Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Bill, 1938—Committee (Resumed) and Final Stages.

Debate resumed on recommendation 1.

Mr. Madden

I rise to protest against what appeared to me to be an extraordinary and unparalleled development on the amendments that were submitted last evening. I was amazed at the amendments and surprised at the speeches delivered by Senator Professor Tierney, Senator Johnston, Senator Alton and Senator McEllin. If I interpreted the last speaker correctly, he appeared to me, from his remarks, to have become more English than the English themselves. One would infer from his speech that Gaelic culture was going to improve at the tea table in Downing Street. I said I was amazed at the speeches delivered. They appeared to me to be the very negation of the rights of the people and the very antithesis of what we heard so much about yesterday—the rights and principles of democracy.

A few weeks ago there was very considerable and, I might say, acrimonious discussion in the other House on the question of the increase of salaries. Opinions were fairly evenly divided, and I believe that those opinions were a correct reflex of the general position through the country. It seems to me to be an unheard-of policy and principle, in view of the condition of things, to find gentlemen here in this House moving an alternative and submitting a definite increase on the considered judgment of the Executive Council and the definite passing by this Chamber of the Bill giving an increase to members. When I spoke here on Tuesday I did not talk in an antagonistic way. I showed no bitterness whatever. I tried to clarify my position by saying that personally I agreed with the equities of the Bill, but that I was considering a very large and preponderating section of the people whom I have represented in public life on various public bodies for 30 years. I was considering them and what I considered their incapacity to pay. I said then, rather apologetically, that the gentlemen who happen to be Senatorial professors, if you like, did not know the real position of the rural community. I have no doubt about it now. Judging by their speeches last evening, they know nothing about the conditions as they obtain in the country at the moment. Had they known them in the same intimate association as I do, they never would have attempted to face what was the considered judgment of the Executive Council in setting forth the Bill in the other House. Let us try, Sir, to look at things as they are, and not as they are often represented to be.

It is only a few months ago since, I presume, many of those in this House found themselves on different and opposing platforms during the general election. The people of one Party, the Fine Gael Party, were on the platform, criticising, perhaps too critically, the policy of the Government since they came into office. I suppose there is a tendency to exaggerate in such matters, but, at any rate, they pointed out and tried to impress upon the people the bad agricultural economics of the Government. They submitted a policy that if and when they were returned to power they would give to the most depressed and most important section of the community total relief or total derating. They also promised from that platform that they would give to the farmers of the country long-term and easy loans— a perfectly proper thing in my opinion —in order to give them an opportunity to rehabilitate their position, to restock the many derelict farms, and to give them an opportunity to normalise their position and the general position of agriculture. That was broadly the policy enunciated by the Opposition Party.

What was the policy enunciated by the Fianna Fáil Party? They cited first of all the many beneficent and useful changes that had been effected in general policy in the country. They told the people, and very properly, that the industrialisation of the country connoted prosperity and employment among large sections of the people, and consequent better conditions for the farmer. They pointed out that the economic war was now settled, that the markets that were at one time "gone for ever, thank God," had been restored, and that the outlook for the future, while they admitted there was general depression, was bright, inviting and promising.

Why do I say this? To show that both Parties, both the Fine Gael Party and the Government Party, realised correctly the condition of that large section of the people, the agricultural community. That has been further vindicated by the Government Party, because they have decided, not without due reason, to set up a commission to receive evidence and to formulate legislation by way of a remedial change to help what must be, to them, the convincing depression amongst the farmers of the country. The Minister for Agriculture, even in this House, quite recently said that even long before the decision of the commission would be known, steps might have to be taken by the Government to introduce, in a kind of ex-parte way, in order that it might be applied immediately, some relief so as to rehabilitate the position of the agricultural community. We heard from the other platform, and we also heard in the House, encomiums and congratulations to the agricultural community for the manner in which they stood up to their responsibility, for the high sense of patriotism they displayed, and for the sacrifice each and every one of them made. The eulogy even terminated with such expressions as that they were in the front-line trenches.

I ask you, Sir, what has been done for them since? They have been largely the victims of the economic war. Have we seen any economic ambulances going to bandage their wounds, to help them to convalesce and return to normal activity again? Not a thing has been done. The outstanding fact is that expenses and taxation are gradually and definitely being piled up on public bodies. Quite recently An Taoiseach, and others responsible in the Government, gave an indication to us in public bodies that, in the estimate that is being prepared for the financial year 1939-40, public bodies must make provision to anticipate A.R.P. or air-raid protection. The chairman of my council, from information he received, told me last Saturday that it would incidentally mean an increase of 1/- in the £ in the rates in my county for that financial year or in the aggregate £24,000. We must, I suppose, be prepared for these Hitler demonstrations—that tyrant of the world, that man who evidently has his roots set in the bourgeois nationalism of the nineteenth century, who has insulted democracy, who has denied Christian rights and liberty of conscience, denied social justice and ignored the whole social programme based on Christian and Catholic philosophy enunciated from time to time by the different Popes. But we have to meet that menace. We see the result of it in Russia and in Spain. The votaries of it seem to have got their inspiration in hell and we must meet them, too. The campaign he has promised and visualised seems to be more sinister and more exterminating than even the Paganism of old. We, in our county too, have done much to aid the policy encouraged and enunciated by the Government. Last year we raised a loan——

Sir John Keane

May I raise a point of order? Has this anything to do with the recommendation before the House?

Mr. Madden

Yes, it has.

Sir John Keane

I am asking the Cathaoirleach if it is in order.

Cathaoirleach

I would ask the Senator to relate his remarks more closely to the recommendation. This is the Committee Stage.

Mr. Madden

I hold that conditions in my county are analogous to conditions in other counties and I am trying to point out that taxation is such that it should be perfectly obvious to Senators that they should seriously consider opposing the imposition of any further taxation until the condition of the country has been remedied or relieved. I want to point out now, Sir, that last year we raised £250,000 in order to co-operate with the Minister for Local Government in finding homes for the poor—a perfectly proper thing to do. I supported it in the most active way possible. We have built 1,000 cottages for the poor at a cost of £250,000. We further made an investigation into all the wants of those living under hovel conditions in the towns in my county. We have decided in fulfilment of the wish expressed from time to time by the Minister for Local Government to build 500 more. That amount, in the aggregate, represents £692,000, or 2/-in the £, so that, added to the 1/-already referred to, the two represent a charge on the rural ratepayers for these essential services of 3/- before we can do a normal piece of work.

These things show the condition of the rural community in my county. I mentioned on the last day that we had to dismiss ten rate collectors, not, mind you, for lack of energy, not for any slackness of work on their part or because they did not try their very hardest to collect the rates from the agricultural people, but because they had not closed the first moiety of their collection which should have been closed in April. The Minister, I understand, sent down an inspector some day this week to inquire the reasons. That position shows clearly and definitely the condition of the general taxpayers and ratepayers in the county. I believe that the same position of affairs exists in every other county. Therefore, I repudiate definitely and distinctly the motion moved by Senator Alton. I consider it a very improper motion. He might very well have left the position as it is so far as these salaries are concerned. The figures in the Bill before us for Ministers' salaries have, I am sure, been carefully considered by the Government. They have already received the imprimatur of the Dáil and, I understand, of the Seanad last evening. The Senator might very well have left things at that instead of suggesting an increase which the people, owing to their condition as I have explained it, will be unable to bear. I ask the Senator who has moved the amendment to remember that there is a limit to the capacity of the people to pay, and a limit to the endurance of the people to suffer.

Mr. Counihan

In the few remarks that I have to make I hope to keep to the amendment before the House. Senator Madden, I think, was not the only member of the House who wandered somewhat from it. I thoroughly disagree with another Senator who did not quite keep to the last Bill when it was before the House. I repudiate the suggestion he made. It was one that, I believe, he will get very little support for. I refer to Senator Tierney who suggested that we should abolish proportional representation in this country.

Cathaoirleach

That is not in order on this amendment.

