Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jun 1923

Vol. 1 No. 24

SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - THE PREAMBLE.

Motion made, and question put: "That the Preamble of the Bill be postponed."
Agreed.
SECTION I.
Motion made and question put: "That Section I. stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION II.
(1) The allowance to be paid to each member of the Oireachtas under this Act shall be an allowance at the rate of £30 a month.
(2) The salary for the time being payable to a member of the Oireachtas by virtue of his holding any of the offices following, that is to say:—
(a) Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Eireann,
(b) Leas-Cheann Comhairle of Dáil Eireann,
(c) Cathaoirleach of Seanad Eireann,
(d) Leas-Chathaoirleach of Seanad Eireann,
(e) President of the Executive Council,
(f) Any office the tenure of which is dependent on the President of Executive Council retaining the support of a majority in Dáil Eireann.
(g) Any office the tenure of which is dependent on the term of existence of a particular Dáil Eireann shall be deemed to include the allowance payable to such members under this Act and accordingly no member of the Oireachtas shall, while he is in receipt of salary in respect of any of the offices aforesaid, be entitled to any further allowance under this Act.

I beg to move the following amendment to this section: To add at the end of Sub-section 1 the words: "But no member of the Seanad shall receive this allowance in respect of any month in which he has not attended at least half the meetings of the Seanad held during that period, unless prevented from attending by illness; always provided that he may claim to have such Committees of the Seanad of which he may for the time being be a member counted for the purpose of reckoning attendances, as if they were meetings of the Seanad."

I was advised some time ago, and again to-day, to let sleeping dogs lie, and I fully realise there was something in that, inasmuch as the whole Seanad waited for a considerable time to take this amendment, presumably in order that it might receive due castigation from all those who were against it. However, I am very glad to see that we shall have arguments against it. A somewhat similar amendment was put forward in the Dáil. It applied to the whole Oireachtas, and the arguments which were used against it were quite sound, I think, in so far as the Dáil is concerned. They resulted, I think, in the amendment being withdrawn. But these arguments did not apply to the Seanad. It was said that it was the business of the Party Whips to keep up the attendances. We have no Whips and no Parties. It was said that the constituencies would look after members who did not attend. We have no constituencies, and when we shall have one it will be so large that it cannot take much interest in individuals. We shall be elected, some of us, for twelve years. Now, it might be thought from that, that my object is to whip up attendances. That is really not what I want to do at all. The attendance here is very good, from 50 to 60 per cent. That is not the point at all, but it is this: The President said in the Dáil that this £30 a month was to be regarded as a contribution towards the expenses of the members.

Now, I fully agree that the £30, on an average, is a very fair sum, and that it is earned even by Senators who live in Dublin, and have not to come up from the country. What I feel strongly about, and the reason I will not let sleeping dogs lie is, that it seems to me unfair, outrageous almost, that people should be getting a very considerable sum of money from a somewhat impoverished Treasury by way of expenses that they have not incurred. In fact, it seems to me that it is worse than a good many of the things we have been listening to in the recent debate. We have ridiculously few meetings here, and if what I propose passes, it would mean that people should attend half the time. I do not want to work out the cost, because this might be reported in to-morrow's papers of how much per time a man would get even if he attended one out of two meetings. That reminds me of another point. I believe there are some members who are returning their cheques. So they ought, and so ought a lot more. I am sure it will be said, I think I ought to say it, that they are greatly to be commended for doing so. It is sure to be said that it is a derogatory thing that the Seanad should not be put on the same terms as the Dáil, or rather that it should be put on different terms. If we had as many meetings as the Dáil, and worked as hard there might be something to be said for that, but in point of fact we do not. As regards the thing being derogatory, I think I am right in saying that payment by attendance is the case in every place of equal importance to Ireland. It is the case anyway in South Africa and Canada.

Lastly, on that point, if this is a recommendation from us, from the Seanad dealing with the Seanad only, it cannot be suggested that the proposal has been imposed upon us from without, and I think we owe it to the present state of the finances of the country to show that we have some regard for them by passing this recommendation. The Dáil could hardly do so, and distinguish between us and themselves. It seems to me that it is up to us to show that we are not wanting to get something for nothing.

I hope, when I have heard the arguments for and against Senator MacLysaght's proposal, that I shall be able to vote against it. It is one of these proposals which, without rousing in one any very strong conviction, does rouse in one a very strong distaste. I think it should only be proposed in this Seanad if there had been gross abuse. I think there has been no gross abuse. I think it can quite well be postponed for a considerable time. The proposer of it has said that the attendance has been very high.

Fairly high.

He said that the average of attendance had been 60 per cent. and that is very high. Many Senators have attended at great loss to themselves, and some with danger to themselves. This Seanad has a brief but honourable career. If you are to create and preserve a habit of service you must trust that habit and you must be ready to prefer integrity to any kind of weight and measure.

I join with Senator Yeats in opposing this recommendation. We are in an absolutely abnormal time. It is true that our meetings have been few, as we have not had much work to do. I cannot believe that this state of things will continue at a later time. When we come into normal conditions a number of questions will be brought before us that will require more frequent attendance. I would prefer to have it proposed that only those should receive payment who apply for it. Otherwise I think there ought to be no difference between us. I think the record of the Seanad has been very good. There has been a really serious public spirit which, I am sure, will be developed yet more highly in the coming months when we have more work to do, and that we shall fully justify our existence. I should be very sorry to see an indignity thrown upon the Seanad, as I think would be done by cutting down the payment according to attendance.

