Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Apr 1960

Vol. 52 No. 10

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1960—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

The Government decided some time ago that a revision of the allowances of Deputies and Senators, as well as the salaries of Ministers and of the Parliamentary Office-holders was long overdue and should not be further deferred. The outcome of the Government's thinking on this subject is set out in the Bill now before the House.

Allowances to members of this House were last reviewed in 1947. Senators are well aware that, while salaries and wages generally have been increased several times since, there has been no change in the allowances to members of the Oireachtas or in the salaries paid to Ministers and the holders of Parliamentary Offices. I need not labour the case that can be made both on the grounds of the higher cost of living and the increase in the volume of work to be done for an upward revision of Senators' allowances. The Bill provides for an allowance of £750 a year for Senators which is 75 per cent. of the new allowance for Deputies. This relationship was introduced in 1938 and it has been thought well to adhere to it.

In preparing this Bill, the Government decided to depart from the older arrangement of tax-free allowances. Deputies and Senators, in common with all members of the public, will now have to establish what proportion of the allowance payable to them can be allowed exemption from tax as an expense attributable to their duties as members of the Oireachtas and will be liable for income tax on the balance.

I am not, of course, able to say what that proportion will be, but if the sum allowable for expenses is assumed to be £300, then a single Senator with no other taxable income will pay £36 in income tax; a married man will pay nothing. If he has £2,000 he will pay roughly £635 or £566 respectively. The position is, therefore, that where the allowance is a Senator's sole income, he would gain under the arrangement proposed in the Bill. According as taxable income increases, of course, the bill for income tax mounts and the gain becomes correspondingly smaller.

The Bill provides for a salary of £2,000 for a Minister, in addition to which he will receive his Deputy's allowance of £1,000 the whole amount being subject to income tax. He will have to establish what remission is appropriate in respect of expenses in common with Deputies and Senators. At the moment, a Minister has £2,125 of which £625—his Deputy's allowance —is exempt from tax. If we assume, to take a figure, that he is allowed £450 for expenses, he will, if he has no other income, and is single, pay about £620 income tax on his £2,000 as Minister and £1,000 Deputy's allowance. If he has £1,000 from other sources, his tax will be about £1,150 if single and £1,050 if married.

There is, I think, no need to make the case for a review of Minister's salaries which have remained unchanged since 1947. The present salary level is inadequate in view of the high responsibility of the post and the standard of living which a Minister is expected to maintain. In comparison with comparable positions in industry, even the level of remuneration now proposed is very modest. It goes some distance, at all events, towards correcting the present position under which a Minister has less than the Secretary of his Department. The Bill increases a Minister's remuneration by about 40 per cent. but when income tax is taken into account, his net gain will be considerably less.

Suggestions have been made from time to time that there should be a pension scheme for members of the Oireachtas. It will be for the Houses themselves to decide whether they want any such scheme and, secondly, if they do want it, what form it should take. I have provided in the Bill that the Minister for Finance will have statutory authority to make deductions from the allowances of members of the Oireachtas. In the event of the emergence of the pensions scheme these deductions would be paid into a pension fund. The provision will become effective, of course, only if the Houses decide on having a contributory pension scheme. If they do not do so the section will be inoperative. If they do decide on a scheme, the statutory power will be available and it will not be necessary to introduce a fresh statute to meet the position.

As Senators will see, I have made certain increases in the pensions payable to former Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. The payment of these pensions has already been accepted in principle by the Houses in legislation, the underlying idea of these pensions being to compensate for the loss arising from the interruption of private business or professional occupation. It seems reasonable that the compensation for this loss should be somewhat increased in view of the change in money values since these pensions were first determined.

The Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices Act, 1938, enabled allowances to be paid to the Leaders of the two numerically largest Opposition Parties in Dáil Éireann, subject to certain conditions. These allowances are intended to go towards the cost of providing secretarial staff to help those Parties in the discharge of their parliamentary duties. Representations have been made to me that these allowances were inadequate. This Bill gives me an opportunity to meet these representations, to which I was sympathetically disposed. I am proposing to increase the amount available for the parliamentary expenses of Opposition Parties. In allocating this money, however, I am departing from the existing pattern and, instead, the total sum provided will be apportioned between the Opposition Parties which qualify in the manner set out in the Bill.

