Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Jul 1947

Vol. 34 No. 6

Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1947 ( Certified Money Bill )—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Duffy

I move recommendation No. 1:—

That in sub-section (1) line 13, the words "and in Section 4" be deleted.

This proposal is limited to this extent, that if the recommendation is accepted the proposal in Section 2 to increase the salary of the Attorney-General by 20 per cent. will have no effect. It will be observed that throughout this Bill there is a clear desire to conceal what is being done. As I mentioned on the Second Stage, instead of setting out fully what is proposed, in other words instead of substituting a new section for the section in the Principal Act which is being amended, we find included in Section 2 (1) merely a reference to the sum of £2,500 in the Principal Act and a proposal that it be increased by 20 per cent. or one-fifth.

The position of the Attorney-General is different from that of Ministers. It was so regarded by the Shanley Commission. As a matter of fact, the proposal of that commission was that the salary of the Attorney-General should be fixed at precisely the same figure as that of a Minister. That has not been done. The occupant of the office has been frequently changed in the meantime, but no action was taken to bring the salary attaching to the office into conformity with that of a Minister. The Attorney-General has the same salary as the Taoiseach and this Bill gives the same increase in that salary as is given to the Taoiseach. I do not understand the grounds for this figure. Generally, the Attorney-General is a young man—that has been almost always the case—and he has prospects. It is almost inevitable that the Attorney-General will ascend to the Bench, either in the High Court or the Supreme Court.

I am not referring to any particular individual. I do not know the present Attorney-General. I do not know whether he is young or old; I have not even inquired because I am not concerned. I am concerned only with the question whether the Attorney-General should be distinguished from Ministers and have a salary similar to that of the Taoiseach. I think it is fair to say that, in the main, it has been the practice in this country not to select the Attorney-General from the senior members or the older members of the Bar, but from the younger members. It is the practice, I think, that if a suitable vacancy arises on the Bench, the Attorney-General, by custom and tradition, is entitled to claim it. In any event, I think every Attorney-General we have had, with the exception of two, became judges. A case was made for special consideration for the Ministers on the ground that on entering on their office they broke with their business, profession or calling and found it difficult to re-establish themselves on leaving office. That does not apply to the Attorney-General. As I have said, he has been preferred for High Court office and, in addition to that, he is practising his profession of the law.

I should like to refer to what was said on the subject by the Shanley Commission. I am all the more free to quote this because I did not subscribe to it. I recommended a lower salary for the Attorney-General than was recommended by the majority of the commission. Let us bear in mind that the commission included two lawyers— Mr. Cecil Lavery, one of the senior counsel, and Mr. Arthur Cox, a solicitor who is intimately associated with the promotion of companies, with the Incorporated Law Society, and with the profession generally. I should like to refer to paragraph 48 of the Shanley Commission Report in reference to the Attorney-General:—

"He is presumably the best advocate in court that the Government has at its disposal, and, moreover, we have been told that appearances in court by the Attorney-General not only help him to keep in contact with his profession but are welcomed by the judges."

The point there is that the Commission are building up towards the proposition that the Attorney-General should appear in court without additional fees. In recommending a salary of £2,250 a year for the Attorney-General, the Commission had in view that he would appear in court in important State cases without additional fees, that the £2,250 would be his total remuneration. They then proceed:—

"If an Attorney-General is subsequently promoted to the Bench, the fact that he has not made a complete break with his court practice is of considerable value to him in his new sphere. It may be argued with some force, however, that the interests of the State would not be served by permitting the Attorney-General to receive fees in respect of Government work. There might be a temptation for the holder of the post to appear as often as possible in court with a view to augumenting his income...".

Then they go on to say in the next paragraph:—

"On the assumption that the Attorney-General will not engage in private practice, and that he will, when the occasion so demands, appear for the State in important cases without additional remuneration, we recommend that his salary be at the rate of £2,250 a year, fully subject to taxation."

That was the one instance in which the commission recommended a salary for an existing office lower than the then prevailing salary. The commission recommended an increase in salary of £550 per year for Ministers. They recommended an increase for the Taoiseach and for Parliamentary Secretaries. The one instance in which they not only recommended no increase but in which they recommended a lower rate of remuneration was that of the Attorney-General. Still the Attorney-General continues to receive, not the salary of a Minister, but the same salary as the Taoiseach.

