Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jul 1947

Vol. 34 No. 5

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) (Amendment) Bill, 1947 ( Certified Money Bill )— Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Hayes

I move recommendation No. 1:—

That sub-section (2) be deleted.

This recommendation is aimed at deleting sub-section (2) of Section 3. Its effect would be to leave the allowances paid to Senators at their present figure. I do not want to repeat what I said on the Second Stage, but whatever may be said with regard to members of the Dáil and their allowances it seems to me, with all my own experience and all our experience generally, over a number of years past, that there can hardly be any doubt that there is no case for an increase in Senators' allowances. There is a question of principle with regard to the working of a democracy involved, namely, whether people should have made up to them their out-of-pocket expenses for acting as members of Parliament or whether they should receive remuneration for their services. If they receive remuneration for their services then, clearly, their remuneration should be subject to income-tax with, perhaps, some additions to the instructions to the Revenue Commissioners in a Finance Bill to allow the kind of expenses which a Deputy or a Senator properly may incur. However, this particular recommendation deals specifically with the Seanad. I do not want to deal with the Dáil on the recommendation.

Whatever case there may be for having a member of the Dáil paid for his services and for working full-time it seems to me that the Second House should very emphatically consist of people who are working in Parliament but who expect to get nothing out of Parliament except their out-of-pocket expenses. I recognise that there is a very substantial difference between the position of the Dublin resident and the position of the country resident and, very particularly, the position of the person who lives in a remote part of the country. Undoubtedly that person incurs greater expenses than the Dublin resident. I think he should be paid as at present. He should be provided with transport—I agree with Section 2 which has improved the position with regard to transport. He should also get expenses for his maintenance while he is in Dublin, and an arrangement should be made by which he certainly would not be out of pocket. However, to adopt a rule-of-thumb system to pay every Senator precisely the same amount and to say that because he was paid precisely the same in 1937 it should now be increased by 30 per cent. seems to be adopting an untenable and irrational method. It would be much better if the whole problem were examined. I do not say that it is easy to find a solution because I am aware that the problem exists in more places than here. I think, however, with regard to the Second House, that it should consist of people who have a contribution to make. It should not provide a living for any person.

I disagree with the categories of Senators which were made out by a speaker on the last occasion, on the Second Stage. He said there were people who could afford to give their services free, those who could afford to take the out-of-pocket expenses only, and, thirdly, people who required more than that. If they require more than that, I do not think they should be in a Second House, which is a revising Chamber. A revising Chamber should consist of people who, in their own trade, profession or occupation, have succeeded in making good—no matter in what particular line, but in some line—and they should only receive for their services their out-of-pocket expenses. A scheme of that kind should be devised. The present idea of adding to the allowance already given is a bad one. I want to draw attention to the general position, as that general position and, particularly, the position of the country resident as compared with the Dublin resident, should be examined; and for that reason I move this recommendation.

It should not be beyond the wit of this House to devise a scheme whereby the persistent non-worker in the Seanad could be dealt with. On the last occasion, the Minister in a rather jocular mood drew a picture of himself as Minister for Finance checking up on Senators' attendances. This House has the Committee of Procedure and Privileges, drawn from different groups, and in the last ten years it never disagreed and never had a division. The committee always succeeded in coming to its conclusions unanimously, after the most lively or the mildest form of discussion. That committee could devise a scheme whereby the Senator who did no work would get no expenses. My scheme is that the expenses should be paid only to persons who certify that they have been incurred—and that would be an improvement. This recommendation will have the effect of leaving the allowance as it is at present and will enable us later on to discuss what precise type of allowance Senators should get.

Mr. Baxter

If there is one thing on which every Senator should have his mind made up, it is on this proposition. I do not know about the people who are absent: it would be very interesting to know what is in their minds. We must concern ourselves with the portion of it which applies to ourselves. My approach may differ from that of my colleagues or other Senators in certain respects. This is not a new problem, but one which I have heard under discussion for quite a long time. I feel that the institutions of this State are not yet so firmly established that any of us could take any decision which might imperil their stability in the future. There are threats to our existing institutions in various ways. Members of the Oireachtas themselves may have made their contribution to slighting those institutions, making them less worthy, less responsible and less respected than they ought to be if they are to stand the test of time and be improved on by us or by our successors. It must be obvious to all concerned about the nation's well-being that there are attacks from different angles upon our institutions. I do not propose to go into an examination of the motives for those attacks, but I am convinced that all who have the welfare of the nation at heart must meet those attacks, eradicate the causes of them as far as possible and strengthen our institutions as they are to-day.

The payment of members of the Oireachtas has been subject to a good deal of criticism over a very long time, and perhaps that is not unnatural. We have collected into the Oireachtas all types of people, both in mind and outlook and from every conceivable calling. There may be justification for criticism about the competence and fitness of many of us to speak on behalf of the nation and justification for criticism of the manner in which we do our work. We are as God made us—some are elected and some nominated. If we are not more worthy, it is due in no small measure to the unworthiness of the people who elect us, but whatever the causes are, it is important for us to realise the amount of criticism that is going around. Senator Hayes proposes to eliminate from this Bill the increase in the allowance to Senators. Whatever the ideas of the men who originally framed the proposition to pay the members of the Dáil and Seanad, naturally they had not much experience. I have not troubled to look up the collection which was got together in those days—and cannot call the names to mind now, though I know them—to study the proposal for payments to members of the Oireachtas, but the fact remains that a flat rate of compensation or expenses was decided upon. In those days there was no measuring stick by which alternative methods could be used. Quite clearly, we have the experience now. There can be no question in equity that the plan decided on then does not fit into the scheme of life to-day and that it demands immediate examination and considerable alteration. When I was in the other House, in 1925 or 1926, I remember stating frankly that I saw no justification whatever that those members of the Dáil who could return to their own homes after each sitting should receive the same allowance as those who came 50 to 200 miles to attend meetings of the Dáil. But that plan and that principle has continued and will continue under this legislation. I do not know what is the Minister's defence of it and I should like to hear it.

If the proposal in the Bill is to compensate members of the Oireachtas, especially members of the Seanad, for the expenditure involved by their membership of this House, if that remuneration is to be equitable, it must bear some relation to the actual cost to members in attending to their duties as Senators. I do not know the position as regards other Senators but as far as I am personally concerned, I cannot attend meetings at less than 30/- a day out-of-pocket expenses.

Consider the attendance in this House to-day. When a division is challenged we will probably discover that half the members are here and the other half are absent. That position must be faced up to. Public respect cannot be maintained for an institution in which the members take so little interest that they cannot find time to attend. I am sure a number of Senators have very good reasons for their absence but people will become impatient with that scheme of things when they discover that those who stay away, whether they reside in the city or in the country, receive the same allowance at the end of the month as those who attend every meeting. My view is that that must be examined. Senator Hayes has rightly put it that the position of the Senator in Dublin is very different from the position of the country Senator. Unless we are prepared to do something about the position, the status of the Seanad will suffer.

There is an even wider issue in regard to this whole matter. I would ask the Minister for Finance to study with his colleagues the general tendency with regard to the use that is made of public representatives in this State to-day. It simply cannot continue. There are probably few members of this House, in a way, whose services are called upon to a less extent than mine but I have no hesitation in saying that the point of view of the public now is that no Act of the Oireachtas can be administered otherwise than through the intercession of the elected representatives. The homes of members of the Dáil and Seanad are continually visited by people asking them to make pleas on their behalf for every conceivable thing. The idea permeates the life of this State to-day that no matter what the law is, nothing can be done, no right can be won or enjoyed by the citizen other than through the intercession of a member of the Oireachtas. Let any member challenge the truth of that statement. It is my personal experience, and I know the way in which members of the other House, on all sides, are plagued. The thing is carried further. The impression is created that the only way to get anything is to belong to the Government Party. Let that be challenged. I do not say it is true but it is the belief and it is a belief that there is——

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is going rather wide of the subject of the debate.

Mr. Baxter

I am trying to relate the responsibilities of members of the House to the way in which they are remunerated. I want an examination of this because it is all bound up with the question of the allowances. If the Minister accepts that that is an obligation and that it ought to be an obligation of members of the Oireachtas in future to do all this sort of work—I do not know how to describe it but the members know very well what I mean —you have almost to be a penny boy for everyone in your constituency—the Minister probably is justified in his proposition but if we are going to make another approach as to the duties of members, both now and in the future, we ought to examine the drift of Government policy, Government methods and legislation and administration generally.

I am absolutely convinced that that drift is terribly unhealthy, that you are going to bring about a decadence from the point of view of the worthiness of public representation and from the point of view of the type of person you will have to go into the legislative Assembly. The legislative Assembly cannot be higher or nobler or better educated or more powerful in intellect than the people who are elected to it and if they are to be elected on the basis of their service to their constituents from the point of view of the part they play as a cog in the administrative machine, as legislators they will be quite hopeless. We are tending to develop a most unhealthy condition of things. I feel strongly about this. I have argued with groups of our own people that this drift is something that ought to be grappled with now.

I cannot refrain from putting this aspect of the case to the House. I am supporting the amendment because I feel the approach to the problem of the allowances made to legislators is entirely false. It is not based on a proper concept of the functions of legislators. The whole situation requires examination. I have studied the membership of this House. I do not know how many others have troubled to do so. There is this unhealthy drift that, out of the total membership, very close to half reside in the City of Dublin where there is a population of 500,000 and the other half come from the rest of the country with its almost 2,500,000 population. The more we continue on that basis the sooner we will come to the situation that no man worth his salt will be found in the country to interest himself in public affairs. The country will be completely governed by the mind made in the City of Dublin. No one has greater respect than I for the competence and ability of the members of this House who come from the City of Dublin but I am indicating the drift, the sort of fatalism as far as the country is concerned and the attitude of the people of the country to representation in the Oireachtas. On Second Reading Senator Summerfield was dubbed Conservative by Senator Sam Kyle.