Since the Bill was published and during its passage through the Dáil, there has been little objection to the main proposals. Such criticism as there has been has taken the line that the Government might have been more generous in their approach. As I stressed in the Dáil, the Government have at all times been anxious to strike a balance in these matters between the members on the one hand and the general taxpayer on the other. I think that, by and large, this objective appears to have been secured in this Bill.

The White Paper circulated with the Bill explains in detail the various changes proposed and the ways in which they are linked up with the basic 1938 legislation.

Professor Hayes

This Bill comes to us from the Dáil and it is mainly a matter for the Dáil to decide. It is entirely for the members of the Dáil to decide what their own remuneration should be. Ultimately, they have a power to decide what allowances or remuneration of any kind members of this House should get. They are also, in the main, concerned with Ministers' salaries. Therefore, it seems to me that this is a Bill which this House must accept. But for Section 5, which makes provisions for deductions, if agreed, from the Parliamentary payments made to members of the Dáil and Seanad the Bill would be a Money Bill. It is not a Money Bill because of that section.

Apart from the fact that the matter is one which the Dáil must, in the ultimate, determine, the Bill introduces a completely new principle. Heretofore, the idea and the practice have been that members of the Dáil and Seanad were given money to provide for necessary expenses of membership and these payments were not subject to income tax. This Bill makes a departure from that practice and introduces the principle of payment for services rendered and therefore subject to tax. That raises a number of very important questions which I do not propose to solve but, which in the interest of political discussion in this country, people should keep in their minds.

In the first place, it raises the question of what kind of service the public, interested parties and intelligent people should expect from members of the Oireachtas. In the second place, it raises the question of what kind of person will give that service. In the third place, it raises the question of how much the public ought to pay for that service. The duties of members of the Oireachtas and of members of every democratic Parliament we know anything about have altered radically in the past 50 years and indeed particularly in the past 30 years.

There is a statue in College Green of Grattan with his hand up declaiming in Parliament. A member of the Dáil making a speech is the common picture. What the public wants is that members of the Dáil should not make speeches but should write letters, attend meetings, go to funerals and be available for all kinds of services very far removed indeed from speaking in the Dáil. In fact, keeping in touch with their constituents either by personal visits or by correspondence on all kinds of matters, is of much more importance than paying any attention to legislation.

Therefore, the whole business has shifted, from the point of view of members of the Oireachtas, to an interest in administration on the part of members rather than an interest in legislation. The situation arises because in our time—when I say "in our time", I speak advisedly—in my own time, even since 1921, the powers of the State have increased enormously. The number of semi-State bodies has increased in this country.

I was Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil when the first of them, the Electricity Supply Board, was formed. A great many others have been formed since then and, as we have already decided, we shall this evening be putting the finishing touches to a new semi-State authority, a broadcasting Authority. The result is that the ordinary citizen has many more contacts with civil servants and with State and local officials so that the time of members of both Houses and particularly members of the Dáil is taken up with grants, pensions, quotas and benefits of all kinds. The members of the public are very insistent that they should get that kind of service.

A friend of mine, a former Minister of State, who is not an authority on the Land Commission told me he met in the capital of his constituency an old man who told him some story about land which he wanted. After a bit, the old man said to him: "Have you ne'er a bit of a pencil?" He wanted the Deputy to listen to him and take down what he had to say about the Land Commission—and he would not write himself.

There is the belief, which I hope is mistaken, that if you go to a Deputy or a Senator, he can get you what you want—that is believed quite commonly—or, at any rate, that he can get for you what you are entitled to more readily than you would otherwise get it.

Mr. Carton

And wholesale.

Professor Hayes

The result is that members of the Dáil and Seanad, particularly of the Dáil, have had to become Jacks of all trades. I am not speaking now of particular Parties or Deputies. That is recognised by all Government Departments. When you write to them, they send you a reply and a copy. You send the copy to the constituent who will say: "You did not succeed but you did your best." Even members of Government Parties—I am speaking in general terms—are not beyond saying: "I tried my best to get it for you but the Minister would not give it to me." Sometimes a Deputy is prepared even to put the blame on a Minister of his own Party in order to save himself from his constituent.