Mr. Counihan

A good deal of fault was found with the proposals in the Bill that we discussed yesterday. It was stated that the Government, in that Bill, did not follow out the recommendations of the Shanley Committee. That committee did not recommend any increase in the allowance for Deputies. While a great deal of praise has been lavished on the Shanley Committee for not making any recommendation on that, we find a different tone adopted in the House in reference to the Shanley Committee's recommendation to increase the salaries of Ministers. Notwithstanding Senator Madden's denunciation, I intend to support the amendment. I would point out that the Shanley Committee which recommended an increase in Ministers' salaries was composed of professional men, hard-headed business men and farmers. I want to emphasise the fact that the majority on that committee was composed of farmers, of men who can claim to represent the country just as much as those who are now denouncing the recommendations of the committee. No member of that committee would recommend the spending of 1/- of public money foolishly. In recommending an increase in Ministers' salaries, they did so solely and entirely in the belief that it would be for the benefit of the State. I can say that the farmers on the Shanley Committee were as enthusiastic in recommending the increase as any other section of the committee. The committee was of opinion that a salary of £2,250 a year was a proper one for a Minister of State. They felt that he should have such a salary as would enable him to maintain a standard of living that would be in keeping with his office, and that would secure him from anything in the nature of financial embarrassment during his period of office, and, further, that suitable provision should be made for him when he relinquished office.

These were the considerations which induced the Shanley Committee to make their recommendation. It was not that they thought anything of the particular persons in office to-day, of those in office in the past, or of those who will occupy office in the future. The prime consideration with them was that those occupying the offices of Ministers of State should suffer in no way from financial embarrassment during their term of office. Very many important people came before that committee and gave evidence. We had evidence to the effect that we have certain people in this country earning incomes of more than £10,000 a year. We threw our minds back to those men who occupied office as Ministers in days past, many of whom were class fellows of the men now earning the big incomes I have mentioned. We came to the conclusion that the latter had no more brains than many of our ex-Ministers. Yesterday, I heard Senator Sir John Keane say in this House that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce had lost his vocation: that, had he devoted himself to the law, he would have made a wonderful advocate.

Sir John Keane

Of a bad case.

Mr. Counihan

An advocate is employed in good cases as well as in bad cases. He has to take whatever comes along, so that all the greater credit is due to him if he has a bad case and wins it. I strongly recommend the amendment to the House. I believe that if Senators consult their better judgment it will be carried by a big majority.

Mr. MacDermot

I think, with Senator Counihan and others, that salaries of £3,000 a year for the Taoiseach, of £2,500 a year for the Tánaiste, and of £2,250 each for the Ministers are not at all excessive, and if we were sitting around a table considering this question, isolated from all surrounding circumstances, I would prefer the figures that I have just mentioned to the figures that are in fact provided for in the Bill. Nevertheless, I am opposing these recommendations, and I am doing so because I think it is unsound and bad statesmanship to isolate this question from all the surrounding circumstances.

In the first place, there is the question of the conditions in the country. We all know that this is a time of peculiar distress, but apart from material conditions, the psychology of the people is a fact to be taken into consideration as any other fact. The people have not been prepared psychologically for so complete a change in their attitude about the remuneration of Ministers as to jump from the £1,000 per year, that we were told of a very short time ago as being appropriate, to the figure suggested by the Shanley Committee. They are especially not prepared for that if it is to be done by our action here in the Seanad against the judgment of the Government themselves as to what the country will stand for.

The feeling in the country is very strong. During the last few days I have been ploughing a somewhat lonely furrow in this Chamber but, so far as the country is concerned, I am not in any such position of isolation if I am to judge by the letters that I receive from County Roscommon. It is not statesmanship to exasperate the people, even if that exasperation be unjustified, in a time of great distress, to a point where they get into almost a revolutionary frame of mind. If you are going to make a drastic change in everything that you have been teaching the people about the proper way to remunerate such posts, then it ought to be done gradually and with the necessary education. That education has not been carried out. It ought to be done, as I have said many times over, with full notice in advance of a general election and not just after a general election when we are beginning a new Parliament with the hope that in four years' time the subject will have been forgotten by the people.

Another matter that has to be taken into account in connection with this proposal is, in spite of what Senator Tierney has said, the subject of pensions. He says that pensions and salaries are quite different things, and that in determining what salary we should give, we should forget all about the pensions. From the point of view of an academic onlooker they may be two different things, but the payment of them falls on the same back, and the benefit of them goes to the same people. If you take into account that pensions are going to be given here, not as a matter of grace, not just in cases where they are needed, but given as a matter of right, irrespective of a man's wealth or poverty, then you have to take into account that that does add considerably in effect to the remuneration that you are giving to Ministers. They would have to have a very much larger salary if they were to save up enough to produce in a few years' time the pension that the State is proposing to give them.

The other extern circumstance that I feel you have to take into consideration in determining the figure of the Ministers' salaries is that these Bills contain other proposals. We have a chain of proposals which, in the view of the country, and in my view, are closely connected with one another. I, at any rate, am not disposed to give the Government everything that they are asking for in directions where I entirely disagree with them, and also to give them much more than they are asking for in a direction where in other circumstances I might be inclined to be generous.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I did not intend to intrude in this debate but for the statements made by Senator Counihan speaking for the agriculturists of the country. I could not let them go by the board. I am in touch with a very large section of the agricultural community, and I think I know what their feelings are. I have not met a single person who would be prepared to subscribe to these recommendations. I was not here during the debate on the Deputies' allowances, as I was engaged elsewhere trying to set up machinery to fix the price of the 1939 beet crop. I will come back to that later. I want to say that I appreciate the work which Ministers are doing. I think it work of the first magnitude. I think that both the present Ministers and the former Ministers are all very capable men. But I do feel that it is not the Ministers or the Deputies or the Senators, but the men and women behind the Ministers and the Deputies and the Senators who will make or mar this country. The people on the land are the backbone of the country. They are the people who create the big proportion of the wealth of the country. They have been through, not seven lean years, but nine lean years.

Mr. Quirke

Ninety-nine.

Mr. O'Callaghan

They have carried the industrial revival on their back, they have borne the brunt of the economic war, and they have had, as well, to stand the shock of a world depression which wiped out whole countrysides of farmers in Europe and America. These sentiments are pretty much in accord with the views expressed by Senator Baxter, but I should like to take exception at least to a couple of statements he made. I should like to do it as gracefully as I possibly can. I should like to draw attention to the statements which he made that boots were made in Cork which would give anyone rheumatism.

Mr. O'Callaghan

Statements like that do not add to the wisdom, decorum or dignity of the House, and I am sorry that a man like Senator Baxter has allowed himself to make these statements. I now come to the question of beet, if I may be allowed to do so. Every member in this House has wandered over a wide realm, and this may be looked upon as a domestic issue. I think it has a bearing on the question under consideration. I believe Ministers are entitled to good salaries, but the time is not opportune for increasing salaries. When agriculture—our main industry—is put upon a proper basis will be the time to be generous with Ministers.

A day or two ago, I and others were trying to set up machinery to fix the price of the 1939 beet crop. I am sorry to say these negotiations broke down. I do not see much hope of a satisfactory arrangement which would induce the beet growers to produce sufficient beet to keep the factories going during the 1939 season. If the four factories close down, 600 people will be put out of direct permanent employment while thousands will be put out of casual employment. The railways, which the Government are so anxious to save, will be left without business. Some stations on the G.S.R. derive more revenue from the carriage of beet than they do from all other sources put together. A year ago, we tried to induce the powers that were to give a price for beet which would induce the people to grow sufficient to keep the four factories going. We failed——

Mr. Fitzgerald

I should like to raise a question as to the relevance of all this.

Cathaoirleach

Senator O'Callaghan has, I think, sufficiently ventilated his views on the beet question. I suggest that he confine himself now to the recommendation before the House.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I did not intervene in this debate since I came here two days ago. If the advice of Senator Counihan, in one connection, had been observed, it would have been a good thing. The Senator asked his friends on the other side to cut down their verbosity and come down to brass tacks. Other speakers have wandered all over the place and I think I am entitled to say a word or two on this question of beet which has a bearing on the question under discussion.

Cathaoirleach

If you can relate your observations to the recommendation under discussion, you will be in order.

Mr. O'Callaghan

If you have any objection I shall not proceed on that line.

Cathaoirleach

It is not a matter of objection, but I must see that the Senator's remarks are in order.

Mr. O'Callaghan

I appeal to the Minister not to accept these recommendations and to be a little more generous with the beet growers when the time comes, as no doubt it will, for him to deal with that matter in his Ministerial capacity.

Dr. Doyle

I should not have intervened in this debate but for one reason. I was very much impressed last evening with the arguments advanced by proposers of these recommendations, but I notice that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad is omitted from the recommendations regarding increases of salary. That may have been merely an oversight. As there is every indication that this House will become more important than the Dáil, there may be greater demands made upon the Cathaoirleach for the social activities and those other things which have been referred to than upon those associated with the other House. I think that the Chairman of the Seanad should be included in these recommendations.

