Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1929

Vol. 11 No. 5

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - REMUNERATION OF THE CATHAOIRLEACH AND THE LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH.

Mr. CONNOLLY

I move:—

"That, pursuant to Article 21 of the Constitution, Seanad Eireann hereby resolves that, as and from the date of the adoption of this resolution, the remuneration of the Cathaoirleach shall be at the rate of £750 per annum and that of the Leas-Chathaoirleach at the rate of £400 per annum."

The proposal with regard to the reduction of the remuneration of the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach was already before the House, and we are all aware of the purpose of it. There has been a good deal of discussion and talk with regard to economy. I, personally, and my colleagues in the Party that I represent, feel that the practice of economy ought to begin at the top, and that it is desirable an example should be shown by the higher officials, and by those who are remunerated on a very generous scale indeed. They should show a spirit of sacrifice, and we in this House should bring the remuneration of the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach more into proportion to the services they render in the House. Looking back on the past six years, and reviewing the services of these officers of the Seanad one is struck by the fact that the Seanad is a very costly organisation indeed. However we might wish to dignify the occupants of the positions we have to remember that economy in the strictest sense is now being preached. It is not easy to preach economy to the people of the country, or to civil servants or members of the teaching profession, if we do not practice it with our officers in both Houses. Various rumours are going about as regards economy that is going to be effected.

The teaching profession suffered a reduction some time ago of 10 per cent. in their salaries. It has now been discovered that the 4 per cent. of their salaries which go to their own pension fund is not adequate to make up the pension fund to the desired amount, and that there is, in addition, a very serious deficit. I do not know what truth there is in the rumour, but I believe it is suggested that a further cut of 8½ per cent. is intended in the teachers' remuneration, which, with the original 10 per cent. and the 4 per cent. already contributed by the teachers to their own pension fund, will, I think, make a total reduction of 22½ per cent. I submit that is one service where we simply cannot afford to economise if we are going to have citizens who will be competent to think or act intelligently and be educated either for home use or for export abroad, which is one of our main industries. We must be prepared to remunerate the teaching profession properly. It is rather significant of the outlook of the Executive at the moment that one of the first efforts as regards economy is going to be applied to a body which might give us some reason to hope for the future. If we have no reason to hope from our educational machinery and organisation, then I cannot see where we are going to turn for hope. I mention this because it is a cynical sidelight on the economy spirit. There are many services, no doubt, which can be reduced, and there are many officials that might be dispensed with, but we cannot afford to dispense with the educational forces in this country, nor can we afford to risk a position whereby we would not induce the best elements in the country to follow that profession. I leave that for a moment and I come to the other proposal, namely, that economy is going to be practised by the abandonment of continuation or night schools. That suggestion has been definitely made and has been announced in the Press. I am afraid there is a great deal of reality behind both suggestions. There, again, we are striking at what is absolutely necessary for the country.

Mr. MILROY

I do not like to interrupt, but on a point of order, is this relevant?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think the Senator is developing his argument with regard to economy all round.

Mr. CONNOLLY

I am trying to show that wherever economies are being practised they are practised in the wrong directions. I am trying to show that in the educational forces of the country economy is being practised. I argue that we in this Seanad ought to practise economy at home. I feel that the moral value of our example to the people of the country will be very appreciable. I feel also that the services rendered by the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach are adequately compensated by the amounts specified in my motion—£750 per annum for the Cathaoirleach and £400 for the Leas-Chathaoirleach. In my original proposal, made before the Christmas recess, I suggested that the office of the Leas-Chathaoirleach should be an honorary one, but I discovered that might create a difficulty, and that as a result of the proposal he might not be entitled to his remuneration as an ordinary Senator. That is the reason for proposing now that the amount be fixed at £400 per annum. I have already gone over the ground and I do not want to labour it unduly. It is a simple proposition. I would like to economise in speaking in the House as much as possible, just as I would like to have economy practised in the administration of the country. I leave it at that. I put the proposal believing we are doing something that is right, just and essential before we start preaching economy outside.

Mr. ROBINSON

I second the motion. In doing so I would like to point out that there is no intention on the part of the Fianna Fáil members to cast a slur on the present Cathaoirleach. No doubt we are living in abnormal times. If we were able to balance our Budget we could compensate the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach for their services by giving them a remuneration up to the full figure, but the position is that our expenditure is greater than our income and it is our duty to make a beginning in the way of economy. We do not want to belabour this matter. I think if we continued the discussion on this subject to the end of the session we could not arrive at any conclusion other than that which we could arrive at in ten minutes.