It is proposed now to continue that practice by giving him a 20 per cent. increase to bring his salary up to £3,000 a year, notwithstanding the fact that he does not practice in the courts and notwithstanding the fact that our expenses on law charges, according to the Appropriation Bill, which will come before us later were £96,000 odd in the last financial year. In other words, we are spending as much on law charges as would give an increase of 5/- per week to every blind person in the Twenty-Six Counties. With these facts before us, I do not see any ground on which the Minister can justify the proposal that the remuneration of the Attorney-General should be increased by £500 a year and his total income brought up to the same level as that of the Taoiseach. I go further and suggest, although it is perhaps not germane to the amendment, that, when the present office holder vacates office, the question of the total all-over salary should be reviewed, having regard to the recommendation of the committee. I consider the present rate entirely excessive.

I do not desire to go into the affairs of any section of the community, but I cannot omit saying this, that one of the most distinguished judges we have had—he is still on the Bench—told me several years ago that every person appointed to the position of Attorney-General and every person appointed a judge in our courts for the past 25 years improved his position enormously because of that appointment. It is not a matter of our asking somebody with £5,000 a year to serve the State for £2,500. It is a matter of giving people who have a reasonable income a rate of income far in excess of what they have been earning outside and I urge the House strongly to agree to this recommendation.

Mr. O'Dea

This shows a very small attitude on the part of Senator Duffy. If the Senator reviews the whole situation, he will recollect that in this country at one time there was an Attorney-General and a Solicitor-General.

Mr. Duffy

Both of whom practised in the courts.

Mr. O'Dea

Yes, and I will come to that. The present Attorney-General does the work of the former Attorney-General and Solicitor-General. He does the work of the combined offices. Senator Duffy says they both practised in the courts. They did, in the old days, and it is very well known that, apart from the salary the Attorney-General had, every time he appeared in court he got one hundred guineas marked on his brief. It is well known that one man, who afterwards became a High Court judge, accumulated great wealth—not while on the Bench, but while he held the office of Attorney-General.

Mr. Baxter

Perhaps he made good investments.

Mr. O'Dea

It was not what he made from good investments, but what he accumulated as Attorney-General. He took briefs and went to the different assizes all over the country, and, in every case in which a prosecution was brought, he had his big fee marked on his brief. He was not a great genius and the cases could have been much better handled by local barristers than they were by him and for a very small fraction of the fee he received.

This office must be made such that the best man at the Bar can be got to fill it. What has the Attorney-General to do? He has to read the depositions in every prosecution brought in every Circuit Court in Ireland, as well as those in cases before the Court of Criminal Appeal. Even in cases where informations have been refused, he sometimes has to read the depositions and to consider whether, notwithstanding the refusal of informations, a prosecution should be brought. He has to be at the beck and call of the Government, and has to attend every Cabinet meeting to which he is summoned to advise the Government on every important matter of a legal nature. The responsibility is tremendous, and, for a man doing all that, I say that a salary of £3,000 a year is not at all sufficient, in view of the mental qualities required to carry out the work.

Senator Duffy says he is sure to be promoted to the Bench. I understand that that is not now a condition of the employment of an Attorney-General and that the Attorney-General is given to understand—I may be wrong in this —that the Government would be under no obligation whatever to promote him to the first or any vacancy which may arise on the Bench. Senator Duffy seems to think that it is a good thing for a man to have been Attorney-General, if he goes back to the Bar. I know of one case in my lifetime of a man who was Attorney-General—he was a very famous barrister who practised in every court in the land—nisi prius, chancery and every other— and who, when he lost his appointment as Attorney-General and returned to the Bar, found that his practice had completely disappeared and that he was left to live on the money he had previously made.

Mr. Aiken

I took it for granted, in making my proposals to the Government with regard to the salary of the Attorney-General, that the Oireachtas had approved a certain level of salary for the Attorney-General in relation to that of Ministers and other public servants. It is true that the Shanley Committee recommended that the Attorney-General should receive the same salary as a Minister, but our Government, after considering the matter, felt compelled to come to the same conclusion as other Governments before them, that the Attorney-General should get the same salary as the Taoiseach or former President of the Executive Council. It is true to say that the Attorney-General has very heavy responsibilities. Even Senator Duffy's allusion to the fact that we spend £93,000 a year on law charges will give some idea of the volume of business which the Attorney-General has to handle, especially since the beginning of the war, with an increase of prosecutions of all kinds, with new offences being created by law, in which the Seanad concurred occasionally.

Mr. Baxter

Frequently against its will.