I think it was Senator McEllin, in his address last evening, who said that the revival of social activities and the making of the necessary provision for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries might be a good thing for the country. He mentioned that there might be a revival of the breakfast-table talks in Downing Street. According to the figures in these recommendations, I can see a danger in that. I think that these figures do not go far enough. Suppose we had these early morning talks with regard to this horrible anomaly of Partition and you had the Prime Minister of Ireland going up to Northern Ireland to have breakfast there, you would also have the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland coming down into Ireland for breakfast here. The salary and prequisites of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland amount, roughly, to £15,000 a year.

Mr. Baxter

We should send the Minister back there.

Dr. Doyle

On the other hand, the Prime Minister of Ireland would have, according to these recommendations, only £3,000. I can clearly foresee the danger of Ireland being absorbed into Northern Ireland. You might have the worm gobbling up the duck. For that reason, I intend to oppose these recommendations. I do not think that they go far enough.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I think that these recommendations and most of the speeches we have been hearing during the last couple of days are really out of place. The fundamental law quite obviously intends that matters relating to finance shall be controlled practically entirely by the Dáil. In so far as we have three weeks in which to make recommendations, I take it that the idea is that we might merely advert to some consideration overlooked in the other House or discover some flaw in a Bill which it would be useful for the other House to have an opportunity of further considering. These recommendations and most of the speeches—the long and irrelevant speeches made both yesterday and to-day—are, to my mind, quite out of place.

As this recommendation has been put before us, I should like to indicate that I, for one, would be entirely in favour of it if it were a proposal coming from the Government. I object strongly to a number of things said by Senator MacDermot. He suggested yesterday in relation to the other Bill that the Shanley Committee was much better able to direct its recommendations to the common good of this country than the Government is. He did not attribute the fact to what I might call the natural corruptibility of the members of the Government, but to the system by which the Government comes into office. If the Senator were right and the system by which a Government comes into office induced it to put other considerations in front of the common good, it would be criminal for us to maintain that system. I think that the argument of Senator MacDermot was quite absurd. It was a condemnation of the whole system of election to suggest that any body of upright men, put into the position of being responsible for the common good, must naturally and necessarily, in these circumstances, direct themselves away from the common good to considerations of saving their faces or their natural pride.

Just a few minutes ago the Senator talked about what you have been teaching the people, and he says that there would be psychological reaction and that this teaching must be done slowly. Now, I presume he did not include me in that view—I am quite content that he should say anything offensive that he likes to say about the Government—but if it is a fact that the Government has been teaching the people that appalling doctrine of envy, of contempt for the public thing of the State, and of contempt for those who are associated with the control of that public thing, then I think that the sooner the Government beings to undo that pernicious teaching, the better. I think that Senator MacDermot was most ill-advised in urging them to refrain from admitting their crime—if I may use that word—that they committed in the past, and should rather urge them to a speedy repentance and an immediate effort to rectify the wrong they have done. He suggested that this change in the people will have to be brought about gradually with the necessary education. It does seem to me that our acceptance of this amendment fulfils that gradual and necessary education because I judge, from the attitude of the Minister here, that no matter how, or by what majority or otherwise, we might support this amendment, the Government will refuse it, and the mere fact that men in this House, guided only by consideration of justice and the common good in this country, have faced up and taken the odium of going against the ill-informed opinion in this country and the propaganda that went on some years ago will be a first step towards that necessary education.

Now, as to the merits of the proposal itself. I approve of it for two reasons: one, because I recognise that on account of this idea that has been preached so largely in this country of that absolute equality of condition that the poor man in the street can look with envy on and denounce anybody who, belonging to a different order of society, has certain material goods that the other man, in his particular order of society does not possess, I think we must recognise here that you are going to have a certain hierarchy in society and that, in the interests of the State, it should be recognised that those who are responsible for the Government of the State occupy the very pinnacle of that society and that that position of theirs requires that certain conditions should obtain in their lives. I am satisfied, myself, that the stipend given to Ministers at this moment is such, first, that at the end of their term of office, if they have actually fulfilled the conditions that their office requires, and if they do not possess any private source of income, they will go out of office financially embarrassed, or, secondly, another point is that if they go out of office and a time comes when they could be reappointed, I think that many men who are eminently desirable to occupy the position of Ministers of this State would necessarily have to refuse to take office. I can think of two men in the Dáil at this moment as to whom, if there should be a change of Government, anybody nominated by the Dáil to be Prime Minister would have to hesitate as to whether or not he would ask them to be Ministers, knowing that by doing so he would be asking them to injure their own position, to injure the position of their families and to injure their own future prospects. So that, on the grounds of justice, it is unjust to propose that men should take over the responsibility of the position of being the heads of this State and being responsible for the government of this State and, at the same time, to provide them with a stipend that does not enable them to maintain the position we have imposed upon them. Secondly, in the interests of the common good, which is required, notwithstanding that contempt which has been preached to our people, it is desirable that we should get, for the position of those who are responsible for the well-being of this State, the very best men available.

Mr. Corkery

I want to say a few words as to the reason why I think these recommendations should not be adopted. This country is not yet free. We have not control over the whole of our territory. Until we secure that control I think the time is inopportune to go into the matter of raising salaries for Ministers. This whole question will have to be re-examined in the very near future, for I hope to see the end of Partition before we have another general election.

Donnchadh O hEaluighte

Ní raibh dúil agam labhairt indiu ach táim ag eisteacht ar feadh an lae leis an sort cainnte a bhiodh againn 'sna blianta atá thart. I heard the same sort of talk here to-day that was heard in the old Seanad before it was abolished in 1936. I cannot help recalling that there is the same tone running through the speeches that we heard this morning. Senator Madden told us he has been in public life for the last 30 years——

Mr. Madden

On a point of order, I was not in the Seanad in 1936.

Mr. Healy

I did not catch what the Senator said.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator says he was not in the old Seanad in 1936.

Mr. Healy

I know he was not, but he is in it now, and I am going to deal with him now. Senator Madden told us that the Senators do not know the condition of things in this country. I was saying when I was interrupted by the Senator that he told us he was in public life for 30 years. Well, I happen to be in public life just a year longer, so at least I must have some knowledge of public life. The Senator told us we had no knowledge of the state of affairs in the country.

Mr. Madden

On a point of order, I want to say that I did not make any such statement. My statement referred to three Senators—Professor Tierney, Professor Johnston and——

A Senator

Professor Belton.

Mr. Madden

Professor Alton.

Mr. Healy

I took down the Senator's words. What he said was: "I think the Senators do not know the state of affairs in the country."

Dr. Rowlette

He only meant the professors.

Mr. M. Hayes

It is only the professors he said do not know.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator has now made his point clear on that matter.

Mr. Healy

I can assure Senator Madden that I am not a professor.

Mr. Baxter

Oh, oh; that is quite obvious.

Professor Tierney

But Senator Healy does know all about the country.

Mr. Healy

At all events, I am one of the Senators that Senator Madden said did not know anything about the state of the country. Let me tell the Senator that I was born and reared on a farm. When I was a schoolboy I milked cows and did farm work, the same as the other children in the country do and because of my business I am in touch with the County Dublin farmers and know the situation well. In June last I was down the country where I was born and reared and let me tell the Senator that things are very different in the country now from what they were when I was a boy. The country people are much better off and much more prosperous than when I was a schoolboy. The Senator says he represents County Limerick. Is there any county in Ireland that has been spoon-fed as much as County Limerick has been? Limerick is a butter-producing county. It is a dairying county. I know how the people are living in this city. I was nominated as a candidate for this Seanad by a city association. I was a candidate of the Municipal Association and I think it is time that somebody in this House should stand up and speak for the dwellers in the towns and cities. I think my friends of the Labour Party will agree with me there—

Mr. Foran

There was a subsequent enquiry into that matter; that was in 1928. That enquiry was vitiated by the fact that it was an enquiry composed entirely of members of both Houses, and by the fact that at that particular moment the campaign which has been referred to here—I do not want to refer to it further—a campaign of slander and abuse in connection with the figure of £1,700, was in full swing. Therefore, that particular committee in 1928 came to no conclusion at all, practically speaking, on those matters. But if the figure had been fixed at £2,700 instead of £1,700 I do not think one extra word of abuse on the matter would have been spoken. The figure of £1,700 came in for as much abuse as if it had been £2,700. Within a more recent period a different kind of enquiry was ordered in different circumstances and after considerably more experience, and for my part, while the figure in the Shanley Committee's report in the general circumstances would not be exactly what I myself would recommend if I were sitting down to make a recommendation, I do agree with Senator Alton and others who have spoken that one can hardly take a more reasonable view than to say: "Here is a committee which looked at this matter in an impartial and non-political way, and came to certain conclusions; we ought to accept those conclusions." For that reason, I personally would be prepared to agree—without reference to the personnel of the present Ministry, but taking the general question of Ministers' salaries—to accept that particular figure, but I should like to say that I disagree entirely with the suggestion made by some speakers here that you are going to get a more honest Minister for a salary of £2,000 than for £1,700. I do not think you will.