Very often, correspondence is begun by a Deputy who knows from the outset that what he is seeking is impossible, that the conditions under which a person wants to get something do not provide for his case. However, the Deputy has to write and to get a letter from Dublin to the effect that what he is asking for cannot be done. Some enterprising citizens—I heard an example of it this very morning—write to members of all Parties and to Independents, who are members of no Party. When a new Government comes into office, as happened in 1948, after a long period of office by another Party, there was an avalanche of letters from people who, having failed for years to get something from one Party, thought they would have a go with the new fellows. Members, therefore, have become not legislators but administrators.

I suspect there must be some members of the Dáil and perhaps some members of this House who do not read anything sent to them but their correspondence—who never read a Bill, good, bad or indifferent. It is interesting to wonder in relation to the people who write, who cause all this work to be done, whether the ordinary citizen who has rights to get something could not get it anyhow, whether or not he wrote to a Deputy. One hopes that he would. If it is true that Patrick Murphy in Dublin city or down the country would not get all he is entitled to without going to a Deputy, there is something grievously wrong and we should investigate it and see that it is stopped.

One of the troubles about the whole thing is to find a remedy. I do not think a remedy can be imposed by any Government. I remember the trouble there was one time. There was an official of Local Government—an appeals officer for old age pensions. It was suggested that he should be prevented from seeing members of the Dáil. There was a great fuss about it. It should be possible by consultation to arrange for people to get what they are entitled to and not need to apply to Deputies.

One of the troubles about this correspondence is that everybody writes his letter from his own point of view and hardly ever supplies all the facts. I remember being approached in regard to about £700. When I followed the usual procedure and rang up the Minister's Private Secretary, he put me on to somebody who told me: "I know all about that, Senator." The particular person—a builder—had already been paid £72,000 which had not been mentioned. The £700 was a matter in dispute between his architect and the architect of some Department. I forget which Department but it does not matter. His trouble was the smaller amount. I wonder whether any remedy could be found for that. It exists not only here but elsewhere. This being a small country and Deputies, Senators and Ministers being extremely approachable, it is carried on to a degree here greater than in most other countries. That is the kind of service people expect.

It is sometimes said that members of the Dáil or Seanad do not attend to their duties. In that connection, you have to ask yourself what is the meaning of the word "duties?" Is the Deputy who is in the Library writing letters industriously attending to his duties if the Dáil is sitting at the same time? Is there a remedy for that? I do not know whether there is or not. Perhaps, by consultation, some remedy could be found.

The second question that arises is what kind of person do you want? This measure does, in fact, favour the full-time politician, sometimes called the professional politician, as against the person who is already gainfully employed in some career, business or profession of his own. I think that probably what we want is some of both. It is the practice in certain quarters to decry professional politicians, some of whom have given very good service, particularly of the kind I have mentioned, for a reward that seems to me all too small. They made themselves into full-time officers and have done the kind of job which I would not do myself for £1,000 a week. I would not make myself available morning, noon and night, Saturday and Sunday and on bank holidays as they do in their own houses to their constituents.

On the other hand, there can be no doubt that if the business of the country is to be done, we should certainly have in Parliament people who are capable of making a success of their own business and their own careers before they proceed to do the nation's business as well. Since this Bill gives remuneration for services rendered and puts income tax on the amount given, it will certainly have the results for some people of reducing the net amount they get for being in public life because they have made a success of some other career.

I do not know, for example, how much reward should be given on the new basis which the Minister is introducing for services rendered. It is extremely difficult to fix it. This must be added. People who have no experience of politics or Parliamentary life and work, sometimes ask why you cannot check what people do, but you cannot. It is really impossible. The only method of checking or of deciding is an election and it is not always the hardest workers in the sense of legislation or of speeches in the Dáil or Seanad who find it easiest to get the votes.

Let me also say—and I think it is relevant to the Bill—that we have very little thoughtful or informed discussion here on the art of the practice of politics, Parliamentary democracy. I do not mean the discussion of the policy of Fianna Fáil. Fine Gael, or Labour but the whole political situation. It is an occupation for which money is necessary but money is not enough. This kind of Bill, no matter what figure you fix for membership of the Dáil or Seanad, is not sufficient to attract people of the right type to do your Parliamentary work. They must have some kind of esteem. Some of them may be themselves guilty for the lack of esteem in which they are held, but I think they are in general worth the goodwill.