Mr. Aiken

In order to protect the public in the matter of supplies, a lot of new offences came into being and the Attorney-General has to handle all these cases. Again, there is the matter of legislation. The large number of Orders made by the Government, which the Seanad has sometimes complained about, all have to be approved by the Attorney-General and passed by the Government on his approval of them as meaning what the Government intend to carry out.

From every point of view it is important that the Government of the day should get the best possible advice from its legal Department. In order to secure that, the salary fixed for the Attorney-General should be such as would command the services of the best available man at the Bar.

It is not always a fact that the Attorney-General becomes a High Court judge. We all know of one gentleman who was Attorney-General and was not appointed a judge. It took some years before he got back the volume of practice which he surrendered when he became Attorney-General.

I know very little about the Bar, but I understand that a salary of £3,000 a year is not over-attractive to a senior counsel with a large practice. I think that if we decided in 1938 that the Attorney-General should get £2,500 a year, it is not an inordinate compensation for the decrease in the value of money to offer a man in that position an additional 20 per cent. Senators will have noticed that as salaries go up, the percentage increase granted under these various measures goes down. In the case of a member of the Dáil or the Seanad the percentage increase is 30 per cent. and in the case of Ministers 25 per cent., whereas the percentage increase proposed for the Taoiseach and the Attorney-General is 20 per cent. That corresponds to what happened in the case of the judges, and I do not think there were any Senators here who objected to the increase for the judges.

Mr. Duffy

That is not accurate.

Mr. Aiken

I can only go by what I hear. I confess I did not read the Seanad debates on that matter, but I gathered that the main criticism offered to the Bill introduced by the Minister for Justice was that We were not giving the district justices enough.

Mr. Sweetman

Senator Duffy raised an objection.

Mr. O'Dea

We all made that point.

Mr. Aiken

I take it that Senator Duffy did not agree. That, at any rate, was the nature of the criticism in the Dáil and my recollection of the criticism in the Seanad was that, instead of trying to cut down the increases we proposed for the judges, an effort was made to increase them. The other day we had a Bill here proposing an increase for the Comptroller and Auditor-General and there was not a mumbling word about my proposal to give him 25 per cent. Senator Duffy did not even growl; he did not stand up to object to our giving the Comptroller and Auditor-General 25 per cent. All we are proposing for the Attorney-General is 20 per cent. and I do not think that is inordinate. I think there was general agreement in 1938 that the Attorney-General should get the same as the Taoiseach. I am making a similar proposal in this Bill and I think the Seanad should accept it.

Mr. Hayes

Might I ask whether the Attorney-General gets a car and drivers on the same basis as Ministers?

Mr. Aiken

He does.

Mr. Hayes

If he does, then he gets a higher salary than the Taoiseach and a much higher salary than a High Court judge.

Mr. Aiken

I doubt that.

Mr. Hayes

On that basis the Attorney-General will get £3,000, plus unlimited transport. He will get that transport entirely at his own discretion, according to the Minister's statement. A High Court judge gets £3,000 under the new system, out of which he pays income-tax and provides transport for himself. The Attorney-General will get £3,000 and will be provided with transport, which is a very valuable thing—its value would be in the region of £1,000. The Taoiseach gets an allowance for a car and he has to pay for the petrol used in the car after that. The High Court judge is in the same position.

Therefore, the Attorney-General is better off. I did not know that he is given a car. It would appear, then, that he has a higher salary than a High Court judge and a higher salary than the Taoiseach. He has a higher rate of remuneration, which does not seem to be in accordance with reason. The Minister appears to be proud of Cumann na nGaedheal precedents—I never heard Cumann na nGaedheal praised so much; they never made such a case for themselves as the Minister now makes for them. He says that the Government are doing what their predecessors did in giving the Attorney-General the same salary as the Taoiseach, or the President of the Executive Council, but in the Cumann na nGaedheal days the Attorney-General never had the use of a car.

Mr. Aiken

Yes, from 1927 onwards he had.