Mr. Sweetman

A Tory—not Conservative.

Mr. Hayes

It was not fair to the Tories.

Mr. Baxter

We have not had time in this country. If some of our people get a little time we will be able to build up an aristocracy of wealth—whether it would be an aristocracy of intellect is another matter. At present the great bulk of our people are so busy trying to live that very few have time to give to public service. I do not know what the experience of others is but I can say from my own observation that there are fewer and fewer people every day who are prepared to give one half-hour for nothing in the public service. Everybody to-day wants to be paid for whatever service he gives. That is the general attitude now, locally. There are not many people who can afford to take hours or days away from their profession or labours and as that will be the situation for a very long time, allowances must be made for the time which representatives are prepared to take from their own professions.

Now, I pointed out earlier that almost half the representation in this House is from the City of Dublin. I do not know what the members of the Government Party are finding, but I have no hesitation in saying that, as far as other Parties are concerned, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get the right sort of person to come into the public life of the country and give his services in the spirit in which a great many of us have been giving it since we entered public life 20 or 30 years ago. When that is the position I have great fears that we are going to drift along until, eventually, 90 per cent. of the Oireachtas will be composed of people residing within what is now styled greater Dublin, where, at the moment, you have a population of roughly 500,000 people. What is going to happen to the rest of the country when you arrive at that stage? There may be people who feel that that is quite a healthy state of affairs, but those who are concerned with the great body of this nation cannot feel other than terribly unhappy about that drift. I believe myself that there are very much bigger issues involved in this section of the Bill, and in the amendment moved by Senator Hayes than would appear from a superficial examination. As far as I am concerned personally, I can only express a degree of unhappiness about the matter which urges me to say what I have been trying to say. I feel that the whole situation requires an examination of a kind which has not been given to it in the past. I would like, when it is examined again, that the bulk of the people who are going to examine it will somehow or other be drawn from a type of mind that is available in the country—by people whose services have not been called upon in the past. I hope that the House will accept our point of view on this amendment, so as to force the Government to have an examination of the situation. The problem is one that requires urgent examination, but it has not yet got that examination from any body in power.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Is léir gur beag an méid atá nua sa díospóireacht seo i gcomórtas leis an méid a dúradh an tseachtain seo caite. Bhí difríocht amháin ann, áfach. An tseachtain seo caite bé an locht a bhí ag na daoiní thall ar an mBille gur fhéach sé le liúntaisí lucht an tSeanaid d'ardú, rud ná fuil fíor ar ndóigh. Ach inniú bé brí a gcuid argóintí nach ceart an liúntas céanna a ligean le gach Seanadóir. Is dóigh leo go mba chóir gach duine d'íoc do réir a chuid seirbhísí, moladh atá ceart go leor ach nach féidir, creidimse, a chur i gcrích go sásúil.

Sén prionsabal atá i gceist againn, an ceart an oiread a ligean le daoine le go bhféadhfaidís, is cuma cén gradam nó cén chéim soisealta atá nó a bheas acu, bheith na mbaill den Seanad agus go bhféadfaidís, dá réir sin, dualgaisí poiblí Seanadóireachta a chomhlíonadh go cóir. Sin é an prionsabal atá i gceist sa mBille seo agus is prionsabal é go gcaithfeamaid seasamh leis. Ardaíonn an Bille seo liúntaisí na Seanadóirí. Ní dhéanann sé ach coigeartú áirithe ar na liúntaisí de bharr an athruithe atá tagtha ar fhiúchas an airgid féin le roinnt blian anuas.

The main difference between the discussion to-day and the discussion last week seems to me to be this, that if the ground itself has not been shifted then the emphasis has been shifted. On the last occasion it seemed to me that the general tenor of the debate was that members of the Seanad were paid too much, while to-day it seems that the main objection is that Senators who do not attend to their duties as regularly as we think they ought should not get as much as those other Senators who believe that they themselves do attend to their duties as fully as the nation expects them. It has been indicated that something in the nature of differential payment would meet the case. It has been indicated that the main purpose of putting down this recommendation is to urge on the Government the necessity for an examination of the system under which allowances are paid to members of the Oireachtas. I am all in favour of the general principle of differential payments. I would like to think that the trade unions and others with regard to employment generally would subscribe to the same view. But while it might be easy to arrive at a basis for differential payment in ordinary workaday affairs, it is quite obvious to anybody who has given any thought to it that the devising of such a system in connection with the work of members of the Oireachtas is one that is likely to surpass the wit of man.

We ought first to consider what is the aim of the section in question in the Bill. It seeks to make an adjustment in the allowances made to members of the Seanad. I do not take it as seeking to increase the allowances to members of the Seanad; its aim is rather to adjust the allowances to something like what they were when these allowances were fixed. It does not even go as far as that.

As I said before, some members of the Seanad would seem to indicate that the allowances are too generous. If they are too generous to-day they were still more generous in the years that have passed since 1938. Some people who have been speaking here would seem to indicate that their consciences are pricking them in that regard. It follows from that, that if these people feel in the way that their words would lead one to believe, then they are, in all conscience, bound to make very considerable restitution to the Minister for Finance, because they must have got very much more over the years that have since elapsed than they believed they were deserving of. I do not believe that they intend to make that restitution. It was never their intention, and I believe, in consequence, that they are not sincere in what they have been saying with regard to the content of this particular section which they are seeking to amend.

Mr. Hayes

Would the Senator particularise the people to whom he is alluding? I did not mention my conscience, for example, or say whose consciences were worried.

Liam Ó Buachalla

The Senator was here on the last occasion and he heard the speeches as I did. He has the Official Report and can look through it and see for himself. If the cap fits anybody he is perfectly free to wear it.

Mr. Baxter

Surely the Senator ought to have the courage to name those to whom he refers.

Liam Ó Buachalla

If I did, I am sure I would be told that I ought to avoid personalities.

Mr. Baxter

The Senator ought to have the courage to go the whole way.

Mr. Hearne

I think that, as I came in, I heard Senator Baxter use the word "conscience."

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Ó Buachalla.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I now come to the main point to which I intend to refer, and it arises out of an oblique reference on the part of Senator Hayes to a speaker who, on the last occasion, mentioned the possibility of classifying Senators with regard to this matter of allowances. He did not, of course, name me when making that reference, but I am the person who did make the suggestion. I was very careful when I was mooting the suggestion to say that I thought it was a foolish one, that I thought it was one which would not work. The suggestion I had in mind is reported in column 247 of the Official Report of July 9th. I suggested that if we were to act in the way that Senators on the other side think we ought to act, that if justice is to be done, then people who are of independent means ought not to get any allowance whatever. There might be another section who would not be completely independent in the matter of means and that to them travelling allowances only might be allowed. I referred to the third category, which is the category in which I am mainly interested, those who could not possibly accept membership of the Seanad unless they got a reasonable allowance. Senator Hayes, from his remarks to-day, would seem to be of the opinion that there is not very much room for people of that kind in the Seanad. "If they have not made good," he says, "then there is no place here for them." What exactly does "making good" mean?

Supposing some young tradesman down the country wishes to enter the lists for membership of the Seanad. Supposing the people consider that he is a suitable person. If that young man cannot get adequate allowances how is he to attend? His employment will not be kept open for him. We know, of course, that it has been impossible for some people, tradesmen and business people, to carry on membership of the Oireachtas unless they got adequate compensation or allowances from some source. I think in the Dáil there is a case of one Deputy who had to give up his employment altogether because he could not carry on. If we do not pay reasonable allowances to members of that kind, I think we will do a very grave injustice to a considerable section of the community and a very grave injustice to the nation by depriving the nation of the services of valuable public representatives. If you agree that the Seanad ought to be open to such people, it follows that adequate provision ought to be made to enable such people to become members.

We come back to the question, then: if you are to provide for them, are you going to provide for this question of differential allowances? I hold that you cannot do it. You must try to strike an average. That is all that I think has been sought from the very first day when allowances were introduced— to strike an average. Supposing it does happen that members of the Seanad find when that average is struck that they are still receiving too much. Surely these people will find a way, after having calculated what their necessary and essential expenses are, of returning whatever they get over and above those expenses to the State. If they are sincere about it, that is the way they will approach it.

Mr. Sweetman

I did not speak on the last occasion and, therefore, in one sense I could not be affected by what Senator Ó Buachalla said. It was precisely for that reason that I have got to my feet. I intend to support this amendment as far as it possibly can be supported, because I am quite satisfied that the existing allowances are quite adequate and that the law as it exists had to be obeyed, had to be carried out, and should be carried out. The method that Senator Ó Buachalla suggests, that people should spurn and cast aside the law enacted by the Oireachtas, is a method which I candidly thought and hoped the Senator and his Party had long since left behind. The fact remains that the law is there and that it is the sincere duty of any person who feels that the law should be altered to do his best to alter it when he gets the opportunity. In one respect I feel as Senator Baxter feels, that we are travelling a very bad road in that public representatives have become more and more penny messenger boys of the people in the various areas. That is not the right way to approach public representation. It is not the right way to approach the consideration of legislation in this House or for that matter, in the other House. I have one Senator particularly in my mind who I am perfectly satisfied works extraordinarily hard at a particular type of public work. I think that Senator is doing that absolutely sincerely and according to his conscience, but I think he is entirely and absolutely mistaken as to what the function of such a public representative is. It is not the function of a public representative to spend his entire public time writing letters or interviewing Government Departments so that A, B, or C can get some particular thing. The function of a public representative is to criticise, to amend, to suggest the broad general principles of law and the broad general principles of public administration upon which that law should be administered and not to interfere in the detailed day-to-day decisions taken in that administration. It is an unfortunate fact that our public representatives have rather tended towards that in recent years. Ultimately, it is a trend that will very seriously affect the quality of the representation and the quality of the consideration that can be given to legislation as it passes through the Oireachtas.

