Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Oct 1928

Vol. 26 No. 1

SEANAD ELECTORAL BILL, 1928—MONEY RESOLUTION.

I move:—

"Chun críche aon Achta a rithfar sa tSiosón so chun stiúra toghachán de bhaill de Sheanad Eireann do rialáil agus chun an tslí d'ordú ina ndéanfar ainmliostaí d'iarrthóirí do sna toghacháin sin do chur le chéile go bhfuil sé oiriúnach a údarú go gcuirfí ar an bPrímh-Chiste no ar a thora fáis muirear aon luach saothair no costaisí is iníoctha le Ceann Comhrimh an tSeanaid fén Acht san.

That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to regulate the conduct of elections of members of Seanad Eireann and to prescribe the manner in which panels of candidates for such elections shall be formed, it is expedient to authorise the charge upon the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of any remuneration or expenses payable to the Seanad Returning Officer under such Act."

An estimate has been made of the expenditure, which will mainly comprise printing, postage, and a counting staff. It will be approximately £200 as a minimum and £400 as a maximum.

It is our intention to oppose the passing of this resolution. The resolution asks us to declare that it is expedient to authorise the charge upon the Central Fund of any expenses required in connection with the Act to regulate the election of members to Seanad Eireann. It has been frequently discussed in this House whether or not there should be in existence a Second Chamber. I do not intend to deal at any length with that question now. The question we are asked to decide is whether or not it is expedient to vote out of public funds the money required to keep that Second Chamber in existence, and we as Deputies, answering that question according to our conscience, have to say it is not. The sum of £400 mentioned by the President as being the outside figure which the conduct of these elections will require is a matter of minor importance. What is of major importance is the fact that by continuing to elect members to the Seanad every time a vacancy occurs in the membership of that body we are keeping the Seanad in existence, and the cost of that to the people cannot be reckoned as a sum of £200 or £400.

We have had very interesting figures given to us to-day by Deputy Davin, which he compiled at considerable labour and at great personal risk, because in order to procure these figures he had, as he told us, to read through the reports of the meetings of the Seanad for the last three years, and the risk to his sanity perhaps which was involved in that operation was not inconsiderable. But, as a result of his courage and labours, he produced very interesting figures—figures which will help some Deputies to appreciate much more keenly than they do at present the fundamental reasons for the opposition to the Seanad which exists in this country. The Seanad costs a considerable sum. Deputy Davin has estimated that it costs us the sum of £6 15s. 0d. for every hour which each member of the Seanad spends at the meetings of that body. That is a rate of payment far in excess, I am sure, of anything which great captains of industry in this or any other country receive. It is a rate of payment even far in excess of what we give to the Executive Ministers of the State. These Ministers have from time to time professed to believe that the Seanad is a useful institution and that Senators were an ornament, if of no other use to the State. They will find it hard to justify the remuneration of these Senators at that rate.

The President, of course, tried to forestall this argument by telling us that a very small sum was in question in this resolution. Those who have read the resolution and realise its significance know that the sum required is one which this country is not in a position to pay year after year. There was a question on the Order Paper to-day with reference to the money available for the relief of unemployment during this year, and the Minister for Finance informed us that a sum of £32,000 was provided in the Estimates for that purpose. £32,000 to provide for the relief of unemployment and double that sum to provide for the existence of the Seanad! If the ordinary plain people of the country were asked to give expression to their opinion as to whether the money which is being now utilised to maintain the Seanad could not be better utilised to provide relief for the unemployed there would be no doubt as to what their answer would be. Knowing that that is the feeling of the people, and that the financial position of the country is such that we would not be justified in continuing to expend money for a luxury purpose—and the Seanad is no more than a luxury—we are going to oppose this resolution, and we hope that Deputies who like to fool their constituents into the belief that they stand for economy in public administration will take this opportunity of making good their promises by supporting our attitude concerning it.

The President, with his usual accuracy in matters of finance, has told us that this thing is going to cost something between £200 and £400. Deputy Lemass has told us that the existence of the Seanad costs somewhere about £76,000. I am not concerned for the moment either with the £76,000 or with the £400. I am concerned with the fact that we are going to elect 19 men, whom we do not need to elect, by this means; that we are going to pay them in salaries alone £360 for doing nothing but to maintain a vested interest and the right to interfere with the legislation of this House. £200 or £400 says the President. £7,000 is the fact. The proportion of £400 to £7,000 is just about the ordinary proportion of the truth that you will find in any financial statement made on the benches opposite. We have not got, after all the efforts we have made, and after Deputy Davin had gone to a great deal of trouble—I saw the figures which he had; elaborate and difficult work it was—how much attendance these bright boys give up there. Two hours and thirty-nine minutes! The hours I spend "with thee, dear Seanad," are nearly two and a half. This Seanad costs between £250 and £300 an hour for salaries alone for every hour it meets.