Mr. Hayes

He had not. The Attorney-General at present is not guarded. He has a car for transport purposes, as the Ministers have. That has nothing to do with guarding, except in a couple of cases which I do not want now to particularise. I submit that the Attorney-General, with a car, is better paid than a High Court judge. The Minister says he is merely following a precedent, which apparently he misunderstands.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister made a blunder in his speech and I would like to correct him, in case somebody else might treat him more harshly than I will treat him. One of the Minister's suggestions was that the Attorney-General is overwhelmed with work as a result of the Emergency Powers Orders arising out of the shortage of supplies and so forth. The Minister suggested that the Attorney-General had to give consideration to each of these. I do not mean to suggest that the Minister tried to convey to the House that the Attorney-General read each of them, but he endeavoured to convey to the House that the Attorney-General's Department was responsible for the approval of these Orders. Of course, that is not a fact. The fact is that these Orders are dealt with either in the Department concerned or by the Parliamentary Draftsman and in no circumstances does the Attorney-General come into it until after the Orders are made.

Mr. Aiken

Surely Senator Sweetman knows that the Parliamentary Draftsman is an officer of the Attorney-General?

Mr. Sweetman

No.

Mr. Aiken

Yes. The Attorney-General is responsible for the work of the Parliamentary Draftsman. He is responsible to the Government for seeing that every Order, Bill or other legal document which comes through his own office, portion of which is the Parliamentary Draftsman's office, is in order and fulfills the wishes of the Government or the Department concerned.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not think the Minister is correct in that.

Mr. Duffy

I have endeavoured to keep away from the issue of what the Attorney-General does, because if that issue is raised we may start a debate which may not end in a hurry. There will be criticism probably of how some of the work is done and criticism of appointments. I want to avoid that. I mentioned at the beginning that I do not know the Attorney-General and I repeat that. I have not looked up whether he has been 25 years or five years at the Bar; I do not know, because that is not the issue I am raising. I do not know that the House is very satisfied with the case made by the Minister and by Senator O'Dea. Senator O'Dea told us that under the British régime there was an Attorney-General and a Solicitor-General, both of whom made fortunes. That is probably true, but they were then the Government of Ireland. The British Government did not have Ministers in Dublin. They did not have an Irish Government, except that which was carried on in the Custom House and the Castle by a few gentlemen who actually had the status of civil servants. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General were in fact part of that Government machine and, in the absence of the Lord-Lieutenant, they were sworn in as a Council to govern Ireland. A comparison of the relative cost would not be a contrast between the salary paid to the Attorney-General under the British régime and the salary paid to the present Attorney-General, but a contrast between the total salaries of Ministers of the Government to-day and the salaries paid to the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General under the British régime. That is not the case we are considering here and it has nothing to do with it.

I made the point that there was an independent Committee appointed by the Government in 1937, ten years ago, to report to the Government as to what should be the salary and functions of the Attorney-General. It was the view of the Committee that the Attorney-General should have the same salary as a Minister, provided—and I want to stress this—he appeared in. court as prosecutor in important cases. I have no doubt that the Committee would have considered that he should have a lower salary than a Minister if he were not to appear in court. Again, as to his duties, I do not want to go into these matters. I know nothing about what he does, but I do know that we had at least one Attorney-General who found time to leave his office and to go into court to prosecute on behalf of the State, yet the same salary is paid to the Attorney-General who has not gone into court.

The figures which we have got from the Minister in reply to Senator Hayes are illuminating. Transport, in my judgment, now costs £1,000 for this officer. I do know that evidence was officially submitted to the Shanley Commission in 1937 by the Department of Finance to the effect that the cost of transport per head of those for whom it was provided was £636 per annum. That was the evidence given to the Shanley Commission, of which I was a member. I assume that it is not less than £1,000 now, having regard to the increased cost of cars, petrol, drivers and everything else, and the fact that the use of transport has been extended even in individual cases. So actually when you pay the Attorney-General £3,000 in cash and provide transport for him, you are paying him what is tantamount to a salary of £4,000 a year as against £3,300 for the Taoiseach and £3,000 for a High Court judge. If we are going to be generous, let us be generous knowingly. Let us be fully aware of what we are doing. If Senators are satisfied that they are entitled, in the circumstances I have mentioned, to provide an increase of £500 a year on the present salary of the Attorney-General, I hope that will be done with a full knowledge of the facts, because if I come along next week and ask the House to increase the allowance for old age pensioners by 2/6 per week, I shall no doubt meet with great opposition from various parts of the House, particularly from the Government Benches. I am now suggesting that we should hear a better case than the case made by the Minister or Senator O'Dea before we agree to increase by £500 per annum the salary of an officer who has already a salary of £2,500 plus £1,000 for transport.