It is the custom to decry our Parliamentary representation and say it is worse than it is in other places. One of the first things that struck me a great number of years ago—in 1924, to be precise—when attending a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, was that the delegates present from a great many other Parliaments, the Commonwealth Parliaments, the European and American Parliaments, were not on the average better than the average of our Parliament. It seemed to me that our first-class people could hold their own with many of them. I had at one time for particular purposes to read a good many Parliamentary debates of other countries. I certainly came to the conclusion that the level here was as good as that in other places.

Ministers' salaries come into this Bill. I think Ministers' salaries should be raised. Again, I am not able to say to what point. I accept what the Minister is doing. One of the reasons why Ministers' salaries are low was the campaign about Ministers and about the idea of anybody having a salary which went on for a long time. That is responsible for a great deal of the misunderstanding and confusion about Ministers' salaries and indeed, the rate paid to Ministers.

I always thought, too, that Ministers are extremely approachable in this country. It has often been put to me that too much is expected of them. That, I think, is on the whole correct, but I should not like to forgo any of the approachability which has always characterised Ministers here. It is a small country and a small Parliament. It works very smoothly—much more smoothly than the reports of our proceedings would indicate. People outside have a notion, which, of course, is quite unjustifiable upon the facts, as we who are inside know, that people in Leinster House spend all their time shaking their fists at one another. They are astonished, as I said on another motion, to find that is not so.

It should be recognised, therefore, that this Bill introduces a new principle into the payment of Parliamentary allowances and that for some members of the Dáil and Seanad it will, in fact, result in a reduction in their net income. It is for the electors to say what they want. I am afraid that the only remedy for the difficulties which are so frequently put before us is that the electorate should take more interest in the whole proceedings and see to it that they get the kind of representatives they really want. If there is any flaw in our representatives and in what they are paid, it should be remembered that the representatives can be no better and are certainly no worse than the people who elect them.

If we ourselves could, now that we have reached a certain maturity in our political operations, in some way endeavour to disseminate among the electors the notion that you need not go to a Deputy or a Senator to get what you want, and if we could get a better understanding of what is required in a politician in Leinster House, we would have done a good day's work and something to earn the added allowances provided in this Bill. There are a few points which might be mentioned in Committee but as far as I can see, the Bill is one which is acceptable.

Mr. Barry

I find that the Senatorial position—and I have come from the other House, too—has not relieved me of any of the tasks of a Deputy. Once you come through the gates of Leinster House, you have influence. The people are firmly convinced of that and therefore your door knocker is knocked and your letter box fills up and your telephone keeps ringing. It is one of the facts of political life and I think Senator Hayes should not look at that fact with starry eyed wonder. It is something we can all understand.

There is another matter to which he did not refer, that is, that a great number of the people involved, either here or in the other House, also take part in local government affairs. Whatever our troubles are in Leinster House, I think the troubles associated with local government are far more onerous. For the last three weeks, I have not arrived home any night before 11 o'clock because I was dealing with local government affairs.

I find myself somewhat disarmed by the tax clause in this Bill. It prevents me from criticising effectively because I shall scarcely benefit myself. In fact, I think I shall lose and I cannot very well criticise those who will benefit. My auditor told me that it will cost me something like £40 a year. The people will not believe that if they are told. My attitude since this proposal was first mooted some months ago is that members of the Oireachtas should set a headline and they should try to content themselves with what they are receiving, despite the truth of the fact that their allowances have declined in terms of real money, because I believe, and a number of people in the country believe, that nobody at present should demand greater rewards in the immediate and critical years just ahead. We felt that—and the Party to which I belong took a position on it, which has since been changed because of incontrovertible facts—by taking that attitude and getting the people and other members of the Parliament with us, not only would we create a mind towards solvency but we would make a real contribution towards it as well.

In justice, I must admit that many public representatives cannot easily carry on on their present allowances and because those who can will not really receive extra remuneration, I am less disposed to oppose the Bill than I was. I do think that many people outside do not understand that the proposals in the Bill will ensure that very many public representatives will not benefit at all. They will regard the whole thing cynically. We know that. Cynicism is the kind of commodity we could do without in this country to-day. It is an over-used commodity. To be brief, I think the taxpayer should clearly understand that the cost of this will not be the sum of all the increases to individuals because that will be reduced very considerably by the contributions of the recipients to the collector of taxes.