Mr. WILSON

When this matter was before the Seanad in September I said what I am now going to say, that it should be a question as to how much the Seanad as an entity should contribute towards balancing the Budget. A Bill has been introduced in the other House dealing with the remuneration of Senators. I consider that the procedure which I see on the Order Paper of that House might be availed of to deal with this question. The terms of the motion on the Order Paper of the Dáil are:

"That it is expedient that a Joint Committee consisting of five members of the Dáil and five members of the Seanad, and of which the Chairman of each House shall be ex-officio members, be set up to consider and report on the question of the amount of the allowance which should be paid to members of Seanad Eireann."

I think this question might be referred to that joint committee which it is proposed to set up. It will deal with the whole question, including the cost of the Seanad. Might I point out to Senator Connolly that the main cost of the Seanad consists of the salaries paid to the 60 members who constitute it? If he has in view retrenchment and the saving of money for the benefit of the State, I believe the proper course would be to refer this question of the remuneration of our officers to this joint committee. I beg to move that this question be referred to a joint committee which is being set up in the Dáil to consider the question of the remuneration of Senators, and that the joint committee should also deal with the question raised by the other motion.

Colonel MOORE

On the face of it there is a good deal in favour of that, but it is unconstitutional.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I was going to rule on that point. The Constitution provides that the Seanad shall arrange for the remuneration to be paid to the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach and the other House cannot interfere.

Mr. WILSON

It is not proposed that this be settled by the other House, but by a joint committee of both Houses.

CATHAOIRLEACH

We have a right to arrange for ourselves, and I am afraid we must accept that duty and responsibility.

Mr. O'HANLON

It has been the practice adopted in this House and the other House that there should not be piecemeal legislation. Accordingly, if we are to inquire into the privileges, prerogatives and allowances of Senators and Deputies, I think it should be done in a whole rather than a piecemeal manner. Consequently I am opposed to Senator Connolly's motion. There is no use in taking this question as a matter apart. The policy preached in this country for the last year or two is a policy of sacrifice in others. When we are dealing with these people let us deal with the question of our own allowances and the allowances of Deputies. If we are not competent to deal with that, and if there is a motion on those lines from the other House let us wait and see what consideration is given to that motion by the other House. Senator Connolly's motion does not meet the whole position.

Mr. JAMESON

The House will remember that I tried to get Senators to agree to a Committee to consider this question. The debate, so far, shows there is a great deal to be found out about the duties of these officers which Senator Connolly has not dealt with. I do not think he can have studied the matter carefully enough to know the duties of these two officers. Apart from the duties which we see them perform in this House they have other duties to which to attend. Without a committee considering what are the duties of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman, and what their duties in the future are going to be, it would be impossible for this House to settle their remuneration. We are asked here now to settle their salaries in total ignorance of what the two gentlemen concerned have to do. I do not think the House ought to do that. I do not agree that the salaries now suggested are commensurate with their duties at all. I will vote against the motion because I do not think we are in the position to give a considered judgment on it. I listened to Senator Connolly's speech. Every word of it could be applied splendidly if we were going to consider our own pay. I think Senator Wilson struck the right note when he said we ought to talk about our own pay when talking of economy. I think it is a difficult question for us to consider, but we will have to consider it, for I believe we will get a Bill here dealing with the pay of Senators. It is a question as to whether we will bring in the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman at the same time. Perhaps we will. In the meantime we will have acquired more knowledge of their real duties and be in a better position to decide as to what their remuneration ought to be.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I am in favour of economy, and I am also in favour of cutting down the entire cost of the Senate, but I do not believe that the motion before the House is one that we can vote on. I think we will have to consider certain matters in connection with the amounts named. I do not know whether Senator Connolly is aware, but I think income tax was taken off the allowance of the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I do not think he wants to bring the allowance to £400 with income tax taken off. I hope that something will be done, not to the Chairman alone, but to everyone in the Senate. For that reason I move that a Committee of the Senate be set up to take into consideration the remuneration of Senators and of the two Chairmen.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think a notice of motion would be necessary in that case, because it completely alters the proposal before us.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

If Senator Connolly wishes to go on with his motion I will put down an amendment for to-morrow.

CATHAOIRLEACH

A new motion.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Can it not be an amendment?