Mr. Baxter

I had an open mind about the amendment but I confess that I am on Senator Duffy's side after hearing the arguments. At the same time I appreciate the position in which the Minister finds himself. Senator Duffy has kept the discussion on a high plane but there are aspects of the amendment to which one cannot close one's mind in considering the proposal of the Minister. The Minister makes the case that what he is contemplating is fixing such a salary as will make it possible to get the services of the Leader of the Irish Bar. One can sympathise with that line of policy but one has immediately to ask the Minister, does he achieve that purpose by fixing the salary at the figure at which it stands? Has he or has his Government since they came into office ever succeeded in attracting the Leader of the Irish Bar to this post? I do not think so. I do not know whether that has been the predominant consideration at all. I think it will be generally accepted that the political affiliations of the particular individual concerned is the primary consideration. The facts being as they are, while one would like to fix a salary adequate to the post, it is very difficult to separate the question of salary from a consideration of the individual who fills the post. Again it is difficult to separate the question of salary from the kind of service you get in the office. Senator Duffy has, perhaps advisedly, kept away from any discourse on the type of service, but when the Minister indicated that the man who occupies that office has responsibilities in regard to supervision of services, where there is £96,000 involved, one has to ask what sort of service is given in that post which involves an expenditure of £96,000. A great many people think that, if the State got better service from the occupant of that post, there would be no necessity to expend £96,000. A great deal of money is spent by the State on law charges which ought not to be spent. It is very difficult for Senators, in attempting to pass judgment on a recommendation such as this, to separate the occupant of a post and the service given in the position from the salary. It is quite clear that the amount which is drawn by the Attorney-General is not commensurate with the service which the State gets and is beyond what ought to be necessary to expend when one considers the much greater responsibilities which have to be shouldered by the Head of the State. I am completely with Senator Duffy in his recommendation.

The Earl of Longford

One thing has emerged from this discussion which, I think, is most extraordinary. That is that, apparently, in order to get a first-class legal man, you have to pay a very high salary while, in order to get a man who is fit to govern the country— it is more or less clear that, to all intents and purposes, the occupant of the office in question does govern the country—you have to pay no more. In fact, you pay less. That goes to show that, on the whole, public service to the nation is not well paid. A man who fills a post in which he serves the nation is, on the whole, paid less than if he were merely serving himself. It is very easy to say that the Government —this applies to the last Government, too—are making large fortunes and that Teachtaí and Senators are handing out large sums to themselves. But it is clear that, if they are first-class men, they are getting less than they would get if they were engaged in some form of private business, profession or trade and were consulting their own interests. In this case, it is clear that the Attorney-General is getting a salary which might not even secure us the absolute leaders of the Bar. At the same time, his salary is higher than that which the Taoiseach receives, when the allowance is considered.

I think that it is very foolish to adopt a cheese-paring attitude in the matter of public salary or remuneration. I think that we should attempt to get the very best people. I know that ideally speaking, no man should want money for serving the nation but, in every country where people are not adequately paid for national service, one of two things occurs—either you do not get the most able men or you get people who make money in other ways—corrupt ways—which I need not mention and in that way lower the whole standard of national life. I think that it is deplorable that there should be any doubt as to whether people who fill responsible positions should be adequately paid or not. Of course, it is very hard to say what anybody's service is worth, but I think that a man in the public service should get, at least, what he would receive if he were out for himself. Therefore, I do not agree with this recommendation.

Mr. Hayes

There is this to be said regarding the Attorney-General: Senator Baxter says that the Attorney-General should be the Leader of the Bar. It is desirable that the Attorney-General should be a first-class lawyer, but it must be remembered that the Government of the day has to get the services of a lawyer who agrees with them as Attorney-General. If there are no first-class lawyers who agree with the Government, then the Government cannot get a first-class lawyer as Attorney-General. As regards the Attorney-General's duties, with the growing complexity of government— even since 1932—the Attorney-General's duties have, undoubtedly, increased and the quasi-judicial nature of the Attorney-General's office has become more marked. His position as an officer of the State, rather than as a prosecutor or pleader, has become more prominent.

While I agree with Senator the Earl of Longford with regard to the remuneration of public service, I do not see any reason why the Attorney-General, who has not to leave Dublin in the course of his duties, should be provided at the public expense with transport. That makes his salary considerably higher than that of a High Court judge. The salary originally fixed—£2,500—was the same as that of a High Court judge. I am not discussing this question on personalities. The Minister is quite wrong in saying that the Attorney-General in 1932 was supplied with a car for transport. He, certainly, was not. The Attorney-General at the moment is paid more than a High Court judge and, as has been pointed out, more than the Taoiseach. That is a foolish position.

