parliament or, should I say, I do not believe the best use is being made of the Members. The system we have at the present time is inefficient and, as I have said, Deputies are not utilised to the full.
If one has regard to, say, Committee Stage discussion, one must notice, and I am sure the public must notice, the low attendance. We have advocated here no more than two or three weeks ago to the Taoiseach that there should be a system of committees. That would not be unusual because, as far as I know from the experience I have had in the Council of Europe, the European system provides for a number of committees, not alone in the Council of Europe, but in the various countries that constitute the Council of Europe. I believe that we could do much better work and much more efficient work if we were to establish permanent committees for reviewing proposed legislation. I believe that outside this Chamber, but within the House, or even in a Department, we should have sitting, say, a committee on financial affairs, one that would deal with budget planning and foreign trade; one on economic affairs that would deal with industry, agriculture and labour, that is, the legislation for these, and, indeed, any other proposals; one for social welfare that would deal with health, education and housing; one for home affairs that would deal with local government, justice and, say, the Gaeltacht; and, certainly, one for foreign affairs—this is one that we need very badly indeed, in view of the absence of information and the light and slight discussion that we have in this House on foreign affairs.
Another one that has been suggested by various Members of the House, even by members of the Fianna Fáil Party, is a committee that would review the management, practice and policy as laid down by the Government for State and semi-State bodies, because we have to remember that in respect of these State and semi-State bodies there is an investment by the State, if you like by the taxpayer, of £200 million.
Members must concede that we have many debates in this House that are in themselves futile. Even though they have more or less the same sort of machinery in practice in Great Britain, they seem to be much more efficient and, certainly, seem to be able to get through their business a great deal faster than we do even though their problems and the extent of their administration are far bigger.
I do not want to deny the right of any Deputy to talk on the Budget and to talk as long as he can but during the lifetime of this Government and even of the inter-Party Governments, we have had Budget debates that went on for three weeks. I do not deny the right of every single person in this House to talk on the Budget but, to some extent, it is waste of time. The Minister has said that we operate under the Party system. I do not think there would be any difficulty, from my point of view, in having, say, selected from the Labour Party a limited number of Deputies to talk on the Budget. Similarly, it would be with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. There is a certain futility about the type of debate that we have had that went on for three weeks and, indeed, the type of debate we are having now on the proposal to abolish proportional representation.
The Ceann Comhairle or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle must find himself in a very difficult position at times. Not wanting to go into the merits or demerits of the referendum, I must say that we have had, ad nauseam, the same argument by the same people for the last five or six weeks. There are many more important things that could and should be discussed in Dáil Éireann. Surely there are things such as I have mentioned that could well be dealt with in committee by selected members of the various Parties in the House and their final report could come back to the House to be decided upon by the entire 144 Members? I do not think that is asking too much. We are wasting time here. We are working on a system that is certainly outmoded. In any case, only one thing can be debated by the Members of this House at a time by reason of the fact that this is the only place where matters of national importance are discussed. The Marts Bill was important but there were other things that were more important when we spent weeks and weeks on that Bill in this House last year. In any case, in this House the discussion takes a broader line. There is no opportunity for Members, nor is there any tolerance for Members, to go into details of certain legislation. Ministers, or should I say, parliamentary draftsmen, have got away with murder in this House for years and years, again by reason of the fact that it was impossible, even at such distance as, say, from where I am to the Minister, to be able to question him and to get information on something that is obscure or very difficult to an ordinary Deputy.
I believe also that we should be prepared to work longer in Dáil Éireann. We should have all-day sittings. The British House of Commons, as far as I know, works five days per week and starts in the morning. I do not think we have achieved a great deal, for example, in the past three weeks. I do not think we have made any world-shaking decisions or nation-making decisions here. It has been argued that it is impossible to start business in the morning because Ministers must look after the affairs of their Departments and that if divisions were called, they might not be able to be available, et cetera. I think this is a lot of cod, too. In view of the fact that we have in many cases set times for divisions, this argument about Ministers having to be present for divisions does not stand. We should be prepared to sit in the mornings and sit the day through. I do not know whom that will or will not suit. This is the view of my Party. Serious consideration should be given to it, if not by the Minister for Finance, then by the Taoiseach and the Government.
We are asked to be an effective Opposition. When one has regard to the practice in Dáil Éireann, it is evident that the fullest facilities are not available for an Opposition to work properly. I am not talking about allowances now. Opposition time is completely inadequate. I do not know how much Private Members' Time we had in this session since last October: I would say about eight hours in all, if that. It must be remembered that we, too, are part of the machinery of Parliament. There is an assumption, in the House particularly and maybe in the country, that all initiative comes and must come from the Government. The Constitution intended that the Opposition could also have certain facilities for promoting Private Members' Bills and motions. These facilities are practically nil. Very little can emanate by way of initiative from the Opposition because so little time is given for Private Members' Motions and Bills.
There is no opportunity of introducing emergency measures. We must wonder sometimes when something happens in Britain, Rhodesia or some part of the world having relations with Britain that there can be a debate in the British Parliament on that day or the following day. But here if something we believe important happens in the country or something happens that should not happen, what do we do? We put down a question. We must give four or five days' notice. The Taoiseach or a Minister answers, refuses supplementaries, and then the Ceann Comhairle must call the next question.