Mr. Murphy

I have spoken in this House and elsewhere previously about what I consider the inadequate allowances of Deputies and because of the adjustment being made in this Bill, I welcome it very much. I have often wondered whether some Deputies have been driven out of public life and out of the Dáil because of the hard economic realities, the fact that they could not afford to sacrifice themselves and their families on the quite inadequate allowances they received as Deputies. I am certain, however, that people I know in the Labour movement have been unable to afford to offer themselves for election to Dáil Éireann because if they were successful, it would mean they would have to leave their employment and devote all their time to Dáil work. They could not afford to do so on the allowance of £624 per annum. It may be quite true that many of them might not have very much more, and perhaps a little less, in the employment in which they are actually engaged but it is a fact that Deputies' expenses, their standard of living and what is required of them, are far higher than those of the ordinary worker earning £12 a week.

The public apparently do not realise that Deputies who come from outside Dublin to Dáil Éireann have to provide their own accommodation in Dublin out of their allowances. They have to meet heavy postage expenses and they also have to meet fairly heavy hospitality expenses. If you go into any company the Deputy is the person who is expected to pay because he is a Deputy. I was about to say that probably they have expenses for secretarial assistance, but I think few of them could afford to provide secretarial assistance, even though, to my mind, it is a very necessary item, a very necessary service, which any Deputy requires, if he wants to take care of the spate of correspondence which he gets and, at the same time, deal with legislation. It is quite true, as Senator Hayes said, that most Deputies are fully occupied not in making speeches, not in examining legislation, not in criticising legislation, not in putting down amendments, but in dealing with all the queries and all the correspondence which they get, sending letters to Departments, getting replies back and passing those replies on to their constituents.

In this measure, it is proposed to increase a Deputy's allowance from £624 to £1,000 per annum. On the face of it, that appears to be pretty big, but, as the Minister said, it is 13 years since the allowance was fixed at £624 and in that period the value of money has depreciated by nearly one-third. In other words, the cost of living in that time has gone up by nearly 50 per cent., speaking roughly. This adjustment is very belated, even though it is welcome. We are increasing the allowance for a Deputy to £1,000 but I doubt, in view of what is being paid in good employment, whether good people who have capabilities and who could make good representatives can really afford to sacrifice their jobs and go into the Dáil, taking on the extra expenditure involved for £1,000 per annum.

We are still up against this problem. Wages and salaries have increased considerably in those 13 years, and even though £1,000 does seem good, we still have the point I mentioned earlier, that a person might be in receipt of far less than £1,000 and could not afford to give up his job and put his family at a sacrifice for the allowance provided for him as a Deputy. It is true, of course, that other people have not to make that sacrifice—people who have not a full-time job, who have other sources of income. It is easy and convenient and helpful for them to be Deputies. Salaried workers and such people who are in full-time employment, if they stand for and are elected to the Dáil, have to leave their employment and have no other source of income except the allowance. I still doubt whether £1,000 would be sufficient compensation — I stress "compensation", not "pay."

This adjustment is the first in 13 years. I hope that if we have to face another period of inflation, if money drops in value again, we shall not have to await the position that a Deputy's allowance will have to be cut in value by a third before anything is done to rectify the position. It strikes me that there is a great opening for a trade union for public representatives.

In this measure, the ratio between Deputies' allowances and Senators' allowances is being maintained at the ratio of four to three. In looking at this critically, I wonder if, in fact, that ratio is right and proper. A Deputy's job should be a full-time job. He cannot afford to spend his time looking after other business, if he is to look after his constituents properly, properly represent them and properly look at legislation; whereas in fact, we know —whether we are prepared to admit it or not—a Senator's position is part-time. Nobody expects a Senator to devote eight or 12 hours a day to public duties. It is, fortunately, not a full-time job. We still have that ratio of four to three, and looking at the work and what is required of a Deputy as compared with a Senator, I do not think it is correct.