Mr. Duffy

I feel that the debate is shifting from the issue at stake. The issue at stake was fully examined by the Shanley Commission. The commission included one of the outstanding Leaders of the Irish Bar, Mr. Cecil Lavery. He signed his name to the report which set out that the salary of the Attorney-General should not exceed £2,250 and that that sum should be paid on condition that the Attorney-General appear in court as State prosecutor in important cases. The evidence the commission had was that transport was provided only for Ministers and two Parliamentary Secretaries. There was no evidence in 1937 that transport was provided for the Attorney-General.

Mr. Hayes

There was—for Ministers, the Ceann Comhairle, the Attorney-General and certain Parliamentary Secretaries.

Mr. Duffy

I remember distinctly the number of cars and drivers, but I did not think that the Attorney-General was included. In any event, the provision of transport makes a tremendous difference in the income of the Attorney-General. I feel that if a Leader of the Irish Bar was prepared, in 1937, to sign a report that a salary of £2,250 was adequate for the Attorney-General, we should be guided largely by that report. Further, there is this point. While it is true that the Attorney-General has no firm guarantee that he will be elevated to the Bench it has, in fact, been the practice that the Attorney-General becomes a judge. That practice was not followed in one case because the Government which he served went out of office. It was not followed in one other case because the person concerned, I believe, was over age or at least had reached a point in years at which it would have been inadvisable to appoint him to the Bench. In every other case the person who served as Attorney-General was appointed to the Bench.

Mr. O'Dea

On a point of correction, that is not so. The judge who was recently appointed was not an Attorney-General. He was a member of this House.

Mr. Duffy

What is Senator O'Dea talking about? I said every person who was an Attorney-General, with the two exceptions, became a judge.

Mr. O'Dea

I said the last judge appointed was not an Attorney-General. He was a member of the Seanad.

Mr. Duffy

We all know that. The point I am trying to make is that appointment to the Bench is a reward for the Attorney-General—that it is promotion for the Attorney-General. How can it be promotion for the Attorney-General to take him out of an office in which he has an income of £4,000 per annum and to put him into one with £3,000 per annum? It is true, of course, that the real reward is that after ten or 15 years he can retire on pension. He cannot retire on pension as Attorney-General—if he left office he would only get a gratuity. I suggest to the Minister that the matter needs to be seriously reconsidered. I do not suggest that the actual salary paid to an existing officer should be reconsidered while he is in office, but that it should be reconsidered on the termination of his office. That course is frequently followed in the case of civil servants. If one examines the Book of Estimates one will frequently find that a reference is made to some particular salary as being personal to the present holder. That means that the salary will be scaled up or scaled down when the present holder ceases to hold office.

The Minister, in speaking, did us an injustice—whether he meant it or not— when he said that the Bill providing for an increase to the Comptroller and Auditor-General passed through without opposition. I cannot speak for the members who were here on that occasion because, unfortunately, I was absent on business elsewhere, nor for the grounds on which the House agreed to that increase, but I do think that at least some of us were sufficiently vocal to indicate when we were here that we did not agree with the proposals of the Minister for Justice regarding the salaries of the judges of the High Court. My view was that the salaries proposed for district justices were insufficient; that the salaries proposed for Circuit Court judges were probably generous and that there should be no increase for High Court judges. That was the view I expressed. I hope that if the Minister is referring to the matter again he will not blame us for having passed over this proposal too easily.

Mr. O'Dea

With regard to the question of expenses of £1,000 a year, I am informed that the present Attorney-General lives in Merrion Square and that he walks to and from his office every day. I do not know, therefore, how his expenses for travelling could be anything at all worth talking about.

Liam O Buachalla

I hate to intervene in this debate, because I think most Senators feel tired of it already. Senator Duffy, in opening his last few remarks, expressed the view that the ground had shifted from the issue at stake. To my mind what has actually happened is that the debate has gone completely out of order. The issue in question is a very simple one and I think we ought to keep our minds fixed on it. The sub-section in question aims at adjusting the salary of the Attorney-General. That salary was originally fixed at £2,500. I think it will be agreed that when the Attorney-General took office something in the nature of a contract was entered into to the effect that he would be remunerated at the rate of £2,500 per annum. We have heard here, and I think we all agree, that the duties of that office are very heavy and that these duties are increasing. Is it unreasonable that that person, having entered into a contract whereby he would be remunerated at the rate of £2,500 per annum, in view of the fact that the value of money has changed to the extent that it has, should receive some compensation for the change in the value of money by way of an adjustment in his salary? I think everybody who has spoken on this matter has referred to an increase in the remuneration of the Attorney-General. There is, in fact, no increase. The amount that is being provided for the Attorney-General under this Bill does not bring his emoluments up to the level contracted for when he agreed to take office.