CATHAOIRLEACH

An amendment should take a certain form.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I will have to vote against the motion now, even if I put down another one afterwards.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I suggest to Senator Connolly, in all seriousness, that he should not ask the House to vote on his proposal. I am afraid it has an air of unreality about it. We know the Senator's ability sufficiently well to realise that if it had not a sense of unreality he would have made a much more able case than he has made, and as he is quite capable of doing. If one wants to spoil a good object the best way of doing it is to try to overdo it. It is like killing something by faint praise. Certainly neither the terms of the motion nor the speech made in favour of it appeal to me as a serious effort to deal with this matter. I hope the Senator is not going merely to put it as a test of the sincerity of the House to approach problems of this kind. I find that when the matter was on before Senator Connolly's colleague, Senator Comyn used these words:

The office of the Chairman of the Seanad is the highest office in the gift of the people of this country.

I suppose it is higher even than that of the President, and for that we offer £750.

The office of Vice-Chairman is only second in importance to that of the Chairman. That is my view of the dignity of the office from a constitutional point of view, and also, I am happy to say, from a personal point of view.

That is the value placed by Senator Comyn on the positions, although he, perhaps, has slightly over-estimated their importance, comparatively. He has certainly gone a long way from the value placed on them by Senator Connolly. He also said:

"All things considered, it is better to debate this question fully in the House, but better still, I say, to leave the matter over, to leave it to the consideration and discretion of the two able gentlemen whom we yesterday appointed to the respective offices."

That is the Dublin jarvey's suggestion: "I leave it to yourself, sir." I do not think that is the proper way to deal with it, because the Seanad has responsibility in regard to the matter, and if a Party is committed nationally —theoretically, at all events—to wholesale economy, I do not think they fully discharge their national responsibility by throwing a motion like this on the House and saying: "You have got to take it or leave it," knowing very well that if the motion is rather an irresponsible one it will be rejected, and then, theoretically, the duty of the Party responsible has been discharged. Very good arguments might be made for a reduction in the remuneration of each of these positions, but I suggest that a meeting of a full House, with the public and the Press present, is not a proper or a business-like way of approaching it, and is not the way in which the original remuneration of either the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, or members of the House, was considered. A special committee was set up and it made a report which was accepted, but which also could have been amended or rejected. That is the course that was adopted in the case of the Government and that is the course that should be adopted here, I believe, if we are serious about the matter. If we are not serious we should say so. I do not believe this is a serious proposition, or if Senator Connolly meant it seriously, he did not give me that impression, because I do not think he went into the case in the manner in which he should have gone into it, if he thought he was going to convince the House that it should make what was a very drastic alteration in the existing condition of affairs. For that reason I suggest to the Senator that he should withdraw the motion for the time being, and we will have, through an incident in the other House, an opportunity of discussing it and setting up, what I believe we will have to do eventually, a committee to discuss this matter by itself or in conjunction with the remuneration of Senators, if that course is thought desirable. Otherwise I would be compelled to vote against the motion as it now stands because it has not been put in a way that it could get that consideration it deserves.

Mr. CONNOLLY

I want first to protest against Senator O'Farrell's suggestion that I would, for one moment, think of detaining this House discussing a matter in which I did not seriously believe. Probably my remarks suffered from two causes, one that I had laboured the matter considerably in the Session before the Christmas Recess, and I suppose I have a sensitive objection to covering the ground again to the same people. It is a sensitive objection that I would like to see shared by more members of the House. I have what I call a subconscious feeling that this has been all thrashed out before, a subconscious feeling that you are boring people. To suggest for a moment that I am not serious is quite wrong. A further explanation is perhaps necessary. I may have misinterpreted the conditions under which a proposal like this should be discussed. I understood the remuneration of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Seanad could only be fixed by the Seanad itself.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is quite right.

Mr. CONNOLLY

I further understood that the remuneration of Senators could not be discussed by themselves but would have to be fixed by the other House.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think that is so. We can discuss it certainly.

Mr. CONNOLLY

At all events, that the other House could decide our remuneration.

Mr. DOUGLAS

They could eventually.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Not without our consideration.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I think the position is, that the Dáil could introduce a Bill, and eventually it could be passed over our heads.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is the position, but it would take some time.

Mr. CONNOLLY

I think that effort is being made, and I for one am prepared to take my medicine. I believe the gesture ought to come from this House, and in spite of what Senator O'Farrell says, I hold if economy is to be practised in the country we ought to set the example, and should not be discussing railwaymen's wages or civil servants, without setting the example ourselves. Senator O'Farrell took the liberty of suggesting that I was not perfectly serious. Other people complain that I am too serious about some of these things. However that may be, I am merely explaining that I am perfectly serious about this, and that I have thought over my proposal, and if it receives only my own vote, or that of myself and my seconder, it is going to a vote. I want it to be considered as a serious proposition.