I repeat that I consider the present allowances are adequate; but I want to make the further point that, in my view, whether the present allowances are adequate or not, there is unfortunately abroad such a distrust of public representatives that I think it is essential for us to make a firm decision to allay that suspicion and distrust. There is unfortunately abroad a suspicion that people are in public life for what they can get out of it, and if we pass this amendment we will at least have shown that so far as this House is concerned the public have no justification for that suspicion. We will have travelled, in my view, a long way on the road to allay the suspicion in the mind of the public and to bring them back to a consideration of what a representative in public life is doing and should do. For these reasons, I purpose to vote for the amendment.

Professor Johnston

I find myself in sympathy with a great deal of what has been said by the mover of the amendment and by subsequent speakers and yet, for various reasons, I must oppose the amendment. My principal reason is that this amendment, if adopted, will automatically exclude from the service of the House all those less fortunate citizens who must depend in the main on their remuneration as Senators while serving as Senators. There are, perhaps, actual, and certainly potential, Senators who must sacrifice their other means of livelihood in order to serve as Senators, and therefore we cannot, in justice to that particular section, adopt a principle which will automatically exclude them from service and, in fact, will confine membership of the Seanad to members of the more fortunate classes.

There is much to be said against the particular method and principle by which allowances are paid to members of both House and much to be said in favour of a consideration of the whole matter afresh and without allowing ourselves to be influenced too much by the decisions taken in 1938; but I am not convinced that by adopting this amendment the House will make any real contribution towards ensuring that very desirable reconsideration. It might just happen that the amendment might be passed and the Dáil might say: "Very well; Senators think they are worth only £360 a year in terms of the present depreciated value of money. That is all we will give them, and we will do nothing about it." What guarantee have we that, if we adopt the amendment, the Dáil will initiate legislation which will have the effect of putting the whole matter on a more rational and defensible basis? In other words, the amendment does not meet the real objections which there are to the present method and principle of paying remuneration to Deputies and Senators. I do not propose to go over again the ground over which I travelled on Second Reading, but there are such real objections and it is very desirable that the whole matter should be considered afresh and without prejudice.

Whatever remuneration is paid to Senators, the same amount must be paid to all Senators. One objection to the present method of payment is that that equality of remuneration leads to a serious inequality of reward, as I pointed out on a former occasion, for to pay £360 a year to a person whose family circumstances are such that he is not liable for income-tax, is the same thing as paying £500 a year or so to other persons whose family circumstances are such that they are paying income-tax on the rest of their income at the full rate. In other words, £360 all round free of tax is equivalent to about £500 a year subject to tax from the point of view of those Senators who are paying income-tax at the highest rate and the proposed change in the present law will not in any way affect that situation. It will merely substitute a different arithmetical quantity for the purposes of that calculation. Yet the Government have to fix some figure and to fix the same figure for everybody and the only factor which can determine what that figure is is the minimum amount which would enable a person who must sacrifice other means of livelihood to serve in the Seanad without incurring unfair loss or making an unfair sacrifice in doing so.

In the conditions which existed in 1938, the figure of £360 was arrived at. Now it is proposed to pay £468, equally free of tax. It is perfectly true that, on the basis of the present and prospective value of money, £468 in 1947 £'s is about the equivalent of £300 in 1938 £'s, so that we are in fact being asked to agree to a substantially smaller real remuneration for our services in 1947 than was considered right and proper in 1938. Whatever figure is arrived at, it must be the same figure for all, and yet there is the uncomfortable thought that a figure which is only just enough to enable certain Senators to serve at all does afford a comfortable surplus to certain others, especially those who have the advantage of living in the immediate neighbourhood of Dublin and who have not to incur heavy expenses on subsistence and maintenance in Dublin during sessions of the House. That is the real problem and one which I think ought to be seriously considered and legislated about in such a way perhaps as to depart from the whole principle of the legislation enacted in 1938; but, while we are committed to the policy of that 1938 legislation, I do not think it right that we should get out of step now in a small matter like this unless we can be quite certain that, by doing so, we ensure a reconsideration of the whole matter in the light of the principles which should govern it.

I suggested in my former remarks that the Minister should apply the mechanism of income-tax so as to ensure that rewards would be in some way proportioned to the financial circumstances of individual Senators, and I suggested also that expenses which were wholly, exclusively and necessarily due to service in the House should be allowed to be free of income-tax. The Minister in his reply said, quite rightly, I think, that it would be wholly objectionable to have Senators making their case to civil servants for such and such as a justifiable item of Senatorial expenditure and having to be sat in judgment upon by the Revenue Commissioners in the matter. That might be and would be rather humiliating and undesirable in every way, and yet I think something ought to be done about it. The fairest thing would be not to prejudice the position now by getting out of step with what will probably be enacted with reference to the allowances of Deputies, but to maintain for the present the principle of the 1938 legislation with the proportionate increase in Senatorial allowances, but that, as soon as possible, the Minister should try to bring about legislation which would put the whole matter on a more defensible basis.

In order to get the data on which such legislation should be based, I suggest that Senators and Deputies should be asked to keep in the course of the next 12 months private records of all the expenditure they incur which they would not have had to incur if they had not been Deputies or Senators, and to give the Minister, in confidence, the aggregate of these items, added up to a certain total. No doubt the figures would add up to very different totals in the case of different Senators and Deputies, but nevertheless they would give the Minister some rough idea of what the average amount of expenditure and loss involved in service in either House amounted to, and, have ing got that information, he could then bring about legislation which would take the form of setting out that a certain proportion of the remuneration of Senators and Deputies shall be regarded as allowances and free of income-tax and the rest of it as payment for expert services and subject to income-tax like any other form of salary. I cannot tell you what that proportion ought to be. It might be £100, £150 or £200, but the Minister, if he had that data before him, would be able to make some kind of rough calculation as to a fair amount that could be regarded as free of income-tax and then legislate that the rest of the remuneration of Senators and Deputies should be regarded as payment for services and should be subject to income-tax.

In a matter of this kind the Government must take the primary responsibility of arriving at a decision and must incur whatever unpopularity may be involved in arriving at a decision which is capable of being represented in a somewhat unpleasant light in the eyes of public opinion. I am quite willing to share the unpopularity, but I know we cannot be responsible for the final decision. I urge that we should do nothing to prejudice the position established in 1938, but the whole principle of the legislation then established should be reconsidered and we should arrive at some more equitable and defensible method of paying for the services of Senators and Deputies.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Aiken)

Senator Johnston said that in settling the allowance to be given to a Senator we should fix it at such an amount as would not exclude a person with no other means from coming forward, being elected and carrying out his duties as a Senator That is a principle we have to keep in mind in all discussions on what allowance we will fix for Senators and members of the Dáil. The main point is that any person in this democratic country should be able to go to the people and say: "I am prepared to represent you in the Dáil or Seanad, provided you elect me, and will be able to carry out the duties I promise to fulfil because there is an adequate allowance for that purpose."

The last day, and for some portion of to-day, we have had a discussion as to whether we should depart from that particular principle and pay by results. The Senators who spoke about payment by results have had a long number of years in which to consider that question and, even though they may, in the course of the discussion, suddenly think they have a solution of the problem—even if that system were adopted—if they think more about it they will find they have not got a solution and what might at first blush appear to be a happy and an equitable solution could result in evils of another description.

Senator Hayes spoke at length the last day on this question of payment by results. Senator Hayes has been in public life for a long time and I never heard him putting forward that particular method of payment of Senators' or Deputies' allowances before.

Mr. Hayes

I never put it forward at all; I put no such suggestion of payment by results forward.

Mr. Aiken

It sounded very like that —that a Senator should not be paid unless he carried out his work.

Mr. Hayes

That is not suggesting payment by results; the results in that instance might be very bad.

Mr. Quirke

It applies only to the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Aiken

When the Senator came to framing an amendment, he submitted one which would have the result of paying Senators by the rule-of-thumb method which he condemned to-day. He said it was indefensible and irrational to pay Senators by any rule-of-thumb method. But his amendment suggests the rule-of-thumb method; he suggests that we should have a flat rate of allowances for every Senator at the existing level. That is a rule-of-thumb method. Senator Hayes said he had no doubt as to the adequancy of the existing allowance. I must say that if the allowance is adequate to-day, then the allowance paid from 1923 until 1939 was over-adequate.

This matter has been discussed on many occasions in the Dáil and Seanad over the past 24 or 25 years and, although various Senators and Deputies threw out suggestions, the only one that was ever put in the form of an amendment was one to the effect that the allowances should be subject to income-tax. If we made Senators' allowances subject to income-tax it would mean setting up the Revenue Commissioners and their officials as the judges of Senatorial conduct in regard to expenses and allowances. I believe it would be a bad thing to have the Revenue Commissioners and their officials putting Senators on proof in regard to their expenses.

There are bound to be disputes between the Revenue Commissioners and Senators as to whether certain expenses were justified, whether a Deputy or Senator should have refrained from giving a subscription, whether he should have stayed at home instead of attending some particular function. It is an inescapable part of the Revenue Commissioners' duty to treat with Senators, Deputies, Ministers and others in relation to the personal part of their income. They have plenty of precedents and they make allowances that are well within the precedents that have been established. If we started now to say to the Revenue Commissioners: "Well, these allowances will be subject to income-tax. Treat Senators as professional men and, if there are expenses wholly and necessarily connected with the carrying out of their duties as Senators, we will allow those as free from income-tax," that is setting up the Revenue Commissioners as judges of what Senators should do and should not do in the line of expenses. I do not believe in it.