I do not think the Seanad meets three days for every four that the Dáil meets. That is probably not a very welcome observation in the Seanad, but it is a fact. The Seanad does not require as much of us as the Dáil requires of Deputies. It is quite true also that with these allowances now subject to income tax, the Deputies will in the ultimate benefit to a far greater extent by this adjustment than will Senators. I do not think that is wrong or undesirable. I wonder, however, whether we might not have more use made of the Seanad, whether the work of the Dáil and Deputies could be eased somewhat by transferring more work to the Seanad.

We have had one measure already which was initiated here. I do not know whether the Government think the Seanad did a good job on it, or whether the Dáil thinks so, but I should like to see the Seanad given more work to do. Now that we are asked to vote ourselves increased allowances, it might be no harm if we looked at our productivity to see if we could improve our efficiency, do more work, and ease the considerable strain which does lie on the Dáil and Deputies.

Dr. Ryan

First of all, I should like to congratulate Senator Hayes on the very interesting talk he gave us on this subject. We must all admit that he has a great deal of experience of parliamentary life and his contribution, therefore, was very interesting. There is one big change, as Senator Hayes points out, that up to this what Deputies and Senators got was regarded as an allowance but never expenses. We are now introducing the principle of paying them for their time. Some Deputies did not like the idea of being paid a salary for their time, and would have preferred to have an allowance rather than payments.

I must say personally that I thought we should recognise that a great deal of time has to be given, and we have many people who cannot afford to give time, unless they get something for it. There are many, as we know, both in the Dáil and the Seanad who, when elected, must give up whatever occupation they had. Let us say they were doing office work, clerical work or were artisans. They have to be compensated for their time. It would be very unfair to exclude anybody from becoming a member of the Dáil or Seanad for a reason of that kind. Therefore, the principle in this Bill of recognising that men must be paid for their time is not objectionable. It would be a nice thing if we could all say that we would all be prepared to give our time to this work, if we merely got our expenses. Some cannot afford to do that, and the country cannot afford to do without these people.

Another point on which Senator Hayes spoke is very interesting, regarding all that people expect a Deputy or Senator to do for them. I am afraid that very few people, when looking on the duties of a Deputy or Senator, look on them as legislators, or as legislators solely. Some of the more intelligent people in the country try to select people who will be good legislators—in other words, people who will look after the country generally—and do not pay much regard to the fact that one Deputy may be more obliging than another in looking after the troubles his constituents may have.

There is no doubt, as has been pointed out by Senator Hayes, that the work of a Deputy—and I am sure this applies also to Senators, at least in the rural areas—has greatly increased. The work to be done with Departments and other work of that nature has increased enormously over the past 30 or 40 years, not alone due to the creation of State bodies like the E.S.B. but also even in the Departments.

Take, for instance, the Department of Agriculture. When I became Minister for Agriculture 30 years ago, there were very few queries from the ordinary individual. A man might inquire perhaps about a premium bull. All sorts of things arise in the Department of Agriculture like schemes for reclamation and drainage, schemes for farm buildings, water supplies and many other things of that kind, or a man may want to make inquiries about his case being attended to, if he will be paid a grant which is due, and so on. These things were unknown, and the necessity for such queries did not exist, 30 or 40 years ago.

The same applies to a great extent to other Departments. In the Department of Local Government, the housing programme has been very much extended over the years, and the numbers of queries are very much greater than they were 30 years ago. The same applies to the Department of Social Welfare. I agree with Senator Hayes that a Deputy or a Senator can very seldom do anything for these people except make inquiries. Sometimes, of course, a Deputy or a Senator may be in a position to console a person. If a person says he is looking for a housing grant and you write back and say he will get it in a week or a fortnight, that is all right, but you do not, in fact, do anything to alter the position. He would have got it in a fortnight anyway, but he says to himself when he gets your letter: "If I had not written to the Deputy or the Senator, I would never have got it."

There are, however, certain cases where the intervention of a Deputy or a Senator may be useful. It sometimes occurs that a mistake is made by an applicant. If the Department says that the person is not entitled to what he seeks and the Deputy finds that a mistake has been made in the application and puts it right, that is all right. I should like very much indeed if we could make these things right without the person having to go to a Deputy or a Senator. I agree with Senator Hayes there. We have, as the House is aware, over the years tried to make these things a bit easier for the people concerned.