Though not explicitly stated, there is a kind of implication that you ought to pay Ministers a higher salary in order that they should play a more prominent part in what are called social activities. Now, a Minister has three very important functions to perform; one, the administration of his office; two, instruction in advance, and debating legislation in both Houses of the Oireachtas; and three — most onerous of all—defence of his policy in the country and preservation of his own seat in his own constituency. I certainly would not like to go into a Ministry and get a salary which carried with it an implication that as well as doing all those things I should have to take part in social activities to which perhaps my own personal inclinations would not lead me. I agree with Sir John Keane that social activities and hospitality depend upon the heart and head rather than upon the purse, but of course Senator Tierney was quite right when he said that a purse of a certain length is the sine qua non in the City of Dublin for any kind of social life. I entirely agree with that. The increased salary suggested here is an increase which is given to Ministers not so much to put in their pocket as to spend, and there is no way of controlling that kind of thing by legislation. I am not referring to the present Ministers, but, speaking generally, if you take any group of people some of them will get £500, put it in their pockets and keep it there; others will spend it intelligently, and others very unintelligently, but you cannot really cope with all those things.

There has been a good deal of talk about the poverty of farmers, the price of beet, and so on, but it seems to me that one of the most difficult problems facing us and one of the greatest signs of poverty in the country at the moment is the complete absence of the rise of any new young people in polities. I would be prepared to double or treble Ministerial salaries if I thought—I do not think it, mind you—that it would do anything to induce younger people to take a greater interest in polities. In those debates, and in ignorant talk for many years, there has been a great deal of abuse of politicians proper, but it is to be said with regard to those who are now in control of polities in the country in the two main Parties, the present Ministry and their predecessors, or indeed in the three main Parties, that they came into polities on a wave of national enthusiasm in or about the 1916 period—I use the word for want of a better one—and the greatest poverty, at the moment, is that no other people appear to be coming up at all. To my mind that is one of the greatest signs of poverty in our public life. In the other House, apart from the Front Benchers, I can only name one man and, I think, he is a Cork man—Senator O'Callaghan will be glad to hear that—who could be regarded as in any way giving Ministerial promise. If an arrangement could be made to meet the situation I would be glad. I fear that a great deal of harm has been already done by a certain type of politics, and by a certain type of ignorant abuse of politicians generally, which will make it difficult to get people of that kind to come into politics at all. Senator Quirke was quite astonished that I agreed with Senator MacDermot, and he will be more astonished at my agreeing with himself, that this is a matter which ought to be one of Government decision and Government responsibility. In spite of what Senator Douglas said, I sympathise with Senator Quirke's view as to taking all the recommendations together, including the one which proposes to postpone the coming into operation of the Bill until after the period of office of this Dáil.

On the merits, and in the circumstances, I think we could not do better than to accept the recommendation of the committee. It must be remembered that the Bill itself departs from the recommendation of the committee in certain very important particulars, but that this House, with its very limited powers, should run deliberately counter to the decision of the other House on the expenditure of public moneys, and to the decision on which the other House was advised by the Government in office, seems to me to be going rather far. I find considerable difficulty in seeing this House take a decision in that direction. Senator Quirke said that a good deal had been done to ventilate this matter and that it was done without any of the recriminations we had in the past. It is a great sign of national progress that we can now discuss this matter calmly. If we have passed from the era of propaganda, that is all to the good, and the question can be settled in the life of this Dáil. But to pass a recommendation advocating an increase in public expenditure, which was not adopted by the Dáil, but was passed in the teeth of the Minister, that is a decision we should hardly reach.

Mr. MacEntee

I should have intervened earlier in this matter except, perhaps, that it might be thought I was unduly trying to restrict the rights of the Seanad to debate every proposal which comes from the other House for consideration here. In connection with this matter, I may say that my personal views are on record and are, I think, well known. The decisions upon which this Bill is based are Government decisions. Of course, there is collective responsibility in these matters and it is my duty to say to the House that I feel it would be futile for the Seanad to make any recommendation on the lines now proposed. Accordingly I ask Senators who have made themselves responsible for the recommendations not to press them to a division. The recommendations would not be supported by the Government in the Dáil and, in these circumstances, I do not think they would have any chance of becoming effective. I also ask the Seanad to bear in mind what Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Hayes said regarding the respective constitutional prerogatives of the other House of the Oireachtas, and of the position of the Seanad in regard to public expenditure.

Mr. Brennan

I wish to speak on this matter and, having heard the Minister, I do not think that is any reason why I should not say what I intended regarding the recommendation. I can only assume that the object aimed at in a matter of this kind is, not to think of what applies to Ministers or to the Government, but to do what the Seanad feels is in the best interests of the community. Having listened to the debate, I come to consideration of the recommendation with an open mind. I feel from what I heard from the mover of the recommendation, and from those who supported it, that they have convinced me that it has everything to commend it; that it has all the merits, and that the Minister and the collective wisdom of the Executive Council failed, and that the advice given us by Senator Quirke and Senator Hayes had no merit whatever. I feel that the mover of the recommendation has made a case which has, so far, been unanswered. I know that it is not popular in this, or in the other House, to stand up and suggest increased expenditure, but I feel that, having declined to accept Senator MacDermot's recommendation reducing the allowances to Senators, and in view of the comparatively small sacrifice of time demanded, it would be invidious for this House not to recognise that members of the Executive Council occupy whole-time offices. As Senator Tierney pointed out they are the accepted leaders of the nation, and it is entirely wrong that they should be placed in the position of having to make personal financial sacrifices. Any of us who know the financial responsibilities imposed upon Ministers, realise that it is a very tight fit to carry on.

We all know that Ministers consider it their duty to discharge their obligations, social and otherwise, and also towards the Diplomatic Corps, and I think it would be very bad for the future of the nation if we allowed them to do so at financial sacrifices to themselves. Therefore, I think the House is quite right in having regard to the very special obligations that are imposed for the time being on Ministers of the State. In considering this question I am not thinking of the present holders of office, but of those who may hold the high office of Ministers in the future. No one has pointed out in the course of the debate that whereas Deputies and Senators get an allowance for income-tax, Ministers are paying income-tax on the excess remuneration they receive over and above their allowance as Deputies or Senators, as the case may be. As far as I know, no member of this House has been a member of the Executive Council, but Ministers are paying income-tax upon the excess emoluments they receive over and above the ordinary allowances. Taking the emoluments paid, we know that Ministers are in a very much worse financial position than ordinary members of the Dáil or Seanad.

I am sorry to have to take this view, especially as I am the only speaker to give my views after the Minister's appeal. I think the Minister and Senator Quirke gave no reason why the House should not come to its own decision. This is a matter of great importance and all the merits were with the mover of the recommendation. It seems to me that those responsible for the recommendation have converted the House to their view, and if it is left to a free vote there will be a considerable majority in favour of it. While none of us want to put members of the other House to inconvenience by having to attend the Dáil during Christmas week, the interests of the nation are far more important than the convenience of members of either House. If Senators feel that the recommendation should be carried I do not think that the House should be deterred by considerations of convenience or inconvenience from pursuing the recommendation.

I hope that those who have made themselves responsible for putting down this recommendation will not withdraw it but, on the contrary, that they will, if necessary, put it to a vote of the House. I feel that one of the strongest arguments for the recommendation was the speech made by Senator Hayes. He told us that this question of salaries for Ministers was considered in 1922 and at that time the Ministers would have accepted the responsibilities of office at a salary of £1,700 or £2,700; in other words, the salaries fixed for Ministers in 1922 were fixed in the most haphazard fashion. If the salaries were reasonable for 1922, I suggest that they are totally inadequate for Ministers in 1938. There is no point of personal admiration for the Ministers of the last Government, or the present Government, involved in this matter. It is purely a question of what is best for the country, no matter who occupies Ministerial office. It seems to me there has been no argument advanced to influence any member of this House in voting against the recommendation.