I want to say to Senators that there is one reason why there is another section in this Bill in regard to travelling facilities. The reason is that I do not want civil servants to be involved in disputes in regard to the use of motor cars with Deputies and Senators. There was a certain number of such disputes and they finally came to me for adjudication. I do not want to be in the position, either, of having to adjudicate upon them. As Senators know, the system in operation heretofore, which is being abolished under a section of this Bill, was that if a train was reasonably available to a Senator or a Deputy and if he used his car, instead of getting a mileage allowance for his car he would get only first-class train fare. That led to all sorts of difficulties in regard to the question of whether a Deputy should not have travelled the night before when a train was available or whether he should not have waited over-night in Dublin and have taken the train on the following morning rather than have used his car. I decided that we should put that particular cause of dispute between Senators and Deputies and civil servants out of the way. Even if Senators had put forward a recommendation to that effect, I would not recommend the Dáil to accept a situation in which we would set up the Revenue Commissioners and their officials as judges as to what a Senator should or should not do with the allowance for expenses given to him by the State.

The allowance which Senators have at the moment was fixed in 1922 or 1923 at £360 a year. In 1938 it was decided by the Dáil and the Seanad, that Senators should continue to draw the same allowance, £360 a year, but that the allowance of Deputies should go up by £120 to £480. I take it that at that time when the matter was discussed, after the 16 years or so during which the Oireachtas had been in being, it was finally concluded that it would be inequitable, or at least that it would not be necessary, to continue to pay Deputies and Senators at the same standard rate of £360 a year or £30 a month. In 1938, therefore, while it was agreed that the allowance of Senators should remain at £360, the allowance of Deputies was increased to £480 a year.

We have come now to a period after the war in which inevitable adjustments in salaries and wage levels have had to be made. Last year we abolished the Standstill Order in regard to wages and salaries outside the State services. In the ensuing months, I spent very many long hours debating with civil servants, from the highest to the lowest, in regard to what adjustment we should make in 1947 to meet the new cost of living or the change in the value of money. I pointed out here the last day that if we were to compensate Senators for the decrease in the value of money to the same extent as we compensated civil servants, the proposal in this Bill, instead of being one to increase Senators' allowances by 30 per cent, would be one to increase them by 41 per cent., and that in fact, when we come to consider the matter closely, the proposal in this Bill is not to increase the effective salary of Senators in relation to 1938 £'s but to decrease in terms of 1938 £'s the allowance then granted to Senators.

I think that from 1938 onwards Senators made no particular point that their allowances were too large. It may be that in certain cases Senators would have been willing—I am perfectly certain a number of them would —to do with less but in these matters, remembering the world in which we are living, we cannot hope to evolve an absolutely ideal way of dealing with the problems that affect a variety of human individuals. We can only in this matter look at the circumstances of 1938 when it was commonly agreed by the Dáil and Seanad—there was only one dissentient in the Seanad from the 1938 level of allowances for Senators—that £360 a year was a reasonable allowance for Senators. That scale was agreed to by the people in the various general elections that have taken place since then. We had an election in 1938, one in 1943 and one in 1944 as far as I remember. We had three elections and, by and large, we may take it as agreed that the 1938 scale of allowances was a fair and proper one in relation to the 1938 standard of values.

Standards of value have changed since then. No one can deny that a Senator's expenses, if he is performing the same sort of duties in 1947 as he discharged in 1938, have gone up by more than 30 per cent. We are proposing only that the number of pounds should be increased by 30 per cent., not that Senators' allowances should have the same purchasing power as they had in 1938. I can understand a certain amount of diffidence on the part of Senators in discussing a matter of this kind and their saying in a self-depreciating way: "We are not really worth the money" but they would not say that if it was any other type of debate that was going on. When I look round at what is happening in the world and within the State services, when I realise the importance of having a Second Chamber, representative of the people, that can carry out work in a reasonable fashion, and when I compare what I am proposing in this Bill to give members of that Chamber with what I am giving clerical officers, I get a bit of a shock. I do not think that any Senator would say that his work is of less value to the people than that of, say, a clerical officer. There are many clerical officers who, in my opinion, are better than some Senators and do very useful work but I do not think that the majority of Senators— even Senators who say that they should not get more than £360—would claim that their services are of less value to the State than those of a clerical officer. The fact is that we pay a married clerical officer, with a few children, much more than we are proposing to give to Senators. I hope that Senators will not press this recommendation. We have had it thrashed out for some days and, by and large, we thrashed it out in a fairly good spirit, though it could have been done in a different spirit. The people will understand fairly well that, if they want to have representatives in the Dáil and Seanad, the minimum they should be paid is what would enable a man or woman with no other means to carry out his or her duties.

I do not believe that what we are proposing for Senators—the Teachtaí Dála are not under discussion now—is unreasonable, particularly when one remembers that a highly-paid artisan would earn as much in a year. Many artisans are earning a larger sum. A very junior grade in the Civil Service, even if it is an important grade and includes very valuable people, commands higher remuneration, in the case of a married officer with a few children, than that of Senators. I do not think that anybody would urge that a Senator with no other means should be denied the standard of life of an artisan. If Senators think that the people will not understand the position, I think they are making a mistake. If the matter were put as a single issue to the people, I do not think that they would agree with those who say that, although they did not consider £360 too much in 1938, they consider £468 too much to-day. I trust that Senators will agree with the procedure adopted in 1938 when, after full discussion, the measure went through without amendment.

Professor Johnston

What is the Minister's objection to allowing £200 of the remuneration to be free of income-tax and the remainder subject to income-tax? The Revenue Commissioners would have nothing whatever to say to it in that case.

Mr. Aiken

If we accepted a compromise of that description, it would be open to a Senator to go to the Revenue Commissioners, in relation to the other £268, and say: "£200 was not sufficient to cover my expenses. My expenses are set out on this long list and they tot up to more than £200." In that way, we should come back to the same point. I do not care what they are doing in other countries; it would be a bad thing to force the Revenue Commissioners into a position in which they would have disputes with Senators and Deputies as to what was a proper expense and what was not. In this matter, we have taken a rough average. Nobody, without other means, will make any money out of the allowance of £468 and, at the same time, do any work for the Seanad. If a Senator does not fulfil the functions and duties which he undertook to perform, it is up to his constituents to get rid of him at the next election. If you make the Minister for Finance or the Revenue Commissioners the authority to keep Senators in order, you will have a completely different system of government from what we have. I do not think that any of us would want the system of government to which the proposition which has been made would lead.

Mr. Duffy

Would the Minister put to the Taoiseach the view he is now expressing regarding the return of people to the House?

Mr. Ryan

I did not speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. At the same time, I have been considering the amendment which is now before us. I have reached the conclusion that the amendment is misconceived and is derogatory to democratic and representative government. Underlying the speeches in favour of the amendment are suggestions that a cancer has recently crept into the public life of the country in the shape of allowances to members of the Oireachtas. Anybody who has studied history knows that the payment of members of Parliament is as old as representative government, as we know it. In 1295, which is some time ago, there was in England what was known as the Model Parliament. That was in the time of Edward I. To that Parliament were summoned two knights from each shire, two citizens from each state and two burgesses from each borough. From the very beginning, these representatives of the shires, or counties, and the cities or boroughs were paid wages by their constituents. In the time of Edward II, who reigned from 1307 to 1327, their wages were fixed. Each knight of a shire, or member for a county, was paid 4/- per day and each citizen and each member for a borough was paid 2/- per day. These were the wages paid in the 14th century. In addition, they were allowed wages for the days spent in coming to and going from Parliament. That rate of pay for members of the British House of Commons continued down to 1686. When our Anglo-Irish Parliament was set up in this country after the English had come here the members of the old Irish House of Commons were also paid wages, but their rates of wages were higher in the time of Elizabeth—a knight of the shire in Ireland, namely a member for a county, was paid 13/4 a day and a member of a borough or city was paid 10/- a day.

Mr. Duffy

Why the discrimination against the borough?

Mr. Ryan

The reason is this and it is set out in books and histories—that the representatives of the county, the knights of the shire, were of a higher social standing and had, therefore, a higher position to maintain. In addition, in the time of Elizabeth, the members of Parliament were paid for the time they spent in travelling to and from their homes to their Parliament— 13/4 per day was paid in the case of a member for a county. They were, however, paid different rates for winter and for summer—they were paid at the rate of 20 miles travel in winter and 30 miles in the summer, so that a member would receive less pay for travelling from his home to his Parliament in the summer than in the winter. In the time of James I the rate of pay was 13/4 for a knight of a shire, 10/- for a citizen and 5/- for a burgess. They were allowed payment for ten days before and after the Prorogation. As time went on the constituents, so to speak, made bargains with their representatives. The representatives said to the constituents: "We will not ask you for any pay: we will take the job for nothing." Therefore, in the course of time, the payment of members died out. The last payment that was made in Ireland was up to the 27th September, 1662. The last payment that was made in England was in 1686. The reason why the payment of members died out was that instead of being paid, the would-be members brought their seats in Parliament.

Mr. Duffy

That is not unknown now either.

Mr. Ryan

The Government of the time created enfranchised boroughs, commonly known as "pocket boroughs" in order that the Parliament might be flooded with place men who were paid for their votes by the Government of the day. That is why in the 18th century we had so much Parliamentary corruption. That was exemplified in our own country when the Act of Union was passed because, when the 84 boroughs were disenfranchised, the representatives of those boroughs were paid £1,260,000 by way of compensation. Those gentlemen, therefore, who offered their services free, gratis and for nothing to their constituents got a magnificent return in the shape of compensation through the Government of the day whether in the form of bribes or by way of compensation for the disenfranchisement of their constituencies. Therefore, it can be seen that the abolition of the payment of members was replaced by wholesale Parliamentary corruption. It took some time to right that state of affairs. In 1830 a Bill was introduced in the British House of Commons to provide for the payment of members but it did not get very far—in fact, it did not pass at all. In 1893 and 1895 resolutions were passed by the British House of Commons in favour of the payment of members but these resolutions were not accepted by the House of Lords so that in 1911 the British House of Commons took the matter into its own hands and on the 10th August, 1911, it passed a resolution declaring that each member of the House of Commons should be paid a salary of £400 a year.