I remember one occasion many years ago — I think the position may have been worse then than it is now—when the Land Commission appointed a joint public relations officer, which was unknown at that time in a Government Department. That was a good step because the man was able to coordinate inquiries. He got accustomed to letters from people and he was able to deal with them better than an ordinary official. He could write back and say: "If you can answer the following questions, perhaps I shall be able to get the matter settled." Again, I am afraid that no matter what we do, people will have recourse to Deputies or Senators. I must say I often marvel at the naiveté of the people who write to me for a grant for something or other, or for some subsidy or other. They are evidently under the impression that what I do is to say to the Department: “Give it to him, and no further inquiry is to be made.” It must be obvious to the person writing that letter that if an inquiry is made, he will not be entitled to it at all, but he probably says: “I suppose I can have a try at it.”

There is another point on which I am sure Senators have the same trouble as I have. A person writes to me and says he is sitting for a competition for the Civil Service, or a local authority, and that he would like a bit of help. No matter how often I write and say that these appointments are made by a commission and that I cannot interfere, they do not believe it. They write the next time and ask what I can do for them. It is very hard to deal with matters of that kind. I suppose every Minister has this experience, too. When you take over a Department, you nearly always get about 60 or 80 letters complaining about the way the last man had treated them. You ask for a report and you nearly always find that your predecessor had got a similar letter about the Minister who preceded him.

I remember when the Social Welfare Act, 1953, was being put through the Dáil—a fair amount of time was given to it in the Dáil and in the Seanad, too, perhaps—saying that it would never be necessary again, when that Act went through, for any Deputy or any Senator to interfere with regard to social benefits because everything would be decided entirely on the law and by the officials. Under that system, umpires were appointed and if a person were turned down, say, for an old age pension, he could appeal and his appeal went before a referee or an umpire whose decision was final. The Minister had no power whatever in that Department with regard to decisions in any of those cases.

Since that time, the only powers the Minister actually has in the Department of Social Welfare are: he is the head of the Department in charge of the staff; he deals with Parliamentary Questions; he deals with legislation; but he has no administrative functions so far as the awards of benefits are concerned. I do not know if that had the effect of lessening the work of Senators or Deputies. I am afraid there is quite a lot of that kind of thing even yet and that when a person is refused a benefit, a Senator or a Deputy has to take a hand in it.

It is true, as Senator Hayes says, that this Bill will give much greater benefit to the person who has no other income than to the person who has an income in his own right. It was purposely designed in that way. On the other hand, I do not think it would be true to say that any considerable number of Deputies or Senators will get no benefit. As a matter of fact, so far as I can work it out— I am assuming a certain level of expenses will be allowed—I think a Senator or a Deputy would have to have a very large income to deprive him of any benefit under this Bill, though I admit a Senator or Deputy with an income will not get very much out of it.

I thoroughly agree with Senator Hayes also with regard to the level of efficiency and intelligence of our Deputies and Senators. Over the years, I have attended a fair number of international conferences, and I have been struck by the same thing as that which Senator Hayes mentioned, that we have at least as good representatives as they have in other countries. I think I could perhaps say we have better than they have in some places, but we have, at least, as good. After all, we should be satisfied with that.

I could not say whether Senator Barry or any other Senator will get any benefit whatever from this Bill. First of all, I should want to know what Senator Barry's means are—I do not want to know that; I am not looking for that information. Secondly, which is very important, I would want to know what the Revenue Commissioners are likely to agree to by way of expenses. My own inquiries about this matter unofficially—I did not want to go to the Revenue Commissioners about this matter until the Bill becomes law—would lead me to believe that the Revenue Commissioners will probably try to arrive at a sum, common to everybody, for expenses. They do that in many other professions besides the profession of Deputy or Senator. If they do that, they will say: "If you like to accept that sum for expenses, we shall not trouble you to make any return by way of vouchers or anything else. If you are not satisfied, make returns and vouchers, and if you are entitled to get more than that, you will get it." I think that is probably the way it will work out.