So far as I am concerned, if this is pressed to a division I feel it will be my duty to give the recommendation my fullest support. I realise that the Executive Council, or the Ministers composing it, have a natural delicacy in a matter of this sort. But I also feel that our present Minister for Finance, for instance, will not be a Minister for all time and I suggest we cannot decide this matter purely from the point of view of the delicacy of the Minister or the Executive Council with regard to what remuneration should be paid them. I feel this House will be doing a great deal in the interests of the community if, when coming to a decision, they will not be influenced by considerations as to the convenience or inconvenience of the members of the other House.

We have observed the attitude on the part of Senators with regard to their own remuneration which, in my opinion, is on the excessive side. We here are part-time people and I think that to condemn whole-time Ministers, who are unquestionably inadequately remunerated, to accept what is an entirely inadequate scale of remuneration, is most unfair. This House has a place in the Constitution of the country and it is a matter for Senators to decide for themselves on the subject of this recommendation. I feel that Senators ought not to listen to the plea of the Minister, Senator Quirke and others and certainly the movers of the recommendation ought not to withdraw it. Let them put it to a division in the House.

There has been a great deal of talk about the increase of national expenditure. The amount involved in this matter is merely a decimal point in relation to national finance. There was no occasion to refer to the lot of the unfortunate people who are unemployed, or to mention the fact that certain of our workers are not paid what some of us might consider an adequate wage. Those things have nothing to do with this question of what should be an adequate sum for our Ministers. The fact that there are sections of the community underpaid should not be advanced as a reason why those comprising the Executive Council should be underpaid. If they are adequately remunerated, the prospects are all the better for those less fortunately placed, that their circumstances will be properly considered. I do not think this House ought to take a lead from the other House, from Senator Quirke, or for that matter from Senator Hayes, even from the Minister himself. I think the House ought to give its own considered opinion on this recommendation. Having listened to the question debated so well yesterday and to-day, Senators ought to come to their own conclusions, and they ought not to be deterred from registering their decision by any of the appeals from one side of the House or the other.

Mr. Quirke

Senator Brennan goes to great rounds to suggest that I put up no argument, made no case against the recommendation, and neither did Senator Hayes. My attitude is that you do not have to make a case or produce arguments. I stated that we would be outstepping our duty. It is just the same as if a man asks you if you will take a drink and you say you will not have it. You do not have to produce an argument why you will not have the drink. The Minister has given the opinion of the Government on the matter, and I think it is a ridiculous thing to try to push it any further. I take it that Senator Brennan and some of the other speakers have been influenced in this matter by the additional recommendation, which we have not come to yet.

Mr. Counihan

We are legislating for the future as well as for the present.

Mr. Quirke

I realise that quite well. I suggest that many of the people who were speaking on this recommendation were influenced by the further recommendation on the Order Paper. If that is so, it is quite obvious that they look forward to the time when there may be a change, and when it may be desirable or advisable to increase Ministers' salaries. The Ministerial salaries have been reviewed in the past and can be reviewed in the future, and there is no necessity for us to try to push something on the Government which the Government do not want.

Mr. Hayes

Senator Quirke suggested that a man might be asked to take a drink, and, if he did not want it, he might be asked to give his reason for not taking it. A man might give as the reason for not taking it that it does not suit his constitution. That is our argument.

Professor Alton

Some of the arguments advanced in connection with this recommendation were very flimsy. I would like to point out to Senator Quirke that this is an autonomous Assembly and it has the right to its own opinions, and if it is going to be of any use it must express its opinions frankly and freely. We are grown men and our minds are our own. Some of us, being poor professors, may not have agricultural experience. I apologise for being a professor. I belong to a section of that society which claims a few scholars. There was traditional respect for scholarship in this country in the old days and I wish to hide myself under that cloak. But perhaps we have only room for sense in this particular Assembly, and Senator Madden is its spokesman. Pardon me for this little deviation, but I would like to assure the House again of the thorough and exhaustive way in which the whole question was examined by the Shanley Committee. I do not claim to be a particular light in that committee, but there were some very fine minds at work and very devoted investigators, and we had before us a mass of evidence, much of it confidential, to which I cannot refer, which convinced us that the figures we found were, as I said, rather erring on the moderate side.

I would also assure the House of the sincerity of the motives of those who have put forward these recommendations. We only want to get the opinion of this House. We believe that our views are right, that we have taken no narrow view but a big and far-seeing view and that it is a view that will be endorsed by the thinking section, the more thoughtful and farseeing section of the community. If, as Senator MacDermot says, the country wants a psychological education, we are giving them one now. We are giving them a headline and I believe it is a headline that will be subscribed to and will be followed some day, maybe some day soon, but it will ultimately be adopted. As I said before, I think these proposals do contain a very large element of political wisdom and real statesmanship. It is, perhaps, arrogant to say that. You will forgive me, but I feel rather strongly on the subject and I would like the House to believe that we did not put up these proposals in any light-hearted way or through any desire simply to put up an amendment at any price.

Cathaoirleach

You are pressing the recommendation, Senator?

Professor Alton

Yes, Sir.

Recommendation put.

The Seanad divided—Tá, 14; Níl, 27.

Tá

Alton, Ernest H.
Brennan, Joseph.
Colbert, Michael.
Counihan, John J.
Crosbie, James.
Fitzgerald, Desmond.
Healy, Denis D.
Johnston, Joseph.
Kehoe, Patrick.
McEllin, Seán.
O'Dwyer, Martin.
Robinson, David L.
Rowlette, Robert J.
Tierney, Michael.

Níl

Baxter, Patrick F.
Blaney, Neal.
Byrne, Christopher M.
Campbell, Seán P.
Concannon, Helena.
Conlon, Martin.
Corkery, Daniel.
Doyle, Patrick.
Foran, Thomas.
Goulding, Seán.
Hayes, Michael.
Johnston, James.
Keane, Sir John.
Kennedy, Margaret L.
Lynch, Eamonn.
Lynch, Peter T.
MacDermot, Frank.
Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar (Cú
Uladh).
Madden, David J.
Magennis, William.
O'Callaghan, William.
O'Donovan, Seán.
Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
Quirke, William.
Ruane, Thomas.
Stafford, Matthew.
Tunney, James.

Tellers: Tá: Senators Alton and Brennan; Níl: Senators Goulding and Corkery.

Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, by leave, withdrawn.

Recommendation declared defeated.

Cathaoirleach

I presume that that decision also governs recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Professor Alton

I accept that decision on the remaining five recommendations.

Sections 3, 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not intend to move the two recommendations standing in my name to Section 6.

Recommendations 7 and 8 not moved.

Sections 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Professor Tierney

I have been asked by Senator Douglas to withdraw recommendation 8a.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 9.

(1) In this part of this Act—

the expression "the Second Party" means—

(a) in case there are for the time being more than two Parties in Dáil Eireann, that one of the Parties (excluding the Government Party) in Dáil Eireann which has for the time being the greatest numerical strength in Dáil Eireann:

(b) in any other case, the Party in Dáil Eireann which is not the Government Party;

the expression "the Third Party" means that one of the Parties (excluding the Government Party) in Dáil Eireann which has for the time being the second greatest numerical strength in Dáil Eireann, and in respect of which the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—

(a) that it contested the then next preceding general election for members of Dáil Eireann as an organised party, and

(b) that not less than seven members of that Party were elected at such general election;

the expression "the Leader of the Second Party" means the member of Dáil Eireann who is for the time being the Leader of the Second Party;

the expression "the Leader of the Third Party" means the member of Dáil Eireann who is for the time being the Leader of the Third Party;

(2) If any question should at any time arise as to—

(a) which (if any) Party in Dáil Eireann is the Second Party,

(b) which (if any) Party in Dáil Eireann is the Third Party, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(i) the matter shall be decided by the Chairman of Dáil Eireann who shall give his decision in writing signed by him, and such decision shall for the purposes of this Act be final and conclusive and binding on all persons and tribunals whatsoever,

It arises on the section not on this recommendation.

Mr. MacEntee

Senator MacDermot apparently has put down this recommendation in the spirit of a gentleman adventurer. He put it down and then he thought he would sit down and wait to see what would turn up to support it. I think that is not treating the House or the Minister fairly. If the Senator finds some virtue in the number 15 he ought at least to let us into the secret and let us know what were the first principles the consideration of which led him to that conclusion and not ask us to justify the number seven. If I were to discuss this matter in the same way as the Senator discussed the Bill which was passed by the House yesterday, I would refer to the report of the Shanley Committee. I would say that they had been guided by considerations of good sense and that their recommendation in this matter was based upon experience.