That is the beginning of the payment of Parliamentary representatives in modern times as far as Great Britain and Ireland are concerned. Therefore, from 1911 members of the British House of Commons were in receipt of a salary of £400 a year. That salary was not free from income-tax and it could be attached to answer debts. That was the position when the Free State was set up here. The framers of the Constitution of 1922 recognising that, inserted an Article in the Constitution. Article 23 of the Constitution of 1922 provides:

"The Oireachtas shall make provision for the payment of its members and may in addition provide them with free travelling facilities in any part of Ireland."

In order to implement that Article of the Constitution a committee was set up by Seanad Eireann in 1922 to make a report as to the amount, amongst other things, of the payment which each member of the Seanad should receive. That Committee reported that a sum of £30 a month would be a fair amount to pay. When it came before Seanad Eireann the Seanad resolved on the 10th January, 1923, that the remuneration payable to members of Seanad Eireann should be the same as might be fixed by Dáil Eireann for its members and that first-class vouchers or season tickets to and from the homes of Senators should be provided. It will be seen, therefore, that our predecessors in 1923 had no small appreciation of their own value because they unanimously passed a resolution that they should be paid at the same rate or receive the same rate of allowance as members of Dáil Eireann. It did not say what the allowances should be. Subsequently, on the 24th January, Seanad Eireann resolved that each of its members should be allowed a sum of £30 a month; that is, when the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1923, was passed in June, 1923, it contained a Preamble setting out those resolutions of the Seanad and of the Dáil. Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann came under that Act and the members of Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann received the same allowance—£30 a month.

I was reading the debates on this matter in Volume I of the Seanad Debates. There was a slight difference of opinion in the Seanad at the time. Some members of the Seanad were in favour of no allowance for Senators but, ultimately, it was carried by 23 votes to 9 in Committee. Further, as the Bill was about to pass through the Seanad, a Senator, who appeared to have been perturbed as to whether or not the £30 would be free from income-tax, endeavoured to get an expression of opinion from the then Minister for Finance as to whether or not the £30 per month would be free from income-tax, and a rather indecisive answer was given, because, of course, the Minister could not speak for the Revenue Commissioners. Further, it soon became apparent that the £30 per month was not free from income-tax. In 1925 an amending Act was introduced, entitled Oireachtas (Payment of Members) (Amendment) Act, 1925, No. 29 of 1925, and sub-section (1) of Section 1 of that Act enacts as follows:—

"The allowances payable to members of the Oireachtas under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1923 (No. 18 of 1923) shall be and shall be deemed always to have been exempt from income-tax (including supertax) and shall not be reckoned in computing income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts."

That Act enacted retrospective legislation, as it declared that from 1923 the allowances to members should be free from income-tax. I am sure that, if that Act of 1925 were introduced here as a Bill to-day, there would be a great protest from some people, but it is remarkable that in 1925—and I have read the records of the Seanad Debates —there was not a dissenting voice. There was some desultory discussion between three or four Senators concerning the abstention of certain members who failed to turn up to earn their allowances, but there was not one word, not even a scintilla of protest against the freeing from income-tax of that £30 a month. If that was not increasing the salaries of Senators, I should be amazed. I looked up the discussion: that Bill occupied only three or four columns in the Official Seanad Debates, Volume V. It received a Second Reading and went through Committee and Report Stages all in one day, so our predecessors in 1925 were either very sensible men or very selfish men. All this discussion about these allowances being subject to income-tax is merely beating the air. The Oireachtas in 1925 decided that the allowances should be free, and I think it would take almost a revolution to repeal that Act.

We come, then, to 1937, when the new Constitution was enacted. It provided for the payment of members, in Article 15 (15) :—

"The Oireachtas may make provision by law for the payment of allowances to the members of each House thereof in respect of their duties as public representatives and for the grant to them of free travelling and such other facilities (if any) in connection with those duties as the Oireachtas may determine."

It does not say to the members of "either" House, but to the members of "each" House. To implement that Article, we have the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938. I have read the debates and I find that, when that Bill was passing through the Seanad, there were some acrimonious speeches, but no voting. There was no amendment put to the House to reduce the £30 or do away with payment of members. There was a lot of talk, but the Bill went through.

Now we come to this Bill. When we look around in other countries, we see that every democratic country has made provision for the payment of its representatives. Good government requires that the legislators should be men capable of doing the work allotted to them and of carrying out their public duties. They should be free from any financial worry as far as possible, in order that they may discharge their duties properly. I do not agree with some Senators who say: "We quite agree that the members of Dáil Eireann should get an increase, as they have so much work to do for their constituents and so many letters to write". In my opinion, that is not part of their duties at all and it is not for those purposes that an allowance was given. Their duty is to represent the people in the Legislature, not to interfere with the administration of the State. I quite agree that democratic government does lend itself to interference in executive matters by members of the Legislature and while I say that it is not the function of members of the Oireachtas to act as intermediaries between their constituents and the executive Government, I feel that the system has come to stay. It is not peculiar to this country. I believe it obtains fully in England and that members of Parliament there are just as active on behalf of individual constituents as are the members of Dáil Eireann here. However that may be, all the activity is for the personal benefit of the representative concerned. He can do his Parliamentary duties quite adequately and may be an excellent Parliamentarian, but he may not be elected unless he is able to perform favours for his constituents. That, unfortunately, is a flaw in our present system of democratic government. The allowance which he should get would be for his duties as a legislator.

I quite agree that the members of the Dáil have longer hours as legislators than we have and, if their services are to be measured in £'s, shillings and pence compared with the services of Senators, then undoubtedly the Deputies are entitled to a higher allowance than members of the Seanad. That does not mean that they should be entitled to a disproportionate allowance. Senators have their responsibilities and duties in respect of legislation just as much as the members of the Dáil. This is one of the two Houses of the Oireachtas and it has its own responsibility and functions. Senators are just as much entitled to an adequate allowance in respect of their public duties as are Deputies.

I am afraid there is a good deal of false public spirit abroad in connection with this recommendation. Senators are, perhaps, too timid, too much afraid of ill-informed or even prejudiced criticism. If we are to keep our place in the system of government in this country, we should take the view which reasonable people would take when the matter is explained to them. We should not scurry before the crossroad criticism of people who are well able to feather their own nests in other directions. This Bill is a Bill which has been initiated by the Government of the day. I was reading the debate on the Bill of 1938 and I saw in that debate a speech made by Senator Douglas who said that responsibility for the allowances to members should be the responsibility of the Executive Government of the day. The Executive Government of to-day have taken upon themselves the responsibility of introducing this Bill providing for increased allowances to the members of Dáil Eireann and Seanad Eireann and that is the responsibility of the Government. It is not the responsibility, I say, of the members of Seanad Eireann or of Dáil Eireann. Of course, I do not say that either the members of Dáil Éaireann or Seanad Eireann should abrogate their rights as legislators but members of Dáil Eireann and members of Seanad Eireann, I respectfully say, are not—I would say "competent" in one sense—are not the proper persons to fix their own allowances. These allowances as far as the Seanad and Dáil Eireann are concerned have been fixed by the Government. As far as Seanad Eireann is concerned, we have no member of the Government in this House and therefore as far as we are concerned this increased allowance has been fixed by an authority outside the House.

Senator Douglas also said in his speech that if any allowance should be granted at all it should be an adequate allowance. I quite agree with that, that any allowance should be adequate. Now, in this case, the Government has seen fit to give an increased allowance of 30 per cent. The Minister for Finance has said that on the value of the 1938 £1 it should be at least a 41 per cent. increase and, therefore, the allowance to members of the Seanad, in terms of pounds, is not even as great as it was in 1938. I would like to know how the increased remuneration of £468 a year in the case of Senators would compare with £360 a year in the year 1923 and I would also like to know how it would compare with the 4/- a day that the Knight of the Shire received in about the year 1300.

After all, it is a very small matter. A great number of the members of this House could live without the allowance at all. They have other means of livelihood, but it is, I say, the essence of democratic government that Parliamentary institutions should be available to all parties, to all persons, no matter what their financial circumstances may be. It is, of course, a difficult matter and it would be an invidious matter to analyse the particular financial circumstances of any legislator and, therefore, we must take a rule of thumb method, that is, give the same to every legislator, no matter what his financial circumstances may be. We must also give him the same amount no matter how much work he may do in the House or how little work he may do. It is, therefore, impossible to reduce everything to what I may call a basis of accountancy and it is impossible to reduce the position of a Senator to the position of a worker in a factory who punches a clock going in in the morning and going out in the evening.

Now, having considered all those matters, I do feel that the members of this House would gain the respect of the country, would gain the respect of people who think and who know what the right thing is, if they would not run away and hide themselves behind this amendment.

Professor Fearon

May I offer a suggestion? It is that if the Oireachtas is going to call on a generous and grateful population to, if you like, increase our allowances or, if you like, raise them to the 1938 level, that Oireachtas ought to give us some more work to do. By more work I do not mean more debating. Heaven forbid. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the inexhaustible eloquence of my countrymen, its versatility and its powers of endurance but I do feel that as a body of more or less expert people there is a good deal of committee work that we ought to be able to do and there is a good deal of advisory work. There are a great many things quite outside this general Chamber of debating and I think we are quite prepared to do them and I feel that we should let it be known that we are prepared to do a good deal more work.