I think it is time the country knew that the Seanad which we are going to elect has, under this precious Constitution and with its precious sense of responsibilities for its duties, cost between £250 and £300 an hour for salaries alone for every hour it sat. I do not think the people understand that. There is an illusion that this country is a very rich country. It must be if it can pay £250 an hour for every hour of that kind of service that it gets. Why should we now, when we have an opportunity of not doing it, insist upon contracting for the future for £7,000 expenditure per annum for the maintenance of this thing? Personally, I cannot see why. I think this financial resolution ought to be refused. Remember that financial resolutions and what you do with them constitute the whole control of this House. Let this House exercise proper and intimate control over every financial resolution and it does not matter twopence halfpenny what other legislation comes from the body sitting upon the benches opposite. Refuse this resolution and refuse all financial resolutions that are concerned in this matter and you break up this miserable conspiracy to deform and degrade the Constitution of this country into the instrument of a Party caucus. You have an opportunity here in this Bill. You hear of £400 and £200, the fact being that you are really arranging to pay £7,000 a year in salaries alone which you need not pay.

And that is not the whole of the expense. Why should we contract to do it? Will the addition of 20 members to the Seanad make any difference which will matter? Assume that it went on with its present forty, would it be any better or any worse? You may, no doubt, infiltrate five or six intelligent people into it, but they will be utterly overwhelmed by the votes of the majority of those already sent there for the purpose for which they were sent there. Does it matter? Just envisage two Seanads, one of 60 members and one of 40. Will its Constitution be altered in such a significant manner as to justify this increase of expenditure by £7,000 a year which you can save? Are there not any better purposes in Ireland to which we could put this £7,000 a year? Is this the best use we can make of it, not to speak of £400 or £200 token amount which is used for the purpose of starting again this instrument of extravagance? Are you getting value for your £7,000? Let us assume, for the moment, that you are getting some value for your expenditure upon the 40 Senators. Are these other 19 that you are sending back going to make such a brilliant difference? Even if the whole lot were good men, they could not vote down the vested interests that the President is so anxious not to disturb and whose right of tenure, whether 12 or 15 or 20 years, he introduced Bills to safeguard.

Is the Seanad going to be bettered by the introduction of these nineteen new members? Why not leave it at 40? Leaving out altogether the question of what their powers are and whether they are right or wrong—these we will deal with at the proper time, and if they are not dealt with properly then they will be dealt with properly again—why 60 members? Why pass this Bill that enables you to have 60 when you have 40? What value are you to get? The issue you will have to decide when you vote for the £400 or £200 resolution is: are you getting value for £7,000 a year which you do not need to spend? Have you no better purpose to put your £7,000 than this purpose? A question was asked to-day as to money for relief of unemployment. We were told we could not have it—and I think this is a very strong reason—because it would have to be balanced by the introduction of a Money Bill to provide additional taxation to that amount. If the effort you are now starting on, to spend this £7,000, is stopped by the rejection of this resolution, then you will have £7,000 which will not have to be raised by taxation and which can be used for one of the two, three, or five hundred other purposes which any man of intelligence in this House can see is more important than that of raising the Seanad from 40 to 60 members.

This resolution is to authorise the expenditure of something like £200 of a minimum and £400 of a maximum sum instead of the system of election which has been in operation until these amendments of the Constitution came into the Dáil. That is the matter we have got to consider, and not all the rubbish to which we have just listened. This is a limitation of public moneys, a much more economical and business-like method of dealing with the matter. This is carrying out a recommendation made by a Joint Committee of the Dáil and Seanad, which the Fianna Fáil members voted for and which ever since they have tried to get out of. Election by the people is undesirable. That is what they subscribed to, notwithstanding all the thunder, noise and denunciation which we have heard. That is what was subscribed to by Fianna Fáil members when the Committee considered this matter. This Bill is one of a series carrying out recommendations of the Joint Committee, and the expense saved is considerable. The expense of a triennial election is, I suppose, about £40,000. The Seanad register costs between £2,000 and £4,000; the cost now will be between £200 and £400, and yet we have been told through all the thunder and noise to which we have listened that that is bad business.

