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 They resulted, I think, in the amendment being withdrawn.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.