Mr. McEllin

You are one of the worst attenders in the House.

Professor Fearon

I am sorry.

Mr. McEllin

You are one of the worst attenders and you are talking about looking for more work.

Mr. O'Dea

That is not right.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ní cheart é sin.

Professor Fearon

I challenge the accuracy of that observation, Sir. However, I do not think this is the occasion to challenge it but the issue seems to be irritating my friend opposite. Here is one question: What is a Senator worth? I do not believe we can decide that. It ranges from infinity to zero. Were it arranged or agreed that Senators would be paid nothing, I am quite sure it would be possible from our country to construct a House here of representatives just as when a certain professor offered his services to a college for nothing it would have been possible to have got his services for nothing but many would have agreed that those services would have been well worth nothing. There is the danger that if you do not pay people you will only get a certain type of person. On the other hand, supposing the allowances were raised to £1,000 a year, well, money talks. For many of us it generally says good-bye but the clarion would be heard in all quarters of the country and you would get, no doubt, a different type of citizen. For your £1 a day you will get a certain type of man and I feel what the Oireachtas has to decide is, what work is the £1 a day man expected to do. He does a certain amount of work in this House. He does a certain amount of work outside the House. For the benefit of those people who measure our services only by our exact attendances, he does a certain amount of work in learning how the whole business is run, gradually learning his trade. I think we have to look at the other side of the question: we are getting a certain amount of money. What value are we giving for that money? If it is thought that we are not giving enough value for the money, give us some more work to do. For that reason, I respectfully suggest, if the allowance be increased or, if you like, stabilised at the 1938 level, that we be asked to do some more work outside the actual debating in the House.

I, perhaps, have not attended as regularly as some people, partly because I find that sitting for an hour or two hearing certain people making 100 words do the work of ten, gets a bit tiresome. If I train and get into condition, eventually I may hope to be able to attend quite regularly and so satisfy some of my friends opposite.

Mr. Douglas

I knew it was inevitable that all sorts of matters relating to this Bill, but not directly concerned with it, would be debated on it. I did not know, however, that we were going to go back a few thousand years. I am much more interested in what was said a few years ago than I am in what Senator Ryan has said. The Minister quoted me as saying some years ago that I believed the amount proposed was the responsibility of the Executive. I have not changed my mind one tiny bit on that. I still think it is the responsibility of the Executive, and that it would be highly undesirable if a committee of the Seanad was to get together and decide how much we consider we are worth. We would have even more opinions on that, I think, than we have on most other subjects. Personally, I think I am worth a lot more than £468, and I am enormously encouraged in that belief by the Minister's speech—much more than I have ever been by any other speech that I have heard from him. I still believe that the responsibility for a proposal of this sort is that of the Executive, but I want to say that, when such a proposal comes before us, we have the right to express our opinion on it, provided we do not propose an increase.

There is one definite reason why I am in favour of the amendment, and it is that I do not think this is the time when increased allowances should be made to members of this House. My reason for so thinking is not because I doubt anything which the Minister has said as to the relation of the 30 per cent, or the 41 per cent. to the allowances fixed in 1938. I think that if we were to go on a strict basis the increase would be more than 41 per cent. My reason for thinking that this is not the time to make this increase is because only a very small section of our people can get such an increase in our present state of wealth. If a general increase of 30 per cent could be made in the remuneration paid to or received by, the people of this country, then I think we should get it. It is because I am of opinion that is not likely to happen during the next two or three years, that we should express our opinions on this and say that, as members of the Seanad, we can do without the increase. To say that is not to make an attack on the Government. It is not to say even that the Government should not have made the proposal. I suppose it was more or less inevitable that it should come before us since it also deals with the other House. I do not see this proposal as a Party issue at all. Neither do I see anything derogatory in it. I would hate to be derogatory.

I feel that this should be regarded by us, as it can be regarded by most people in the country, as a simple matter, namely, was it necessary? Senator Johnston said that it was necessary, and that if this increase was not made there were certain members of the House who could not attend, and therefore, that would make this more or less a class House. If I believed that, I would vote for the increase. It is because I do not believe it that I am opposed to it. I do not believe that to leave this matter over for a couple of years, until we see the extent to which we are going to have permanent inflation, would mean that any member of the House would be unable to attend, or would suffer any more hardships than people similarly circumstanced are suffering throughout the country. These are the main grounds on which I support the amendment.

Mr. Duffy

I intend to vote for this recommendation if it is put to the House, but I want to make it clear that I am not voting for it because of the reasons given by those who agree with the recommendation. My main reason for suggesting that the increased remuneration should not be given in either House at this stage—I expressed this view on the last occasion—is due entirely to the fact that, if we in Parliament are unable to make proper provision for the very poorest sections in the community, we should hesitate before making better provision for ourselves than has been made already. I do not want to enter into a discussion as to what the amount should be, nor do I want to go over any of the ground covered by other speakers. I do want to draw attention to the fact that Senator Ryan, in giving us the history of payment to Parliamentarians over a period of, I think, 650 years, omitted one very important point. He omitted to quote from the report of the committee set up by the Government in 1937 to advise them as to what should be the remuneration of members of both Houses. The significant thing to remember is that, knowing that the members of Seanad Eireann were being paid £360 a year from 1922 onwards, the committee in 1937 reported and recommended that in future the members of Seanad Eireann should be paid £200 a year.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the figure was £240.

Mr. Duffy

That is so—£20 a month, and £30 for members of the Dáil. I hate to think that Senator Ryan, in making the submissions that he did, refrained deliberately from referring to that report. It is unfortunate that the impression should have been left on members' minds that there was no suggestion from an outside body that the £30 a month is too much, because, bear in mind, the committee which reported in 1937 was a non-Parliamentary committee. The members of the Dáil who sat on the committee originally to report in respect of Ministers' salaries withdrew from the committee when it commenced to inquire into the allowances which should be paid to members of both Houses. I also want to make this point, that I signed that report in 1937 because I believed it was a reasonable proposition. I have found nothing in the intervening years to cause me to change my opinion.

Senator Fearon raised a question which has been uppermost in my mind for a long time. I have referred to it already in this discussion, and that is the hesitancy of members of this House to do work which I think they could do, and which, I believe, they should do. I agree with him that intervention in debate, although important at times, is not the most important job that falls to our lot. The important work, in my opinion, for Senators is to keep track of legislation, to help, so far as we can by pooling our knowledge and our intelligence, such as it is, in the making of that legislation and to endeavour to carry out the intentions expressed by members of both Houses when it is being enacted. Now, one of the important jobs which this House could do in furtherance of that objective is to appoint, as I have suggested on occasion they should do, a committee whose job it would be to keep track of the regulations and orders which are placed on the Table of the House and which the House is entitled to annul. We will have more on that subject during the present sitting. At the moment I want to say that that seems to me the really important work that should be done by this House. I was very much disappointed, when I endeavoured to get a committee appointed some years ago, that the person who led the main criticism of the proposal was Senator Hayes. He complained that out of 60 members we could not get ten members who would pay sufficient attention to their business to act on a committee of that kind. If that is the position, as unfortunately the votes of the House show it is the view of the majority, I do not think there is any case for an increase. But I am not against the increase for any other reason than these two which I mentioned: (1) the undesirability of voting money to ourselves at a time when we cannot vote it to others who need it far more; and (2) increasing the allowances in respect of members of the Seanad at a time when the members have failed or refused to do the work which I believe they are intended to do.

Mr. Honan

I was unavoidably absent from the Second Reading, and have not spoken on this matter before. Personally, my views are not very strong one way or the other. But there is an old saying that the strength of a chain is measured by its weakest link. From this amendment it would appear that the strength of the chain is measured by a few of its strongest links and that the position of a few members of the House is to govern the other members of the House. Looking at both sides of the House here, it is easy to observe that we are a plain, democratic people with small incomes, and for those of us who come from the country, particularly, it is a very expensive position. I know it is a very easy thing and very nice to be a member of this House or the other House if you are resident in or near Dublin. I remember on one occasion, for instance, when there was a meeting called for the purpose of passing some formal resolution which took exactly four minutes. My position and the position of other members from the South and West was that that meeting, which lasted four minutes, kept us away from our homes for three days and two nights, while members living in the neighbourhood of Dublin could get home in half-an-hour.

It is very hard to know what is the proper remuneration for a Senator. I am sure, as somebody suggested, that if a member could keep an accurate account of his expenditure in connection with his services as a Senator at the end of a year he would find that he would have overdrawn his account so far as the allowance is concerned. It would be entirely undemocratic if good men, especially from the country, should be prevented from coming here and representing their particular areas just because they could not afford to do it. That certainly would not be for the good of the State or the good of the country. As has been stated by Senator Baxter, we might come to the position that the entire representation of this House would come from Dublin and its precincts and that there would be no representation from the country. From that point of view, it is not unreasonable that the allowances of members of this House or the other House should be increased to a certain extent in proportion to the increase in the cost of living generally and the cost of travelling. While I am sure that no member of this House would go to the Minister and ask him for an increase, I am sure that there is a good deal of relief felt by those who are not in a financially strong position that this recommendation has been made by the Government. I know members who are engaged in farming and whose whole business has been sadly neglected owing to their attendance here. There are others engaged in business whose business has been neglected. There is nothing like the personal touch. There is no member of this House who would not be more usefully and economically employed at home. There are people employed in other professions who have to employ a substitute while they are away.

I think, therefore, that it is not right or proper, because a few Senators can afford to come here without any inconvenience, that the other members of the House should be governed by their position. I am sure that everyone of us could find a man in our own particular area who would be glad to be sent here without any remuneration. But that would not be democratic and might not be for the good of the country because, although they would come here without remuneration, they might not be worth the value of the light that would be consumed. I am sure that this little show which has been made by certain members is all a nice bit of window-dressing and does not really mean anything, that the view of the Minister in increasing the allowances will be accepted, and that the increase will be acceptable to the majority of the members.