Mr. TOAL

I hope Senator Connolly will not press his motion. I believe that a number of Senators would be inclined to support Senator Connolly but to a great extent they believe he has not gone about the matter in the proper way. I agree that this is a serious matter and requires serious consideration, and that we should not treat it lightly, as in the motion before us. I would be sorry to have to vote on the motion, because I feel very strongly that something must be done, that expenses must be cut down, and that we must economise. I will vote against the motion if it is put now. I think the Seanad should go into all the particulars, duties and responsibilities of each office, so that when we have done that we will come to a fair and a reasonable decision. I do not speak for the purpose of side-tracking the motion in any way. To a great extent I agree with it. I realise that it is necessary we should economise and make reductions in salaries. I have no hesitation in saying that, but as to the correct amount that we should reduce them by we are not in a position to decide this evening. I think an important motion of this sort would not get the consideration it deserves from such a small House as this. I hope that Senator Connolly will see his way not to press the motion to a vote this evening, but agree to a short adjournment for the purposes of investigation. The proper thing to do is to set up a Committee of the Seanad to go into the particulars and to find out exactly what the duties and responsibilities are. I hold that we are not in a position to decide the matter this evening.

Mr. CONNOLLY

I am really at a loss to understand what Senator Toal is aiming at. In the first place I brought this matter up two months ago, and surely it was perfectly clear then that the matter was going to be discussed, either at the end of January or at the opening of this session? That is two months ago, and surely those who think, if any of us think at all, have had an opportunity of thinking about it. There is a perfectly easy way of getting over the difficulty. If Senator Toal feels that we should adjourn the motion he can propose an amendment, or propose that a committee be set up.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That would be a new motion.

Mr. TOAL

On a point of order, I would have been inclined to move an amendment only that I thought, on your ruling, that I would not be in order in doing so.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I would have moved an amendment only that it would not be in order.

Mr. MILROY

What is the position? Is Senator Connolly proceeding with his motion?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think so. His motion is before the House.

Mr. MILROY

Let us know exactly what that means. We have now discussed this matter for the second or third time. If this motion is defeated to-night by a vote it will not finish it. It is very unseemly and very undignified every time that this assembly meets to have this matter thrashed out over and over again. The reason I objected to the matter being referred to a committee was merely in the particular circumstances that seemed to surround the whole situation at the time. I am not going to make an appeal to Senator Connolly to withhold his sword. I think there is a tremendous amount of mock economics about this motion. If it is passed and given effect to it would mean that Senator Connolly could tell the citizens of the Saorstát that he had saved them the fraction of ¼d. per head per year. He referred to the last six years and said that the Seanad was a costly business. There have been other things that have been costly for the State besides the Seanad, and I do not think it wise or calculated to help to the clear consideration of matters to enter into them, but they are just as pertinent to the position of the country as the existence of the Seanad. The point I would like to get at is this: We want to get to some finality in discussing this matter, or to some approach to finality. We are not getting to anything near finality by simply taking a vote on Senator Connolly's motion. It may be defeated; I expect it will. I certainly will vote against it, because I think it leads nowhere. But what is going to follow? I understood that the Cathaoirleach ruled as unconstitutional the suggestion made by Senator Wilson to refer this matter to the joint committee which will probably be set up. Is that so?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes. This is absolutely for this House to decide, and to ask another House to interfere in it is a thing which I think we should not do.

Mr. MILROY

Is it not within the competence of this House to decide, in a certain contingency, that it shall take a certain step to decide certain questions? A committee has been set up half of which will be members of this House——

Mr. O'HANLON

It has not been set up. There is no decision upon that at all.

Mr. MILROY

I read a motion today announcing that——

Mr. JOHNSON

A point that has been repeated time after time is that a committee is being set up. A certain Deputy in the other House has put down a motion that a committee should be set up, and it may take weeks before that is reached.

Mr. MILROY

I quite agree. I assume that if such a motion is carried, the matter will come before this House for the selection of its representation upon that committee.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Then it would be my duty to put before you what your rights are, and it would be for you to decide whether you wished to suspend your rights or not.

Mr. MILROY

Could it not then be considered that there should be an application from this House to that committee to sit separately for the purpose of considering this question?

Mr. O'HANLON

On a point of order, I wonder would Senators confine themselves to the motion before the Chair and not deal with motions which are before the other House.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It would be better, because there are several ways of dealing with the matter.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

Would I be in order in moving that a committee be set up to consider the question?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think I would require notice of that.

