Vol. 3 No. 7
I move Section I.:—
The yearly sum of ten thousand pounds commencing on the sixth day of December. 1922, shall be charged upon and payable by equal quarterly payments out of the Central Fund of Saorstát Eireann or the growing produce thereof to the Governor-General for the time being of the Irish Free State, by way of salary so long as every such Governor-General shall continue to hold that office.
I move:—To delete from the beginning of the Section, down to and including the words "growing produce thereof," and to substitute "there shall be paid by the Minister for Finance, by equal quarterly payments, out of monies to be provided by the Oireachtas, as from the 6th day of December, 1922, a yearly sum of £10,000." I do so with the object of securing that the equal quarterly payments shall be made out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas instead of out of the Central Fund. The only purpose of this amendment is to ensure that annually the Dáil shall be reminded specifically of the fact that we have bound ourselves to pay, and are paying annually, a sum of £10,000 as salary to the Governor-General. There is a possibility, I think, if the Clause passes as it is printed, that we may forget that this luxury has to be paid for, and while we are bound by enactment to continue paying it, I think it should be brought to our notice periodically for our soul's sake, as you put a text in a bedroom, so that we may have a reminder that we are paying for the office of Governor-General. Otherwise we might be apt to think that the yearly salary is to be a charge on the funds of the British Exchequer, in the same way as we are told his pension will necessarily be a charge on the British Exchequer. I do not want future Parliaments to be in that ignorant state, but that we shall realise year by year that we are paying for the Governor-General's salary, and that the amount shall be brought to the notice of the Dáil when the Dáil is asked to vote annual sums of money. That is the sole object of the amendment.
In this regard a statement was made in the Press the other day which, no doubt, Deputies have seen, upon which I think that the Minister might desire to give some kind of explanation. It reported a question that was put in the legislature of some other country, not very far away, which may seem a strange place for putting questions with regard to matters which really concern ourselves, and concern nobody else. Nevertheless, the question was put as to whether the Governor-General, in addition to getting these quarterly payments that are referred to in the amendment amounting to the yearly sum of £10,000, was to receive a certain pension; that it was a pensionable office. That does not exactly appear in any part of the Constitution and it is not expounded in the text of the Constitution. I do not believe that it was within the intention of those who passed the Constitution. I mean that he receives £10,000 a year, and that he signs certain necessary documents before participating in his punch at night, and sleeps thereafter, and that that is the end of the liability.
I think Deputy Figgis is wandering absolutely from this amendment.
The memory of punch always makes him wander.
The essence of the amendment is that, instead of providing money out of the Central Fund, it shall be provided yearly on the Estimates out of money to be provided by the Oireachtas. The two methods of providing the money are the matters for discussion.
Would I be in order, then, in asking whether either of the two methods leaves the Governor-General liable to receive a pension from this State, whichever be the method of payment adopted?
If the Minister for Finance is never asked anything more difficult than that he will be very lucky.
I submit that it is in order to consider whether the sum of £10,000 is too great, in view of the possibility that, in addition to the £10,000, the Governor-General shall receive a pension. Are there to be deductions from the £10,000? I submit that it is quite in order to discuss the extension of the salary proposition after he has retired.
I am afraid that is not the question exactly that Deputy Figgis wants to put to the Minister for Finance. Perhaps Deputy Figgis would repeat his question so that we might all be quite clear?