Mr. Kehoe

Like many of those who have already spoken, I feel that the tone and the technique of this debate, with perhaps some exceptions, was on a high level. I cannot help thinking, however, that there is something very unreal, not to say fantastic, about the debate. I cannot help thinking that there has been, shall I say, a slight suggestion of propaganda about it. I cannot help thinking—it is due, perhaps, to my rather suspicious temperament—that behind this debate there is the idea that those who are sponsoring these amendments may at some future time be able to come before the country as potential saviours of the country and of its financial resources. At the risk of being tiresome, I should like to stress that, if the allowances of ten or 15 years ago were deemed right and just and adequate, the increase which is now proposed is only, as the Minister has very clearly and lucidly pointed out, equivalent to the ordinary rise in the cost of living. This is by no means a grant or an act of generosity, but simply an act of simple justice. I have not heard that questioned to-day. If it is not open to question, then what is all the pother about?

The proposers of the amendment probably know that it will be defeated and that they can go before the country as saviours of the country and checkers of the financial strain imposed on the country by the expenditure of this £30,000. There are members on these benches, and I am sure on the opposite benches, to whom this salary, allowance, stipend—call it what you like—is of some importance. Othervise, if this is to be made a plea for privilege, it certainly is a contradiction of democratic principles. That cannot be denied. Is membership of this House to be confined to those who enjoy the possession of comfortable incomes and who can come here without feeling any strain on their financial resources?

Senator Duffy spoke well, as is his wont. I could not help feeling, however, that some of the speeches from the opposite benches might be summed up as so much jargon. There are members of Senator Duffy's Party, eminent and worthy men, who, I think, could not come to this House were it not for the salary. Are they not entitled to do that? If they are not, I cannot make out what the salary is for. Out-of-pocket expenses—what causes those expenses? How can one possibly keep track of these expenses, as has been suggested? How can you put down every little item of expense incurred by being a member of the Seanad? How could you possibly keep such an account?

We are told that the function of Senators is to expound and a whole lot of similar jargon. I think the function of Senators is to do, within reasonable limits, what the T.D's. are doing— helping their constituents in every way, consistent, of course, with doing their duty in the House. If Senators are mute—not necessarily of malice—in this House or elsewhere, it does not follow that they are not doing their duty by the country. We have it on record that they also serve who only stand and wait, and, if there are some mute, inglorious Miltons in the House, it does not follow that they are not doing their duty to the country. Their reputation may rest on something higher than mere volubility. The truth of the matter is that this whole debate is very unreal, even in an Assembly like this Seanad or any other senate where unrealities sometimes become the order of the day. Those proposing these amendments know in advance that this Bill has been sponsored and passed by the Government in the Dáil, that all we can do is to delay the Bill or revise it, as is the function of the Seanad, and those who come here—in good faith, I have no doubt up to a point——

Mr. Hayes

What does "in good faith, up to a point" mean?

Mr. Kehoe

I have no doubt they can make mental reservations as well as the rest of us. I should not like to call them Pecksniffs, or stooges, either, because these would savour of a certain amount of obloquy and I would not dream of going that far, but it is not easy to see how they can come here and put forward their propositions in face of all the arguments the Minister has indubitably advanced and in face of the fact that money now has not the purchasing power it had 15 years ago. If Senators were worth £360 ten or 15 years ago—if they were entitled to £360 15 years ago, I grant you that the point could be argued—surely they are worth the equivalent of £360 now?

To relate this to other things, to suggest that we are voting money for ourselves is not correct. The Government of the day have put forward this Bill for all the political sections of the community—whether they are Labour, Fine Gael, or Fianna Fáil does not matter. It is put forward in good faith, and to a certain extent it is an unpopular measure inasmuch as people can go down the country and say airily: "There they are, voting increases to themselves and letting the poor go by", but that comparison is entirely false. In any case, there is an old saying that every tub should stand on its own bottom, and this measure must be discussed in its own light. If Senators 15 years ago were worth £360, which apparently was the case because it was passed and harped upon by all sections, they are surely worth it still, and that is all they are getting. In fact, they are not getting even that, as the Minister has pointed out. I am trying to get away from sentiment and to look at this matter from the purely factual point of view and hence I say that the arguments of the Opposition—perhaps I should not say "Opposition", because I recognise that we are all as one in this House—in favour of the amendment are unreal and fantastic. Bearing in mind the present purchasing power of money and the fact that the passing of these amendments might possibly militate against the poorer section of our Senatorial party, I think the opposition is ill-founded and, I am afraid, a little hypocritical.

Mr. Hayes

I liked Senator Honan's speech. I always like Senator Honan's speeches. Senator Kehoe reminded me of those people with whom chairmen become very familiar who say: "I do not want to be offensive, but..." He adopted very trite and well-worn methods of being offensive. He did not say very much about the Bill, except to repeat what the Minister said. They also serve who only stand and wait— they also serve, I suppose, who only sit and vote. I should like to say this, however, about the amendment. I know that there is ignorant criticism in the country of what Senators and Deputies do and ignorant criticism of what Ministers get and what Ministers deserve. Few people have been as steadfast in their opposition to that kind of criticism of both Houses as I have been and I think that Senators who have given any thought to the matter know that. I am not at all influenced in putting this amendment down by that kind of ignorant criticism at which the Party to which Senators Kehoe belongs were adepts and experts over a period of years.

I am not at all influenced by it, as I say, nor am I influenced by what Senator Ryan apparently wants to convince the House of—that, because something was done in 1923, it is absolutely sacrosanct and nobody must change it. That is a most foolish point of view. Senator Ryan purports to give us an impartial history, but, as Senator Duffy pointed out, he omitted a very vital point. He omitted another point, because the allowances to Deputies and Senators were never subject to income-tax. They were always paid free of income-tax. It was put into the Act in 1925—there is some Latin tag in that connection which I forget—for the purpose of greater precaution. My motive in putting the amendment down is to get a good kind of discussion on this whole matter, because I have grown up since 1923 and have seen a great many things happen and a great many changes take place since 1923. Since then I have had a great deal of experience and have done for myself a considerable amount of reflection on this whole business, and because I have done that, it seems to me that the matter is well worth discussing.

I did not think, for example—I was not in a position to say anything about it—that Senators were entitled to the same allowance as Deputies. I was not very clear about it, but that is one change which has been made and nobody objects to it now. As the Minister pointed out, in 1938, it was decided that Deputies should get a bigger allowance than Senators. Every argument for a uniform allowance made in the House to-day could be made in the name of democracy, of patriotism and of poverty for the two Houses, just as they have been made for this House; but there has been a certain progress, a certain kind of experience, and we should benefit by it. One of the things quite clear about these allowances is that they were always paid free of income-tax and the theory underlying that is that they are to recoup members of this House for their expenses necessarily incurred in doing the business of the House and, at once, and quite freely, I agree that you may do something as a Senator without being present in the House. There are a great many duties which Senators undertake outside the House but the whole fundamental basis of the allowance is that it is an allowance, not subject to income-tax, for expenses.

What is wrong with my statement that the Seanad should not give a living to anybody? The Dáil may have professional politicians. If it has and if they are to be remunerated for their services, they should get considerably more than they are getting now. So far as this House is concerned, it is quite clear from the intention of the Constitution that members of this House should get only the expenses they necessarily incur in the performance of their duties. I cannot find that the expenses of even country Senators have to some extent increased, and this does not seem to me to be the time to increase the allowance and to increase it by this particular method. For that reason, I never argued that members were getting too much and I never said anything about my conscience. It was stated by a Senator on Second Reading that he would be glad to see people serving for nothing. I do not want to see people serving for nothing, but I think we could form a Seanad which would be more effective than this House, and in which the members would serve for the expenses they necessarily incurred in performing their duties. If you adopt that principle, you would have no case for increasing this allowance without some kind of inquiry into what people do and what kind of expenses they incur.

It has been charged that this amendment means that poor people could not get into the Seanad. There are very few people here who ought to have as great a sympathy with the efforts of the poor man to get into Parliament as I had and have. I do not indulge in the kind of lip sympathy in which some people indulge. I do agree that everybody should be free to become members of the Seanad, but am I to be told that somebody should make a profession of attending the Seanad and should get a remuneration which would be a living for him? I do not think he should, to be quite frank about it. Whatever about the other House, they certainly should not in this House. For people who cannot attend or do not attend there could be a scheme provided whereby they would not get the allowance—apart from ill-health, or other causes which we all recognise.

There is the further argument put by Senator Douglas which, I think, is sound. A great many people, and these not the very poorest classes— people in what might be called the white-collared classes, including a considerable number in the Civil Service— have not been able to get an increase commensurate with the increase in the cost of living—have not been able to get an adequate increase—and as far as this House is concerned, it should not, in the light of what it does, agree to an increase in the remuneration of its own members without an inquiry into the fundamental principles upon which the remuneration is based and without determining that the remuneration is actually deserved. I agree with Senator Kehoe that until he began to speak the level of the debate was good.

Question put: "That recommendation No. 1 be agreed to."

The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 23.

Tá.

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Butler, John.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Counihan, John J.
• Crosbie, James.
• Douglas, James G.
• Duffy, Luke J.
• Fearon, William R.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Horan, Edmund.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Madden, David J.
• Meighan, John J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick John.
• Ruane, Seán T.
• Smyth, Michael.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tunney, James.

Níl.

• Barniville, Henry L.
• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Peter T.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Longford, Earl of.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• McCabe, Dominick.
• McEllin, John E.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Callaghan, William.
• O'Dea, Louis E.
• O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Ryan, Michael J.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Crosbie and Sweetman; Níl: Senators Hawkins and Hearne.