Mr. Duffy

He was appointed only four or five months ago.

Mr. Hayes

About a year ago.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Suppose that the person was appointed within the last four or five months. Of course the value of money has changed since then.

Mr. Duffy

Since then?

Liam Ó Buachalla

Yes, in the last four months. Everybody will agree that the value of money is changing every other day. Is the Labour Court not continually in session to adjudicate claims for increases in salaries? However, the salary was fixed and agreed as a reaonable one, say, some years ago. I do not know when it was fixed. One thing is clear, namely, that since the salary was fixed and since the time when it was agreed that £2,500 was a reasonable remuneration the value of money has changed. Therefore, the idea underlying this proposition in the Bill is to make some adjustment for the change that has occurred in the value of money. It does not provide for an increase in the remuneration of the Attorney-General. That is the point in question.

Recommendation put.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 14; Níl, 21.

Tá

• Barniville, Henry L.
• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Counihan, John J.
• Crosbie, James.
• Douglas, James G.
• Duffy, Luke J.
• Hayden, Thomas.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Keane, Sir John.
• McGee, James T.
• Madden, David J.
• Ruane, Seán T.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tunney, James.

Níl

• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Longford, Earl of.
• McCabe, Dominick.
• McEllin, John E.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Callaghan, William.
• O'Dea, Louis E.
• O'Donovan, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Tunney and Hayden; Níl: Senators Hawkins and Hearne.

Recommendation declared lost.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hayes

I do not want to impede our progress towards the Appropriation Bill if I could avoid it, but, on Section 2, I would like to say that I agree entirely that Ministers should be properly paid and that I think Ministers should be paid a definite sum. The history of Ministers' salaries is interesting. A Minister's salary was first fixed by the Provisional Government at £80 a month. That was £960 a year. I do not know who fixed it. It was then fixed by an all-Party Committee in the Dáil at £1,700 a year and, as the Minister told us this evening, the £360 paid to Deputies was allowed out of that free of income-tax. The present Ministers when in Opposition argued that Ministers should only have £1,000 a year and when they came into office in 1932 they purported to take £1,000 a year but in fact they took £1,000 a year free of income-tax which, of course was much more than £1,000 a year. That was a bit of political sleight-of-hand. They then discovered, as their predecessors had discovered, that the salary was not a big one and they, took the whole £1,700 on the same conditions as their predecessors and they found then that that itself was not a very big salary. As well as the £1,000 a year free of income-tax they took for themselves, not as an escort, but as a convenience, transport for a Minister and his family and his friends, entirely at his disposal—unlimited transport.

Now, Sir, the present proposal is that Ministers should have a salary of £1,500, subject to income-tax, an allowance of £624 not subject to income-tax and transport worth, as has been pointed out, at least £1,000. That brings the Ministerial income up to £3,500. I think it would be better if a sum of £3,500, or even a sum of £4,000, free of income-tax were paid. I do not want to go into all these arguments and to start this thing all over again about our having simply an increase of what was done before. The assumption that everything that was done in the beginning is right is a very refreshing, interesting and satisfactory thing for me to hear, but I think we ought to benefit by our experience and our experience is, I think, that Ministers ought to be paid, not so much because you cannot get the best people without paying them, as because people who do that kind of work should be paid for doing it, and if Ministers have to be escorted, which is a lamentable state of affairs, it cannot be helped and whatever expense that involves must be cheerfully and gladly borne. The present situation, I think, means that a Minister has a much higher effective salary than a High Court judge. He should have the same salary or, if you like, a higher salary, but it should be clearly set down and subject to income-tax, with an allowance fixed to keep him from doing, what the Minister says, wrangling with the income-tax authorities about his expenses.

That, Sir, is my view on the whole matter. It is a view that Ministers should be properly paid but that the sum should be properly set out.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3, 4 and Title agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.

Bill reported without recommendation.

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

Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."