It is true that there has been in the Dáil since August, 1923, an organised body of opinion which has shown itself to be fairly cohesive, and which does represent a section of the population which holds certain broad economic principles which it tries to apply politically. That happens to be the Labour Party. There was another body of opinion at one time which did not show itself to be quite so long-lived as the Labour Party was, but at one period it was vieing with the Labour Party for the position of second largest Party in the Dáil—that was the Farmers' Party. I should like the Senator to consider the position of the Labour Party which is still with us. If the Farmers' Party is not with us, perhaps the Senator has a certain responsibility for that also. The Labour Party, in August, 1923, had approximately one-tenth of the representation in the Dáil. In June, 1927, the representation of the Labour Party rose until it was one-seventh.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The number was 23.

Mr. MacEntee

In September it fell until it was something less than one-tenth. Then it fell to one-fourteenth, then to a little more than one-fourteenth, and then it went up until it was about one-twelfth. At present it would be about one-fifteenth. At any rate, what is indicated here is that there has been, as I said, a cohesive body of political opinion always represented in the Dáil and always taking its own viewpoint. That viewpoint may have on occasions coincided with that of the Government or on others with those of the Opposition. It was, however the viewpoint of a body of public opinion in the country which was represented in the Dáil, and which was able to have it represented there in the form of an organised Party.

The purpose of the present proposal is to enable such a fairly cohesive body of opinion, when it has secured representation in the Dáil, to be able to voice effectively its views upon the legislative proposals which come before that House. I have not touched on the history of the Farmers' Party, but it coincides roughly with the history of the Labour Party until the moment when it was absorbed by the Centre Party and disappeared out of present-day politics. Looking at the history of these two sometime small Parties, and bearing in mind that during the period when they were in existence, they had been able, though not as effectively as the larger Opposition Party in the Dáil, to discharge this function of criticism, it was obvious that the smallest number of individuals who had seriously undertaken the function of organised criticism in the House was seven. Accordingly, we came, after consideration of this question, to the conclusion that if we wanted to give effect to what we thought was in the minds of members of the Shanley Committee, and if we wanted to give effect to this principle of helping those who represent any substantial section of the community effectively to criticise Government measures, it would not be safe to fix the minimum at less than seven. We considered that it would be rather ridiculous to go below that number, but we fixed the number as low as it could be fixed without becoming ridiculous. That is, I think, the only basis upon which one can proceed in a matter of this kind.

Mr. MacDermot

If those were the motives, why was assistance limited to two opposition Parties?

Mr. MacEntee

Because it is not possible to provide for every possible contingency. The Shanley Committee, who considered this matter from another point of view, represented what we might not claim to be so familiar with—the general public opinion with regard to the matter. There was a very large non-political element on that Shanley Committee and, whatever views the Senator may have, the committee did recognise, as ordinary citizens of the State, that there was need to do something to make criticism of Government proposals effective. They thought it would serve the public interest if that course were taken. We deferred to that point of view to the extent that, having examined the question of the minimum size of the Party for ourselves, we came to the conclusion that it would not be safe to depart from the views expressed by the committee.

The Ceann Comhairle decided that.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I would like to ask a question. There can easily be a Third Party and two of the same number. If Senators throw their minds back to the 1923 period it will be remembered there were Independents who, when they went into a Party were Farmers and Labour. When the Minister was talking about the numbers at that time number 13 came to my mind. I do not know if they were Labour or Farmers, but I should like to know what happened then. As to the irrelevant discourse of Senator MacDermot, I entirely disagree with his whole conception of a democratic Parliamentary régime. The word opposition is applied to a Party, and the Senator said that its functions and all its actions were to try to throw out the Government. A Government is a continuity. A Government exists all the time though it consists of different members from time to time. In fact, that is not true. If you look over the history of the Dáil you will find that an enormous number of Bills are introduced and that a tremendous lot of them are passed without a division. In relation to Bills on the Committee Stage, some with 100 clauses, only an odd clause was challenged or an attempt made to amend. The function of an opposition is not to oppose. The main reason I see for it is that you have this democratic system whereby first of all, a man becomes a member of the Dáil by virtue of the greater number of votes he received. The Dáil is formed and later becomes a machine which works on the majority votes of a certain number of those who were returned. Senator MacDermot's conception is to denounce what he calls the Party system.

What does he want? He talked of Switzerland, but he did not tell the whole story. I was present at election meetings in Switzerland where Party feeling was very strong. They were elections in regard to Cantons and not in relation to the Federal Government. In Switzerland Party feeling was particularly strong in Cantons, and the divergence between the two Parties was enormous. Looking over the history of the Dáil it will be remembered that two years ago the Government brought in a Bill one day, withdrew it the next day, and then introduced a new Bill, by reason of the fact that the Opposition had more able legal advice than the Government had at that time. That is how I interpreted it. Most clauses in Bills are passed without opposition. I think it is quite compatible with the whole idea of opposition that each Bill should be considered on its merits. It would be indefensible if the Opposition opposed a Bill merely for the sake of opposing, rather than for the reason that they thought the net effect of its introduction would be detrimental to the well-being of the country, or for the reason that they thought certain amendments would make it more beneficial. When there is talk about having means of intelligent criticism made available for members, that is part of the idea, somehow or other, that all over the country individuals disassociated from each other, and having no unity of mind, could be elected and then form a Parliament. That is absurd. The moment you have a system of numbers, Parties must inevitably result. When you talk about the abolition of regulated Parties by only subsidising one Party, that Party is a Totalitarian Party in a State where only one Party is recognised. When there is talk of doing away with the Party system what is meant? You mean either having incoherence and disunity amongst members of the Parliament, or you mean to have all in one Party, and only one Party tolerated. What is the position here? You have one Party in power. What is the main purpose of an Opposition? To my mind it is so that at any time, for one reason or another, the people may say it is desirable that the members of the Government be changed for other members; that the policy of the Government be changed for a different policy, and that there should be available to the people an alternative to the personnel of the present Government. That seems to me to be the main purpose of an Opposition. We know that legislation depends upon majority, and if members of the Government Party are intent on pursuing one course they can do so merely by voting. Consequently it is primarily a matter for voting. When there is talk of non-Party opposition, what would you have? In various places each one goes up and stands for the Dáil, putting his own views and propounding various policies to the people. What happens? Then they come together and begin caballing behind closed doors, and, having made certain promises, offer to sell the promises they made to the people in order to come together. The difference is that on the one hand you have a number of people agreeing as to what they think is of vital importance to the people; agreeing on what they think should be done in relation to any matter put before the people they asked for support. Everyone disagrees with everyone else on some point. You have first to have agreement and then to come together to decide what action there should be in relation to important matters. That is done openly before the election. The alternative to the Parliamentary system is to have all independent members with no association before election. That merely means that after election they come together and make a deal amongst one another in order to form a Government. It seems to me that once we have what is called the democratic system as we understand it, then the Party system is right and necessary, and to argue against it would be to argue for one Party in the State or else no State at all. Looking over the history of the Dáil, it will be found that about two years ago a Bill was introduced by the Government and withdrawn the next day. I think that was as a result of legal criticism from our side. It will be found in the history of the Dáil that a number of Bills were amended to conform with proposals put up by the Opposition. A main Opposition Party is necessary to the State, not to oppose everything the Government brings in, but to give the people an alternative body to whom it might turn when it wished for a change in the personnel of the Government.

As to the payment of a second Party, that is a matter upon which I do feel strongly. I think if you have a second Party it has to follow, to judge and criticise all legislation which comes forward, and not only to judge legislation, but to judge it at all times in the light of the existing circumstances of the country, and the general well-being of the people in the changed circumstances which time brings about. To do that it is necessary to have a staff. One man who is Leader of an Opposition cannot be expected to be able to look up newspaper files, Blue Books, debates in the Dáil and various types of legislation. He needs a secretary. I think Senator MacDermot, the moment he went into the Dáil, set about getting and paying a secretary. If a man is not able to do that out of his own pocket he can only do it as a result of public and private subscription. It seems to me that all the arguments were based on a doctrinaire view and divorced from reality. If it is said that it is a pity to have the country divided into various Parties, the answer is that that is inevitable. There is a realm of opinion on which the people's judgment will differ. It is right, once you have the present system, that there should be on offer to the people a direct alternative to the personnel of the Government. It is right that the alternative Party should keep itself au fait and au courant with developments taking place in the world, and judging every aspect of policy in its totality. It is necessary that they should have skilled paid assistance to see how these developments affect the interests of the country generally, because, from time to time, it may want to change the personnel of government.