Senator Murphy spoke about expenses that might be allowed. I think anything he mentioned would naturally be allowed. Certainly a Deputy or Senator would have to be allowed his expenses while staying in Dublin. If he comes for a meeting of the Dáil or Seanad or on any other occasion when it is necessary, because of his position as Deputy or Senator, he would have to be allowed his subsistence while he is detained in Dublin. Apart from that, he would be allowed postage. If the Senator has to employ secretarial assistance, he will get an allowance for that, too. Some Senators will not employ a secretary and therefore will not want to make that claim.

Hospitality is something that gives the Revenue Commissioners a fair amount of trouble, no matter from whom the claim comes. I do not know how they may decide a matter. If, say, Senator Barry brings up two men from Cork to a Department or on some business or other, and then brings them into the restaurant here, naturally he is expected to stand them lunch, I think that would be a fair claim in the way of hospitality.

Mr. Barry

I will quote the Minister.

Dr. Ryan

I agree with Senator Barry; I suppose we all have the same experience that if we are in a group, we are expected at least to play our part. I am certain a Deputy will be allowed his expenses for travelling around his constituency, and his subsistence, if he has to be out for his meals. That would be quite a legitimate expense. I am not sure how the Revenue Commissioners would look at Senators from that point of view. I suppose there would have to be some agreement about that. I agree with Senator Murphy, too, that the 13 years was too long a period. It is a great pity it was not attended to in the interim, and now again, because such a drastic change would not be necessary.

I do not think it would be possible to come along every time there is an increase in wages all round and to say that Senators and Deputies must get something but I think we should not allow the time to go longer than five years. It should be reviewed every five years, in relation to the change in the value of money. In that way, the amount necessary to make things right would not be so high and would not look so high to people outside.

Senator Murphy thought the ratio 4 to 3 between the Dáil and Seanad was rather unfair to the Dáil. In 1923, they were put on a par. I am sure Senator Hayes will have a recollection of this. Those who were sitting at that time cannot be blamed because they had very little experience of what the work of either the Seanad or the Dáil might be. In some countries, the Upper House has almost as much work to do as the Lower House. Nobody could be expected to know at that time whether or not it would be the same here. The allowances fixed were very low so they got the same all round.

Then, in 1938, when it was necessary to fix an allowance for the new Senators, it was fixed at three-fourths of what the members of the Dáil had at that time. As I said in my opening speech, I thought it well to stick to that ratio. I did not want to have to defend a departure from it. I believe the best remedy is that suggested by Senator Murphy that, if the Seanad are not giving value for what they are getting, they should get more work. It is a good idea but it gives rise to certain difficulties in practice. The Government have considered that point and have handed the Seanad one Bill to deal with. We are certainly in favour of that, in principle, and would be glad indeed to resort again to that method of trying to divide the work more evenly between the two Houses. It may be possible to do something again in that way in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee. Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Hayes

I think it should be said on this section that the provision made in this is to enable a joint committee of both Houses to agree upon a scheme for pensions for necessitous persons rather than a general pensions scheme for members of the Oireachtas, which is generally what it is taken to be. It was already considered. It has been the practice in England for some time. It applies, not generally, to persons over 60 years of age who have been Members of Parliament for ten years and who are in bad circumstances. Is that not the intention?

Dr. Ryan

I thought it well to leave this an open question.

Professor Hayes

I agree.

Dr. Ryan

They can indeed decide on a full contributory scheme if they like, but it would be a very expensive scheme. Consider the average life of a Senator and the average life of a Deputy which is perhaps ten or 12 years, whereas the person who works all his life, with a contributory scheme, has 40 years in employment. That will indicate how expensive a full contributory scheme would be. Personally, I think it will come down to a scheme related to necessitous persons in the end, as the Senator has suggested.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Professor Hayes

On the point made by the Minister that the Seanad might get more work, on the Order Paper for to-day in the Dáil, there are eleven Bills. One Bill— the Broadcasting Authority Bill, 1959—is from the Seanad. The other is the Intoxicating Liquor Bill, 1959, which I think should have been introduced in the Dáil but of the other nine, there are eight, with the exception of the Hire-Purchase (Amendment) Bill, 1957, which might easily have been brought in here. It would lead to what Senator Murphy wants, more work for this House, and it would ultimately make matters easier for the Dáil. This is particularly the case in respect of Bills which are called Departmental Bills and which do not cause any difficulties at all. I think that suggestion is a good one.

Question put and agreed to.