Recommendation declared lost.

Section 3 agreed to.

Mr. Sweetman

I move recommendation No. 2:—

That before Section 4 a new section be inserted as follows:—

4.—That sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Principal Act be deleted.

The purpose of this recommendation is perhaps not completely clear from the wording of it because it is an example, if you like, of legislation by reference. The position is that, in the Principal Act, the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act, 1938, a provision was inserted which really in my view—and I think the Minister will agree with me—is more properly applicable to the Ministers and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938. The provision in the Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Act of 1938 is that any person who holds what is termed an appointed office, that is to say any Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, Ceann Comhairle, Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Cathaoirleach or Leas-Chathaoirleach, shall take into account the proportion of his Parliamentary allowance in the computation of his salary for income-tax purposes. The effect is that such proportion is paid to him tax free and is not computed for the purposes of income-tax and surtax. I suggest that that arrangement should be changed and that in lieu thereof, persons holding appointed offices should pay a tax upon the whole of their salaries.

I want to make it perfectly clear that while the recommendation is put forward in respect of this Bill I am not suggesting it as a recommendation in reference to the amount of the salary. If the recommendation is passed here in respect to this Bill it may be necessary for the Minister to insert a further recommendation in the Ministerial and Parliamentary Officers Bill, grossing up, so to speak, the salaries that are paid to the appropriate amount after making allowances for the due and proper deduction of income-tax and surtax at the various rates. I am not raising this matter on the question of the amount of salary paid to Ministers. I want it to be perfectly clear that it is purely a question of the principle of whether a Minister or any other person holding an appointed office should be assessable for income-tax and surtax at the ordinary proper rates.

On the Second Stage of the Bill I referred to this matter in detail and the Minister in his reply did not deal with it at all. The matter was referred to at some length in the Shanley Report and in that report made in 1937 there was a strong recommendation, as I said on the last occasion—it was I think the only recommendation that was underlined in that report—to the effect that holders of appointed offices should be liable for income-tax and surtax in exactly the same way on all of their salaries as any ordinary citizen. On the last occasion I gave the House the reasons why I considered that necessary. I considered it necessary because a Minister does not have to bear any of the clerical expenses that ordinary members of the Dáil or Seanad have to bear. The Minister has provided for him, and quite properly provided for him, a private secretary who does not merely Departmental work but also the political work of that Minister. Again the Minister has not to incur, as an ordinary Deputy or Senator has to incur, expenses in telephoning in regard to his public business. The Minister does not, unlike an ordinary Deputy or Senator, have to bear the cost of postage in regard to his public business. A Minister necessarily lives in Dublin and he has not to bear the cost, such as Deputies and Senators have to bear, of living in Dublin during the week and staying at a hotel while the Oireachtas is in session or while he is engaged here on public business. We have certain very definite distinctions indeed between the case for having Deputies and Senators' allowances paid free of income-tax and the case to be made for Ministers in that respect. I use the word "Ministers" as a short term for persons holding appointed offices.

I think that it is highly desirable too that persons who have the power of fixing rates of surtax and income-tax should be persons who have to pay these rates in regard to the whole of their salaries. The position under the present Bill is that, after the deduction of the Deputies' allowance, a Minister's salary will stand at the figure of £1,501 so that his liability for surtax in respect of his salary will be 6d. It is undesirable, I suggest, that Ministers, who are fixing the rate of surtax, should be put in the position themselves of not having to pay such surtax as is fixed on the whole of their salaries. I do not think that there can be any real argument that the total emoluments paid to a Minister for the work he is doing whole-time do not consist entirely of salary and that the tax levied on these emoluments should not be entirely on a salary basis.

The purpose of this recommendation, therefore, is to make the whole of the emoluments subject to income-tax or surtax at the proper rate, after having all the allowances provided for under the income-tax code for an ordinary citizen deducted. As I said at the beginning, I accept at once that if this recommendation is given effect to, there must be a compensatory recommendation produced by the Minister on the other Bill, which compensatory recommendation I shall support. I do not think it would be open to any private individual to make it and that is why I did not put it down as it is part of what I consider a composite scheme dealing with both Bills.

Mr. O'Dea

I do not know what the purpose of this amendment is at all. It would have been a good thing if Senator Sweetman had read out sub-section (3) of the section of the Act of 1938 to which he referred: "The salary for the time being payable to any member of the Oireachtas by virtue of his holding any appointed office shall be deemed to include the allowance payable to such member under this Act and, accordingly, no member of the Oireachtas shall, while he is in receipt of the salary in respect of any such office, be entitled to any further allowance under this Act." Surely if a Minister gives up his salary as T.D.— now £600 a year—the least which might be done is to allow him the expenses he would have been allowed if he had been a T.D.

Sir John Keane

I never previously heard this comparison made between the position of Ministers and Deputies and Senators in the matter of allowances. When I heard Senator Sweetman's speech last week, I felt that he had made an unanswerable case. I do not think that the Minister will for a moment contend that Ministers have expenses comparable with those for which an allowance is made to Deputies and Senators. Senator Sweetman has dealt completely with that point. If this amendment be carried, there will be no reduction in the emoluments of Ministers. We shall merely have a true picture of their total emoluments. This is simply a proposal to bring Ministers' emoluments into line with those of any other citizen. It is most important that no privilege should attach to the tax position of Ministers. I am sure that Ministers would not ask for any such privilege. The only object of this amendment is to put Ministers' emoluments on all fours with those of other citizens and to secure that they pay the same tax as other citizens.

Mr. Aiken

On the Second Reading, Senator Sweetman dealt with a matter to which I referred at length in my reply. In doing that, I overlooked other points which he made. It is not a fact that a Minister has not to pay for private telephone calls.

Mr. Baxter

From his Department?

Mr. Aiken

No. Local calls are free, as they are free to Senators and Deputies, simply because they could not be accounted for. When a trunk call comes from a Minister's office, the first thing the girl at the telephone exchange is instructed to ask is whether it is a private or an official call. If it is a private call, the Minister has to pay.

Mr. Baxter

What is a private call?

Mr. Aiken

A call which the Minister makes in his private capacity and not as a Minister.

Mr. Baxter

Or as a Deputy?

Mr. Aiken

If I telephone to a friend in Dundalk, I pay for the call. If I telephone officially to Dundalk or to Cork, the State pays for the call. The same applies to letters. I give my personal letters to my private secretary and they are stamped and paid for in the ordinary way. I come back to the main point of this discussion—whether it is right that that portion of a Minister's salary which represents his allowance as a Deputy or Senator should be free of income-tax. In 1923, when the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Bill was going through, the then President of the Executive Council indicated that these allowances would be free of income-tax. Between 1923 and 1925, however, the Revenue Commissioners held that, while the allowance of a Deputy or Senator who did not hold an appointed office was free of income-tax, the allowance of a Minister was not free. They proceeded to assess and get paid the income-tax on the portion of a Minister's salary which was appropriate to his position as a Deputy—I think that no Senators were members of the Government then.

That caused trouble between the Ministers and the Revenue Commissioners. As I understand, the position was most unsatisfactory. There were disputes between Ministers and the Revenue Commissioners as to what should be properly allowed as an expense, because Ministers who had been charged income-tax proceeded to claim exemption for that portion of their total salary which was necessarily and inevitably connected with their positions as Teachtaí Dála. It was decided by the Executive of the day to put an end to that. A Bill was brought forward in the Dáil in 1925. Senator Ryan gave the date of its introduction and I have a copy of the Bill here, if anybody desires to see it. It provided that, after that date, that portion of a Minister's salary which represented his allowance as a Deputy or Senator—the allowances were then the same for both—should be free of income-tax. It went further and set out that it should be deemed always to have been free of income-tax. No effort had been made by the Revenue Commissioners to collect income-tax from Deputies or Senators in respect of their allowances but it had been made in the case of Ministers.

That was the sole question at issue in 1925. The matter was debated in the Dáil at some length and a number of Ministers intervened. I do not want to quote the speeches now but, if Senators are interested, they can look up the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill on 24th June, 1925. The Committee Stage took place a few days afterwards. The question was debated as to whether it was proper that a Minister should be free of income-tax in respect of that portion of his salary represented by his Dáil allowance. It was held very strongly by the then Ministers that they should be in no worse position in regard to that portion of their salary than a T.D. was. The arguments adduced convinced the Dáil. When the Bill came to the Seanad, all the stages were passed in five minutes. Senators did not raise even the usual objection to retrospective legislation.

Mr. Sweetman

It shows the great improvement there has been.

Mr. Aiken

I would point out to Senator Sweetman that this matter is not a plot of Fianna Fáil, that it is not the first time it was raised, that the matter was debated and discussed, and that the other system that he is trying to introduce now was tried and found wanting.

Mr. Baxter

Does the Minister not think it is a rather slavish following of Cumann na nGael?

Mr. Aiken

I have had some experience of civil servants examining Deputies' accounts. Even though the civil servants concerned tried to be absolutely just and to follow precedents laid down there were objections to it. However, I do not want to bring the Revenue Commissioners into this at the moment. No Minister claims for the expenses of his office. If this amendment were to go through and if Ministers started to claim for the expenses of their offices it might very well be that they would be allowed by the Revenue Commissioners more than the sum represented by the allowance to the member of the Dáil or to the member of the Seanad. I have no doubt that in some cases it probably would. I have no doubt, also, that the same situation would arise again as brought about the 1925 amendment— that the matters would be disputed between the Revenue Commissioners and Ministers. I do not think it is proper to leave a source of dispute between the Revenue Commissioners and the Ministers. I think the Government of the day in 1925 who faced the situation and got rid of that system did right, and I think we would be very foolish now if we started to open that source of dispute between Ministers and the Revenue Commissioners again.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.