I am rather interested in this particular proposal, not from the point of view of a person in opposition, but from the point of view that a person gets when he is responsible as Ceann Comhairle for the working of a parliamentary institution. I came to the conclusion a great many years ago in that capacity that something on the lines of this particular section of this Bill would have to be done. Whether what is being done actually in the Bill is the best thing or not is open to question but, personally, as far as the Bill and the section of the Bill goes, I would support them.

In the first place, Sir, I think we ought to clear our minds as to what they mean. This is an allowance to leaders of Opposition Parties in the Dáil. It is not a salary. It is not for personal expenses and we will have to face the fact of how the money will be spent. We all have some experience of politics and parliamentary assemblies, and any of us who has had any experience will know that this money will be correctly used, and that it will be carefully supervised. The Minister for Finance is in charge of a Department which is not too popular in the Civil Service, which has watchdogs who have now and again to take very unpopular action, but I think the most rigid officials of the Department of Finance could not equal the activities of any group of Deputies who are led by a person who will get this particular allowance. I think we may leave it to them and I think we may leave it to the facts and face the reality that the money will be expended for parliamentary purposes and not otherwise, and that nothing will reach the private pocket of the individual or the strictly Party fund.

There is another point made by Senator Sir John Keane and other Senators too, that this particular section of the Bill transgresses some principle. I am entirely at a loss to understand what that principle could possibly be. For my part, I recognise certain moral principles and certain religious principles, but when I hear people talking about democratic principles and the principles of parliamentary government I am rather at sea. I find it difficult to understand them clearly. We have here adopted, roughly speaking, the British Parliamentary system and I think it was the only system we could have adopted, because it was the only system we knew anything about. Parliamentary government is a scheme for achieving the greatest good of the greatest number in the country, and I think that it is open to this Oireachtas to revise or alter or arrange that scheme in any way that may seem good to us in a particular moment so as to make it work. I think we can do that without transgressing any principles.

Mr. MacDermot

The question was whether it should be in a Finance Bill.

Mr. Hayes

Perhaps it should not be in a Finance Bill but, assuming it was in another Bill, what principle is it that arises? This is simply a device for providing a more efficiently working Parliament. It may be—it is quite open to Senators to assume—that it is a bad scheme or that it will not work out correctly, but to say that it transgresses some particular principle leaves me completely cold. I do not understand that. For example, we had a rather long, and I will not say relevant, discussion on the Party system generally. I could say a great deal on that, but I do not intend to beyond saying this: Senators told us that historical examples are available to show that in every Parliament in a particular crisis a certain amount of personal courage is available. The two sections of this Bill which embody this particular scheme will not, in any way, affect the fund of courage that exists now in this Parliament and that will exist in any crisis in the future. The same amount of courage will be there. These sections will not do anything to reduce that amount of courage and neither will they reduce the number of individuals with technical knowledge who can bring that technical knowledge to bear upon Bills.

Apart from theory, we ought to consider in practice what Parliament is like. When it was my lot to become Chairman of Dáil Eireann I was entirely unhampered by any theoretical knowledge of Parliaments. I had never read a book of any kind or description on the subject and I think it was a very good thing. I had to find out many things as I went along. The first thing I found out was that an Opposition Party wanted to get free access to the Dáil, to the Library, to the staff, to the papers, for their secretary, a particularly able man who was then acting as parliamentary adviser to the Labour Party. One of the first decisions I was called upon to make, apart from decisions in the House, was whether that person could have access to the Library and to the House. I said then that he could and that for the carrying out of the functions of the Ceann Comhairle in the Dáil it was almost indispensable that the Opposition should have a habitation as well as a name, should have a telephone and secretary, and somebody who would draft amendments and somebody to whom you could talk in the absence of other people or even in the presence of other people. At that particular moment— there is no secret about it—the Labour Party found that that gentleman's services were of very great assistance to them. When I was Ceann Comhairle, one of the questions frequently asked—nearly always by ladies—was: "Will you get me a ticket for the Dáil when there is going to be a row?" Everybody asked me to get a ticket when there was going to be a scene. I was never able to tell them when there was going to be a scene, unfortunately. It would have been very much more satisfactory for myself if I could have told them.

A Senator

Could you not have provided one?

Mr. Hayes

It was not my job to provide one, quite the contrary. One of the things that struck people who came into the Dáil, even in the most turbulent period, was that the Dáil was a very dull place. In other words, that all this Party politics, about which Senators here are so extraordinarily concerned, were not in fact occupying the main part of the Dáil's time at all. That is one of the realities we must face. People came into the gallery of the Dáil and found the Minister in charge of a Bill in Committee. I am talking of ten or 12 years ago and it is the same yet. The unfortunate visitors in the gallery saw a man bobbing up and asking something not particularly distinct to the gallery and a man on the other side saying he had a particular suggestion to make. There was some cross-talk they did not understand very well and finally a statement that the amendment was withdrawn. They did not know what the amendment was. They did not know what withdrawing it was. What had happened, and what happens frequently, was that the amendment was not well drafted, that the matter was not a political matter and that the Minister was promising to bring in on another stage of the Bill an amendment to deal with the point but would not take the particular draft that was before him. A very great proportion of the time of the other House is occupied, not with fireworks, not with politics, not with discussing, for example, who started the civil war or anything of that kind or what Deputies or Ministers said at a particular moment in a general election, but with very ordinary, prosaic, dull, but very profitable and valuable things. I think if Senators here had experience of what was done by Opposition Parties in the Dáil for a number of years, of members of the House sitting through long, dull, dreary, but as I say, profitable Committee Stages of Bills, where no really important political interests were raised—I am using the word "political" in its very narrow sense in this case—they would realise the immensity of work that has to be done.

One of the first things that I did in the position of Ceann Comhairle was to make the Dáil staff available to Opposition Deputies and to explain to the Opposition Deputies privately and—I have not troubled to look it up, but I think it will be found on the records—in open statement from the Chair in the House that members of the Opposition and any members of the House could make use of members of the Dáil staff for nearly all purposes. Added to that was the fact, as I say, that we allowed the staff of an Opposition Party, both of the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party and now of the Fine Gael Party, free access to the House. Practically as if they were Deputies, they could walk into the office, ask for a Bill, and see officials, and so on. In other words, the recognition of the Party system, which seems to transgress the principles that are held by various Senators, has been going on for years though they never noticed it.

Similarly, I must say that as Ceann Comhairle I had the greatest possible sympathy for members of the Opposition who had to deal, as Senator Sir John Keane mentioned, with Land Bills. I remember one Land Bill, an enormous one, to which there were 328 amendments, of which a very considerable number were out of order in various ways, consequential and otherwise. I think I spent over two hours with a member of the Opposition Party going over various points, and I marvelled at his industry and knowledge of the whole business. I had the advantage of the assistance of a skilled staff and I had the enormous advantage that as Ceann Comhairle I was not concerned with what the amendments were going to do. I was only concerned with what they meant. It seems to me that for the doing of that kind of work there is necessary a skilled staff. It is important Parliamentary work and there is no principle of any kind transgressed if public money is paid to get that particular work done. I do not know whether it is due to a wilful misunderstanding of the Bill that some Senators seem to think that this money could go into Party funds and be used for Party purposes.

I should like to disabuse Senator Sir John Keane's mind of the notion that this is a slavish imitation of the British. I am not as anti-British as Senator MacDermot and if the British had something good, I would not mind imitating them nor would I mind anybody saying I was a slave by so doing. We have imitated a number of good things which the British had. My approach to the matter is entirely uninfluenced by any British precedent. I remember the first thing we discovered when this matter was talked over with the members of our staff was that it was not done in England, but that actually it was done in Canada a number of years ago. Now in 1928—I quote this to prove that this is not a British idea here—I myself went before a joint committee and advocated very strongly that machinery should be put into operation to assist Opposition Deputies in this way. I mentioned that this was necessary for any Party and that it was not a political process at all in the narrow sense. That committee in 1928—I am afraid I misled the House when I stated a few days ago that they reported in favour of this arrangement — were convinced that something should be done, but they could not find a scheme for doing it.

Senator Keane, and I think another Senator also, mentioned that officials should be made available to do this work for these people. I went into that myself a good many years ago and I came to the conclusion—and I think anybody with experience of the Dáil will agree—that the officials of the House can only go a certain distance. I think members of all Parties up to the present moment will agree that the staff is not only an efficient one but a very courteous and obliging one, but there is only a certain distance to which they can go. They cannot go beyond that. I do not think that you can provide the kind of assistance which is necessary through the Civil Service. I remember discussing that matter with the Minister's predecessor and with officials of his Department. I think the Civil Service generally would not be improved by having particular individuals placed at the disposal of Opposition Leaders. For one thing, from the point of view of the individual civil servant, his position would be a very anomalous and difficult one. A person who is to act as a secretary either of a Parliamentary Party or of the Leader of the Opposition, must be entirely and completely trusted as if he were a colleague. While I do not say for a moment that civil servants could not be trusted, a difficulty would arise in case of a leakage and that would be a very undesirable thing. I do not know how you could provide assistance by way of civil servants.