Mr. DOWDALL

I beg to move that the further consideration of this motion be adjourned. In the meantime I would like to say that I was greatly interested by what Senator Jameson has stated. Though this motion has been before us for some time, we are really still ignorant of the duties of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman. In the meantime, either Senator Mrs. Wyse Power or I will give notice of motion to appoint a committee to go into the matter.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It would be preferable, from my point of view, at any rate, that one should know where one was. I mean that it is not well to have a 60 per cent. reduction hanging over our heads permanently.

Mr. DOUGLAS

As long as it hangs there and does not drop it is all right.

Mr. JAMESON

Would it not be better to deal with the motion? We have debated it, and unless Senator Connolly withdraws it, we had better vote on it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it would be better.

Mr. JAMESON

We will have to go through the whole of this thing again.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

What I want is to have this matter taken into consideration by a committee. There are certain things that must be discussed round a table. I think everybody here will realise that. This is a matter for a committee to discuss. I want to know if I can move an amendment that a committee be set up to take the question into consideration, without interfering with anybody else.

Mr. JAMESON

The Senator wants the House to do something which they refused to do for me, and no doubt she will be much more effective than I was.

CATHAOIRLEACH

An amendment must be in a specific form. I cannot take an amendment to appoint a committee as an amendment to the motion.

Mr. DOWDALL

Have we no remedy except to vote for or against the motion? Have we no right to move an amendment?

Mr. TOAL

I propose to move an amendment and in doing so I will mention figures, but I am very sorry to have to do it.

Mr. MILROY

Has Senator Dowdall not moved the adjournment of this matter?

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Standing Order is very explicit. It says: "Every amendment must be relevant to the motion on which it is proposed, and must be directed to omitting, adding or substituting words." An amendment to set up a committee is an entirely new thing, and I must rule it out.

Mr. DOWDALL

I have moved the adjournment.

Mr. O'HANLON

I beg to second that.

Mr. JAMESON

I take it that the matter is entirely in Senator Connolly's hands. He says an adjournment is just as bad for him as a vote. He has the whole thing in his hands; he can either have a vote or withdraw it. I should certainly vote against an adjournment.

Mr. CONNOLLY

Somebody has suggested that the matter be adjourned, and if the House wants to adjourn it, it will adjourn it. What I can refuse to do is to withdraw the motion.

CATHAOIRLEACH

We must have a specific statement in the proposal that the matter is adjourned sine die or for a particular period.

Mr. DOWDALL

I move the adjournment of the House, and it will automatically come up to-morrow.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You move the adjournment of the House?

Mr. DOWDALL

Yes.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is another matter altogether.

Mr. DOWDALL

I see that I cannot move the adjournment of the House, because there is another motion on the paper, but I move that the further consideration of this motion be adjourned.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Until when?

Mr. DOWDALL

It will come up automatically to-morrow.

CATHAOIRLEACH

No, that will not do. You must state a day.

Mr. DOWDALL

Until to-morrow.

Mr. KENNY

On a point of order. Under Standing Order No. 27 you can propose, without notice, that a motion be postponed sine die, or for a definite period. You could make your definite period to-morrow.

Question: "That the motion be adjourned until to-morrow," put and declared lost.

Mr. DOWDALL

I move, as an amendment, to delete the words after the word "be" in the third line, and to substitute "considered by a committee of the Seanad."

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that is in order.

Mr. O'ROURKE

I second the amendment.

Mr. O'FARRELL

On a point of order. Has not a motion similar in principle been defeated already by people who are now going to support this, and is it not out of order to move it, seeing that a petition signed by twenty members of the Seanad has not been received?

Mr. COMYN

How does my friend know who is going to support him?

Mr. KENNY

The Standing Order dealing with this makes no mention of a motion that has been rejected. Standing Order 29 does not say what is to happen where a resolution is rejected.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Standing Order does not apply in this case.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I withdraw my objection. I had not the Standing Order before me, and I made a mistake.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator Dowdall's amendment to the motion moved by Senator Connolly is that the question of the remuneration of the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach be considered by a Special Committee of the Seanad, the Committee to be composed of seven members and five to form a quorum. I take it the usual procedure will be followed, that the Committee will be selected by the Committee of Selection.

Mr. TOAL

I think that the selection of this Committee should not be made by the Committee of Selection. I do not think it would be a proper tribunal to do so, as the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach are ex-officio members of that Committee. I think it is this House that should select the Committee to deal with this important matter.

Mr. COMYN

I really cannot see any objection to having the Cathaoirleach and the Leas-Chathaoirleach members of the Committee to consider their own remuneration, because surely they ought to know better than other Senators what their duties are, and they will be able to assist the Committee.

Senator Dowdall's amendment was put and declared carried on a show of hands.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.20 until 3 p.m. on Thursday.