Mr. Tunney

My principal reason in speaking now is so that the Minister could not misquote me. Four or five times the Minister has used the expression, "This has passed the Seanad without objection", or "This was passed in such a place without objection." In case anybody should misunderstand me, I want to say that I do object to these salaries. Nobody can say that I do so because I am a member of the Labour Party or of any other Party. I did this when I was a member of the National Executive of Fianna Fáil. The Fianna Fáil Party got into power in this country principally because they opposed high salaries. As a matter of fact, one of their main planks on the political platform was their opposition to high salaries while the standard of the majority of the people was low. At that time I supported Fianna Fáil because I believed their policy was right. In 1938, when they abandoned that policy and increased their salaries, I opposed the increases. I oppose them still because I am satisfied that they are entirely out of proportion to the standard of life of the mass of the people. Further, I believe that to approve of these salaries would be to approve of the policy of the Ministers and of the Government and to admit that they have served the nation. I for one do not approve. I am not satisfied that they have served the nation in the manner in which they should or could have served the nation. I believe that the Ministers have failed or that the Government have failed in the matter of finding employment for our people within our country. In that respect I believe the Ministers have completely failed and, therefore, I do not want to be misunderstood or to let it appear that an increase in their salaries was unanimously approved.

How could I conscientiously allow an increase, and a substantial increase, for a Minister for Local Government who has refused to sanction an increase of 3/- per week for a road worker? Anything that I say is not in any way personal; but how could I support an increase for a Minister for Agriculture when the farm labourers of this country, even though they received decent increases under the previous Minister for Agriculture, have not reached the standard which would be appropriate to workers engaged on such important work? From that point of view, I could not support an increase for the Minister for Agriculture who is responsible for that position. As I have said on a previous occasion, the members of this House will be going on holidays. Deputies have already gone on holidays. Supposing they remained on holidays for the next 12 months the business of this nation could be carried on but if the farm labourers and the small farmers and producers of this country went on holidays until next Christmas, we would all die of starvation within 12 months. In regard to the standard of living of farm labourers, I believe that the Government have failed.

Now I come to the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think it is better for the Senator to confine himself to the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill. I do not think the Senator can deal with administration of Ministers individually.

Mr. Tunney

I understand that these Ministers are included in the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

But the Senator cannot deal with them individually.

Mr. Tunney

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has failed in his treatment of the insurance business and insurance workers of this nation. You have the insurance workers of Dublin walking the streets.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have told the Senator that he is not to deal with individual Ministers.

Mr. Tunney

I am dealing with the Department of Industry and Commerce.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must deal with the Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Bill which is before the House.

Mr. Tunney

There is, surely, some Minister responsible for bringing forward an insurance Bill in this country.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are not dealing with an insurance Bill. The Senator must deal with the Bill before the House.

Mr. Tunney

I am dealing with the conditions of men who come under that insurance Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The House is not dealing with that Bill.

Mr. Tunney

Do you say that I have no right to criticise the action——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If the Senator does not deal with the Bill that is before the House, I shall have to ask him to sit down.

Mr. Tunney

I object to these increases. Yon have insurance workers walking the streets of Dublin to-day. They are men who are in receipt of £4 a week, and they are out because of conditions laid down by the Government. I am not blaming the insurance companies. They say that they give certain guarantees, to their policy holders and to their shareholders and that they are so tied up that they have not the finance to give an increase. This has been done by this Government without making any attempt to remedy the position. The Minister said, and rightly so, about 20 times during the last few days that to be as well off as one was in 1939 one would want to get an increase of 41 per cent. I accept the Minister's word as being correct. I never heard a man speak as well for labour as he did. He has put the case that we have been trying to put all the time. Why should we give Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries an increase? It was the conduct of those Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries that placed other people in the position in which they cannot get an increase of 1/-. Is not a Minister responsible and should he not review the position immediately and put an end to it? The Ministers themselves who feel they are in need of an increase are responsible for placing those individuals in the awkward position in which they find themselves. That is all that I want to say. There are other things in which the Government have failed but I am not going to go into them. As far as the Departments of Agriculture, Local Government and Industry and Commerce are concerned, they have refused to sanction an increase of 3/- a week to road workers, or to make any provision for farm workers, or any provision for insurance workers. Therefore, I want to be recorded as voting against the increases in this Bill.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Tunney

I want to be recorded as dissenting.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That will be done.

Mr. Tunney

I feel that it is wrong——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator cannot speak again on the Bill.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.