I propose to speak principally on the amendment. The members of the Independent Group cannot congratulate themselves in believing this proposal has led to a very useful debate in this House. Unfortunately the debate was brought very early to the level of personalities. I am afraid if I had replied at an earlier stage I should have fallen a victim to the temptation to respond accordingly, particularly because there is a tendency, if that sort of thing is overlooked, to presume upon it being overlooked. I agree whole-heartedly with the President and others as to the regrettable nature of such personalities, and because of the fact that they always tend to draw away discussion from the real merits or demerits of the proposals. I do not intend saying anything more on that line, except this, that allied with that there was a great deal of misplaced speculative ingenuity as to what were the motives underlying this proposal of the Independents, or some of the Independents. Of course these speculations are all wrong. Those who indulged in them disregarded the simple and obvious explanation. Again, that sort of inventive ingenuity simply led others to go on the same line rather than discuss whether the proposition itself was a good one or not. It is not a question of what any particular Deputy thinks of the proposer of this Bill or how little he cares what that particular Deputy thinks or not of the motives behind the proposal.
What we wanted to discuss is the question as to whether this was a good proposition or a bad proposition. It was a suggestion for economy. I think we are all agreed that economy is necessary wherever it can be introduced with advantage, and the real question is whether the economy suggested had advantages which more than compensated for the comparatively small monetary gain that would accrue if the proposal were adopted. Members of the Independent Group hoped to produce some useful discussion in this House. The only serious attempt, I think, that was made to touch on that proposition was made by Deputy O'Connell, and if he was serious in asking that a case should be put forward for the matter, undoubtedly he ought to be answered, and such a case ought to be established, but it seemed to us that on the face of it there was a case at least for consideration of the matter, and that it did not require any great argument to establish the fact that the matter ought to be considered. It is very doubtful, it seemed to us, whether the various calls on a Senator and on a Deputy in various respects, whether in time and in expense in calls from the constituency, in keeping him in touch with his constituency, in various ways justify the ratio of equality being applied to the question of the allowances that are given to Senators and Deputies. I stress the point that this sum under consideration is not a salary. It is an allowance, and it was so intended from the beginning. I think in considering that attention ought to be paid to what I call the "responsibilities"—and I hope in using that word I will not be misunderstood—of Deputies and Senators.
I do not at all mean to say that the responsibility of a Senator in his position is not just as great as the responsibility of a member of the Dáil in his position. By "responsibility" a good many other things are covered than the mere sense of responsibility in filling the position. I think it is obvious that in the wider sense the responsibilities of a Dáil member are greater than those of a Senator, not that I at all hold the view that the call on the Senator is confined to the number of days in which the Seanad happens to be sitting. It is far wider than that, and if he does his work as a Senator properly it would involve a great deal more responsibility than attendance in the Seanad when sitting, and the time taken by him to perform his work properly would be far greater than the time required for such attendance. I do not suggest at all that it would be measured by the actual number of meetings either body holds, but I think it does follow if one body sits a great deal more frequently than another body that the time taken up by a member of that body in paying proper attention to his duties will be greater, and will be more of a drawing away from the work on which he would be otherwise engaged than it would in the case of the second body.
My point is, that I think it would be hard to establish in equity a case for equality of treatment between the two, and, therefore, prima facie there is a case for the consideration of the question. I was hoping that arguments would be put up on the other side to indicate that even though that was the case that the comparatively small monetary saving that would be made would not justify making any difference in a monetary point of view between allowances to members of the two bodies. I think the only suggestion of an argument that was put was that the effect of this proposal would be in the case of a wage-earner—I take it what was meant was wage-earner as opposed to somebody in receipt of a salary in a fixed position—to make it impossible for a wage-earner to become a candidate for membership of the Seanad. I do not think that that argument is tenable. If the proposition had been to refuse an allowance to a member of the Seanad that might have been so, but the proposal made by the Independents is very much in favour of the wage-earner as compared with one who is in receipt of a regular salary. It seems to me that the proposition to allow him £4 a week, if you like, would be very much more attractive to him, and would pay him for the time taken in doing his work as a Senator properly much better than it would pay one who was in receipt of a regular salary. At any rate, that is one point which may be open to argument and which should be discussed properly.