Previous Senators have viewed the recommendation as interfering with the rights and liberties of Senators. I do not think that the suggestion would in any way encroach upon or diminish the authority of any Senator. It is a plain, simple business proposition, apart from any other argument, that those who serve shall receive their reward. People who gave their services did not give them with the idea of any reward. I think it would be invidious to adopt any such suggestion as that proposed by Senator Mrs. Stopford Green that those who ask for payment should receive it, and those who do not should not.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think that was Senator Mrs. Stopford Green's suggestion. As I understood her, what she said was she would prefer that, but she did not recommend it.

I accept the correction. I would prefer the recommendation as it stands, that only those who serve should receive pay, and for that reason I support it.

I do not know whether this is a matter upon which I really should address any remarks to the Seanad at all, because the recommendation refers only to the Seanad. On a previous occasion, when we had a motion somewhat similar to this under consideration, it referred to the Oireachtas. The Constitution lays it down—I am speaking from recollection—that members of the Dáil and Seanad should be paid. I only heard to-day for the first time that some members of the Oireachtas either returned cheques or indicated their unwillingness to accept them. Speaking as a member of the Oireachtas, I say I regret that. There is a very wide disparity between the means of members of the Oireachtas and those who really require this contribution towards their expenses in certain cases feel very much any objection on the part of other members to accepting this contribution towards expenses. I can appreciate that there is a good public spirit behind any objection to taking these cheques, but I do submit, speaking as a member of the Oireachtas only, that if ordinary service be given— and when I say ordinary service I do not mean regular attendance; it is not always possible to have regular attendance—but if ordinary service be given, I do not see any objection which would weigh against accepting what is laid down in the Constitution and what has been passed by the Dáil and Seanad on previous occasions as their opinion as to what members should receive. There are occasions upon which it would be impossible for members of the Seanad and Dáil to attend meetings.

There are occasions upon which one makes appointments and finds it impossible to keep them. There may be services rendered in connection with public affairs of the State far more valuable than one's attendance at these meetings and in respect of which members of the Oireachtas may possibly incur very large expenses of one kind or another. Ordinary membership of the Oireachtas entails an expense which it is unnecessary to enter into. I believe that if one were to canvass the real opinions of members of the Oireachtas, if it were possible for them to carry out their duties as members without any payment, that the vast majority would vote for no payment. That is not the case. I do think that service is given and attendance is given as fairly in the circumstances, as in any other assembly of its kind, certainly as in any other assembly of which I have been a member outside of the Oireachtas. It has been given in both Houses during a time of very severe stress, and it has been given at great personal inconvenience to members of this Seanad whose residences have been destroyed and who have had to live elsewhere or have had to leave this country. At no time has it been my experience when I have asked for the attendance of a Senator that that Senator did not come here to attend and look after the business of the Seanad.

I think it is a very proud record, one very much to the credit of the Seanad, that any time a Senator was called upon to do his or her duty, that member of the Seanad did his or her duty. I do not know that an amendment of this sort would be just in a great many cases, but I know that the Senator who has proposed it means to deal justly with these people. Provisions such as this, although they intend to cover certain cases, do not always cover them. I suggest, and, A Chathaoirligh, you understand it better than anyone else, that no matter what laws are passed, or what regulations are made, there are opportunities of evading them. If service be given here in good faith, that service ought to be remunerated and the Committee of the Dáil and the Committee of the Seanad which regulated the payment that should be made in these cases had that in mind, and made that recommendation. I should say, A Chathaoirligh, that I had no intention of saying anything personal in what I mentioned a moment ago—it was only meant in connection with your knowledge of the law—that it was impossible in certain cases to prevent certain things being done.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I quite appreciate that.

The President says that regular service is given, and I want to point out that if there was an average attendance of fifty-five or sixty per cent. of the Seanad it was the same fifty-five or sixty per cent. The other people who did not come here are in my mind and not those who are prevented occasionally from being here. As to the cheques, these were returned by people who could not attend.

Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 23.

  • Bennett, Thomas Westropp
  • de Loughry, Peter
  • Duffy, Michael
  • Farren, Thomas
  • Love, Joseph Clayton
  • MacLysaght, Edward
  • MacPartlin, Thomas
  • O'Farrell, John Thomas
  • Power, Mrs. Jane Wyse

Níl

  • Barrington, William
  • Butler, Richard A.
  • Costello, Mrs. Eileen
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Desart, Ellen Odette, Dowager Countess of
  • Everard, Sir Nugent Talbot, Bart.
  • Fitzgerald, Martin
  • Green, Mrs. Alice Stopford
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser
  • Guinness, Henry Seymour
  • Irwin, Cornelius Joseph
  • Keane, Sir John, Bart.
  • Kenny, Patrick Williams
  • Linehan, Thomas
  • MacKean, James
  • MacLoughlin, John
  • Molloy, William John
  • Moran, James
  • O'Dea, Michael
  • O'Rourke, Bernard
  • O'Sullivan, William, M.D.
  • Wicklow, Earl of
  • Yeats, William Butler
Amendment declared lost.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it right that I should say in vindication of members of the Seanad who returned cheques, that so far as I know, it only happened in the cases of certain distinguished Senators, who from protracted illness and infirmity have been unable to give any attendance in the Seanad. While they sent back their cheques, it was not that they objected to the principle of payment, but they considered that having been unable to attend up to the present, they should return their cheques for the period for which they were absent. I wish further to add that in two or three cases these distinguished men were anxious to resign by reason of the fact that they had been unable to attend since their election. At my request they held over their resignations, as I considered that they would be a loss to the Seanad, and that they might in a short time, in God's providence, be restored to health.

I should say that in some of these cases where very severe illness prevented the attendance of these Senators I received communications saying that notwithstanding that illness, if required here they would come.

Section agreed to.
Remaining Sections agreed to.
Bill ordered to be reported.
Top
Share