Nobody is better informed on this point than Deputy Figgis, who is aware that the reason why this salary has to be paid is because it is a part of the Treaty, and it is embodied in the Constitution. We pay the salary to the Governor-General of the Free State which is paid to the Governor-General of one of the Dominions which is specified. The amount paid there is £10,000, and the piece of information which Deputy Figgis, who knows all concerning these questions, pretends to have learned only a few days ago from a newspaper, is that the office of Governor-General, according to practice, is pensionable, not out of the funds of the Dominion to which he belongs, but out of Imperial Funds, so that, whether the pension is much or little, or whether it has to be paid this wise or otherwise, it does not affect this question at all. It is wholly a question, as regards the present amendment, of whether the money is to be paid out of the Central Fund or in precisely the same fashion as the upkeep of the Governor-General's Establishment is to be paid for according to this Bill. I wonder will there be anyone hereafter in the Free State who will be under the impression that only the upkeep of the Governor-General's Establishment is being paid for out of our taxes? Surely the future citizens of the Free State will not be so devoid of interest in its origin and the circumstances under which Deputy Figgis and other eminent citizens framed the Constitution, for it to be wholly forgotten. I do not believe that it will be really necessary to have this writing on the wall, this text in the bedroom which Deputy Johnson describes. It is a grievance that we should have to pay it, no matter out of what fund it comes, and grievances have never been forgotten by the Irish people. I prefer to have the two sums provided differently in order to conform to what is the actual situation. The one in accordance with the Treaty is a fixed sum which we undertook to pay, and the other is a variable sum which will differ according as the cost of living may differ, and will differ according as the equipment and upkeep will differ, and it is to be determined by the Minister for Finance, who will keep a very watchful eye, no doubt, on that expenditure but no scrutiny or supervision of the Minister for Finance can make the £10,000 less. £10,000 is the sum fixed by Treaty to be paid, and, consequently, it is a very poor consolation for those who have to pay it, if the form has to be gone through each year of voting it. I really submit to you, sir, with all respect to Deputy Johnson, that to bring it in as an annual vote is rather to force upon it the character of a voluntary subscription. If it has to be paid as a Treaty obligation, why not pay it as a Treaty obligation instead of giving it another character?
The question I put was really pertinent to the amendment before the Dáil. Deputy Johnson's amendment is to the effect that certain sums should be paid quarterly. It is, I suggest, pertinent to enquire if these are the entire and total sums that shall be paid quarterly in respect of Governors-General, because if the statement made, which I hope will be corrected, that this State is liable for certain pensions, then the sums set down in the amendment will be requisite not for the particular Governor-General at that time in existence, but for Governors-General, because there will be superannuated Governors-General in respect of whom certain moneys will have to be paid. I believe it is fair, as Deputy Professor Magennis has stated, that this charge of pensions, if it is made at all, will have to be made as an Imperial charge, and not by this State. I believe that is correct, but I also believe that an endeavour will be made to mulct this State with it unless a specific statement to the contrary is made, and unless that specific statement to the contrary is made here when we are considering this Bill.
Deputy Figgis has perhaps not read the Title of the Bill.
Is it not generally understood, whether it is a fact or not I am not sure, that certain deductions are made from the salaries of Civil Servants which are used for the payment of superannuations? Are we to take it that the total salary of £10,000 is subject to certain deductions or that the £10,000 is the sum after these deductions have been made?
I am asking, sir, for a sum of £10,000, commencing on the 6th day of December, 1922, to be charged on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof, and to be paid to the Governor-General by way of salary so long as ever such Governor-General shall continue to hold that office. That is what I am asking. If you ask me does that £10,000 include the payment of the next Governor-General, and the one after him, if there should be three in the year, I say that it is the salary of the Governor-General. That is all I am asking for. It is that particular amount, not a penny more and not a penny less, and it is by reason of the agreement we came to in London, which agreement was for a fixed charge for salary. It is not to come up here every year. It is on the Central Fund as such, and a judge is in the same position. That is the agreement we made and that is the agreement we are carrying out, and I think we are entitled to carry it out. As I said before, if there was anything objectionable on the one side there was also something objectionable on the other side, and it is right to say that, as far as the other side are concerned, they have not, as often as we have, made objection to the parts of the bargain that were objectionable, and they have accepted it in good faith. Now, this Section is necessary for making things clear for the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It carries out Article 60 of the Constitution, and it carries it out in good faith, in the same good faith in which that Article was passed. It states in that that the Governor-General's salary shall be of the like amount as that now paid to the Governor-General of Australia, and shall be chargeable to the public funds of the Free State. That is exactly what we are doing, carrying it out according to the spirit and the letter of the Article. It is not unreasonable that within four or five months after the passing of that Constitution that we should seek to carry out the terms of it, and it is scarcely fair that we should seek to amend it.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move Section 2. This Section will have to come up every year. The sum that will be estimated for the maintenance will have to come up for consideration. The provision made that the Minister for Finance shall determine "to be suitable" gives the Dáil a check upon unreasonable expenditure, because the Minister must explain, and must be in a position to defend, any charge. If there be an unreasonable charge it would be open to the Dáil so to determine and to limit, if necessary, or alter the amount that would be asked for by the Minister for Finance. Any such sums will have to come before the Dáil, and will have to be sanctioned and passed by the Dáil. That also carries out the Article of the Constitution which deals with this.
Agreed.
I move: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill." The Section is as follows:—"This Act may be cited as the Governor-General's Salary and Establishment Act, 1923."
Agreed.