Mr. Healy

Might I again appeal to Senator MacDermot to withdraw the recommendation? He has had a very full discussion on it and I think the position has been met very well and in a most argumentative manner by Senator Hayes.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

It would be easier to put the question now than to have an argument about whether it should be withdrawn or not at this stage.

Question put and declared carried.

Sections 10, 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 13.

In this Part of this Act—

the expression "ministerial office" means any office which is one of the following, namely:—

(a) the office of member of the Cabinet in, or Chairman of, the First Dáil Eireann, the Second Dáil Eireann or the Third Dáil Eireann;

(b) the office of member of the Provisional Government;

(c) the office of member of the Executive Council of Saorstát Eireann or of Minister appointed under Article 55 of the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann;

(d) the office of Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies (Dáil Eireann) established by the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann;

(e) the office of member of the Government;

(f) the office of Chairman of Dáil Eireann;

Mr. Counihan

I move recommendation No. 17:—

In sub-section (1), after line 18, that the following new paragraph be inserted:—

(g) the office of Chairman of Seanad Eireann."

This recommendation, if adopted by the Government and the Dáil, would ensure a pension for the Chairman of the abolished Seanad. Only three offices in connection with the Oireachtas have been excluded from pensions or other allowances—the offices of Chairman of the Seanad, Vice-Chairman of the Seanad, and Vice-Chairman of the Dáil. The present recommendation is concerned with the Chairmanship of the Seanad. There is only one person to whom the recommendation, if adopted, would apply, but it would ensure pensions for the present Chairman and future Chairmen of the Seanad. The person who would be entitled to a pension now, if this recommendation were adopted, was Chairman of the abolished Seanad for eight years, and Vice-Chairman for three years. He performed the duties of Chairman with honour and credit to himself, to the House and to the State. For a number of years during his Chairmanship he relinquished £550 a year of his salary, and he should be regarded as a person eligible for a pension.

Mr. Quirke

I intend to oppose this amendment because it would be just as reasonable to suggest that all members of the last Seanad should be granted a pension as to make this proposal. Surely, Senator Counihan would not suggest that, though some people did seriously make the suggestion at the time. I appreciate the sentiments of the Senator in trying to do the best he can for his friend, but I do not think that the proposal is reasonable, and I suggest that the Senator should withdraw his recommendation.

Mr. Counihan

The analogy drawn by Senator Quirke would be on a line with the granting of pensions to the members of the Dáil, because the Chairman of the Dáil had become eligible for a pension. I do not see any argument in that.

Mr. MacEntee

I ask the Senator not to press this recommendation because I do not think that there would be any hope of its being accepted. The Shanley Committee considered this matter specifically and they recommended that the offices of Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach should be non-pensionable. From the information at our disposal, we do not envisage any circumstances which would justify any lump-sum payments to the holders of these posts on the termination of their offices. The Chairman of the Seanad has not to devote so great a portion of his time to the duties of his office as has the Ceann Comhairle. It was due to consideration of that fact that the Shanley Committee made the recommendation it did. I appreciate the reasons which have, I presume, moved the Senator to take action in this matter. There are grounds why the Chairman of the Seanad should be put in a position of independence. He may, during his period of office, have to take action in certain matters in which his own interests would be involved. Notwithstanding that, it is felt that we should not go outside the recommendations of the Shanley Committee in this case.

Mr. Counihan

As the Minister gives no hope of a favourable reception for this recommendation, I do not see much use in pressing it, particularly as the Shanley Committee did not recommend that this be done.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacDermot

I move recommendation No. 18:—

That a new section be inserted, before Section 14, as follows:—

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act no payment shall be made under this Part of this Act which brings the total income of the recipient excluding Parliamentary allowance, if any, to a figure exceeding £1,500 per annum."

I have nothing new to say on this subject. As I explained during the last few days, I take the view that Ministerial pensions are not comparable with any other kind of pensions. There is no other walk of life in which a man can earn a pension for the rest of his days, a pension for his widow and an allowance for each of his infant children on the basis of service for only a few years. At the same time, I recognise that it is in the highest interest of the people and of the State that Ministers should not be subjected to the financial anxiety of feeling that, when their term of office is over, they may not have the means wherewith to live. Consequently, the conclusion I draw is that pensions should be given as a matter of high policy but that the people of the country ought not to be asked to give them where they are not needed.

I have never been able to see that there is anything derogatory in making a confession of not being wealthy. Nobody respects anybody more because he is wealthy, and, in any case, there will be no more publicity involved than there is in other countries. All that would be required would be that, privately, the claimant to the pension should make it known to some authority—the Minister for Finance or whatever Government authority be fixed—that his financial position was such as to make it reasonable that the country should pay him a pension. It is very hard to decide exactly what figure to fix upon, but it does seem to me that if a man has got a large private income, or if he has, after leaving politics, become, in some other field of activity, extremely prosperous and is earning a large income, it is not reasonable that the country, just for the sake of a few years' service, should pay him a pension which he actually does not need. It could have happened even within the past few years, if things had been just a little bit different, that one or two persons might have got into a Government as Ministers after a very short time of membership of the Dáil. They might, perhaps, have parted company with those Ministries, for reasons, good or bad, within a few years, and walked away in the position that, for the rest of their lives, they would be entitled to a pension from the country. I do not think that is reasonable, and I do not think I am being a bad democrat or that I am suggesting anything objectionable if I say that, quite quietly and privately, those who receive such pensions as are provided for by this Bill should satisfy the authorities that they need them.

Mr. MacEntee

I ask the Seanad not to accept this amendment. I see no reason why a condition which is not imposed in regard to any other pension, granted for services rendered, should be imposed in the case of a Minister. It is quite wrong to say, and I think the Senator at this stage ought to abandon the argument which was worn threadbare and shattered in the other House, that pensions are going to be granted for short service. Some of those who will be entitled to maximum pensions under this Act—a pension of £500 a year—will have served 10 years in the Ministry, or almost 10 years. Some of them will have served much longer, when we take into consideration their pre-Truce services in the Ministry.

Where does this distrust lie?

Mr. MacEntee

The whole implication lies in this that ex-Ministers would apply for pensions even if their circumstances did not warrant them taking them.

Mr. MacDermot

The Minister is saying something that is entirely new to me and, perhaps, I put this recommendation down under a misapprehension. Is it the intention of the Government that Ministers should only apply for their pensions when their circumstances justify doing so?

Mr. MacEntee

The intention of the Government is to leave it to the honour and judgment of those who apply for the pensions, and I am satisfied that we are leaving it in good hands. I am not going to bind any man in the way this recommendation proposes. I think it would be quite wrong to read into this legislation anything which would evince public distrust of those who have been Ministers. The circumstances of everybody are best known to themselves. If a person feels that it is necessary in order that he should continue to serve in public life as effectively as he served therein during the period he was Minister, my view is that he should apply for the pension. It is in the public interest that he should do so. We have heard a great deal about the merits of Ministers and about the people who should be Ministers. I am convinced that it is going to be much more difficult to get Ministers of the same calibre in the future than it has been in the past.

Mr. Foran

What I wanted to know is this——

Mr. MacDermot

Perhaps it would shorten the proceedings, in view of what the Minister has just said, if I were to say that I am prepared to withdraw the recommendation.

Mr. Foran

As a matter of fact, if Deputy MacDermot wants support from us he might have it. I wanted to know whether it is something on which we could agree.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 13 agreed to.

Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.

Mr. Counihan

I am not moving recommendation 19 to Section 16.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. M. Hayes

On this section I want to ask a question about sub-section (5). This section deals with pensions to former holders of secretarial office, but there has been so much chopping and changing with this section that I am not quite clear on it, nor on the recommendation.

Mr. MacEntee

That matter is covered by an amendment already dealt with.

Mr. Hayes

It is covered by the amendment in the Dáil?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Sections 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 agreed to.

Mr. Counihan

I am not moving amendment No. 20.

Recommendation not moved.

Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, the Schedule and Title, agreed to.

Agreed: That the Final Stages be now taken.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill be returned to the Dáil"—put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 15 Dec 1938