Would you like to save the £200?

Would the President take——

I submit that this is a motion, and I have concluded on it, so that the Deputy is out of order.

I am not. If you prefer that I should not talk I shall stop.

I would much prefer to hear the Deputy.

Perhaps the Deputy would prefer to hear me. The position is this. It is the usual practice, when the mover of a motion replies, to end the debate, but if Deputy Flinn insists I think he is within his rights in speaking, as a Deputy can speak more than once in Committee on Finance.

Honestly I do not think the President's debating method is worth it, but perhaps I will.

If the Deputy believed that he would not speak.

We know the President's method well. He picks up some irrelevant little point, gets up, and is humorously impertinent, and irrelevant. He gets away with it and has been getting away with it because he always talks last. Just as he has attempted in this case to do, he has been able to prevent people from examining his little irregularities and his impudent irrelevancies. You have had a case of that now. He did exactly what I tell you and, though an ordinary and unassuming private member in Opposition, meek and shy, was attempting to exercise the rights which he has under the rules, the President attempted to bluff that innocent and shy member and this House into the idea that that member had no right to do what that innocent and shy member, in his ignorance of the rules, thought he had a right to do.

The President says that it is a question of saving £40,000. It is not a question of saving £40,000. You must be expected or you are always supposed to intend the reasonable consequences that follow from any act. You are always expected to intend to avoid the reasonable consequence of not doing any act which you might avoid. Now the reasonable consequence, the inevitable consequence, of passing this resolution is that £7,000 of salaries in the Seanad, which will not be paid if this is not passed, will be paid. Will the impudent irrelevancies meet that? Will they say it is not true? Will they say that if we do not pass this resolution, they will be able to spend that £40,000 on an election without introducing special legislation to upset the legislation which they have introduced in this Bill? They will have legislation in relation to the election of the Seanad, and they will have no means of carrying out and financing it unless they play some hoofling trick with the finances and come to the House for a Bill of Indemnity afterward for their financial misconduct.

That is the direct issue and it is not the slightest use for the President to try to side-track the issue. He is asking you to do an act which would involve you in an expenditure of £7,000 a year, which, if you do not do that act, you will not be involved in. Of course, that is trying to misrepresent the action of Fianna Fáil on the Committee, that impartial Committee, that utterly unpacked and judicial Committee which dealt with the Constitution of the Seanad and those other Bills. He did not tell you that what Fianna Fáil were out to see was that not merely £7,000, but £76,000 would be saved. He did not tell you that by loading that Committee with an equal representation from the Seanad and his own nominees from this House he had made it impossible for us to save this £76,000, that he had made it impossible for us to say that that Seanad should not be elected at all. He did not say that. He knows it, and he chooses to misrepresent it, and the closed valve of his Press will keep from the people the fact that he is deliberately misrepresenting to this House in relation to a matter which he did know.

When you cannot do a thing which you want to do, you may have to choose between different alternatives and you may have to choose between lesser evils. Every vote that was given by Fianna Fáil members on that Commission was a choice between lesser evils, and I think we are faced by the fact that the interested representation of the Seanad and the representation of Cumman na nGaedheal on that Commission were sufficient to prevent any useful or proper decision being taken by it.

Now come back to the issue again. You are asked to do an act, the direct and inevitable consequence of which will be that £7,000 a year, which would not be otherwise expended, will have to be expended on salaries alone, in the Seanad. I am asking you to refuse to pass a motion which, if you refuse to pass it, will mean that unless they hoofle with the finances of the House, unless they do something behind the backs of the House and come back afterwards with their machined majority to get through an Act of Indemnity to cover their financial hoofles, will make it impossible for them to put on you that charge of £7,000 a year. £400 is the maximum! One capital sum, £7,000, is an annual sum. That is the amount of the gross and the deliberate misrepresentation of the financial facts which was offered by the President in his very impudent speech.

Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 55.

Tá.

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Doherty, Eugene.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Dwyer, James.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Vaughan, Daniel.
  • White, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Jordan, Michael.
  • Keogh, Myles.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Leonard, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
  • Myles, James Sproule.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, William Archer.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cassidy, Archie J.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doyle, Edward.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Holt, Samuel.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kent, William R.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killane, James Joseph.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
  • O'Leary, William.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Reilly, Thomas.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Peadar Doyle and Duggan; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Cassidy. Motion declared carried.
Barr
Roinn