The position with regard to this Bill is that Deputy Thrift made a speech on the Second Reading motion. An amendment was then introduced to refer certain matters to a Joint Committee and the Bill was postponed and comes up now. In view of the fact that just twelve months have elapsed since Deputy Thrift introduced the Second Reading debate, I think I might allow Deputy Thrift to make the motion again. There will, I think, be no objection to that.
Private Deputies' Business. - Oireachtas (Payment of Members) (No. 2 Bill), 1928—Second Stage (Resumed).
I am obliged to the House for the permission given me. I did not expect that I would have an opportunity of speaking on the subject until the close of the debate. In view of the time that has elapsed, I think I should remind Deputies of the circumstances under which the Bill was brought forward, and of the reason for it. Deputies will remember that it came before the House rather in a hurry. It is as well that I should remind Deputies of the fact that it arose out of the last election for members of the Seanad. In view of the circumstances, it was thought advisable to circulate the Bill even before the result of the election was known, and that was done. That, however, had not the effect that was hoped, namely, that it would prevent various kinds of motives being suggested for the introduction of the Bill. That is not very material, because the simple fact is that the motive was one of economy. The Independent Deputies, for whom I am speaking in this matter, were looking round at the time for a way in which money could be saved and it seemed to them that the basis on which the allowances were made for members of the Dáil and Seanad was not fair and equitable, and that it left open an opportunity for saving a certain amount of money. That is the simple case for the Bill being brought forward by the Independent Deputies.
The proposal in the Bill would save the State 60 times £160—nearly £10,000. I do not think anybody would be prepared to say that the calls on Senators in any way, except the moral responsibility they have for the passage of legislation, are at all equal to the calls made upon Deputies, whether in the matter of time or in the matter of expense. The sum that is allowed both for members of the Dáil and Seanad is explicitly an allowance, not a salary, and the Independent Deputies are, on this point, quite at variance with many of those from whom they have received support in reference to this reduction of allowances. Their purpose is not at all to diminish the importance of the Senator's position or the sense of responsibility under which he holds office—quite the reverse. Their object is that the Seanad should continue to be an important part of this Oireachtas. If the introduction of this Bill does no more than awaken the Seanad to a more lively sense of their responsibilities in this matter and should lead to the result that the Seanad becomes a much more important part of the Oireachtas than it has been up to the present, it will have served a good purpose.
The allowances made to Deputies are to cover a variety of ways in which they suffer, both in loss of time and in actual expense. In the latter respect, they are in a very different position from Senators. Most of them have a very large constituency to look after and to cover if an election should arise, and their expenses in connection with elections are very much higher and ought to be very much higher than those of Senators. The Senator has no special constituency; he stands for the whole State and has no particular constituency to deal with. He has no claims to meet from his constituency. A member of the Dáil is in quite a different position, and most members of the Dáil have found that their expenses in dealing with their constituency come to quite a considerable thing. Many members of the Dáil, I understand, would say that their postal expenses, alone, are a very considerable item and absorb quite an appreciable part of the allowance they get. I do not say that Senators have not postal expenses—they have—but I say they are not on anything like the same scale as that of most Deputies.
The allowance is intended to make up, to a certain extent, to the members of the Dáil for the expense they incur in seeking election, and, further, to make up for the expenses they have to bear in attending to the wants and needs of their constituents and their repeated calls upon them. These are, as I say, very different from the calls made upon Senators. It seemed to the Independent Deputies that the basis of equality which was laid down as the basis on which allowances to Deputies and Senators are calculated is not an equitable basis and therefore, they introduced this Bill—a Bill which abandons that ratio of equality and makes a specific allowance to Senators on a given figure. The figure suggested is £200 a year which is a different figure from that on which the allowance to Deputies is calculated.
When any question of economy arises, of course, it has to be considered, not in itself, but in its relationship to what will accrue from it. The simple question always will be, and must be, is the economy worth while. What are you going to lose if you introduce this economy? I suppose there will hardly ever be a case, when a balancing of accounts has not to be made. If economy has to be made something will suffer. The only argument I have heard put forward in this connection is that what we shall lose is the possibility of finding Senators who will give up their whole time as Senators to the business. It does not seem to me that it can be contended that there is any kind of possibility of Senators' work being whole-time work, and that all that we should lose would be the occassional absence from the Seanad of somebody who would be prepared to devote his whole time to his responsible work as a Senator. Of course if we lost a single person of that kind it would be an extremely regrettable loss. The most desirable person to have would be one who would devote his whole time to his work. But the question is: Is that really going to be a practical point? How many, if any, are we going to have who will devote themselves entirely to their Senatorial work? It will be said that an odd case will arise. No doubt it will arise. There may be, even at present, one or more, not many, who could not accept the position of Senator unless the sum given at present, as an allowance, were continued. I do not know, but I think the case would be a very rare one. It is for Deputies to say whether they think that a saving of £10,000 a year is or is not a greater advantage than keeping open that possibility. Personally I think the losses would be very small in numbers—not small in importance, because as I said a single loss of the kind would be a matter of importance.
I do not at all think that the proposal which is suggested is what could be called an undemocratic proposal or that it would tend to confine membership of the Seanad to one or more particular classes. It seems to me, in view of the actual time that is taken for sitting purposes by members of the Seanad, and of the probability, that in the future, their time of sitting will be very much smaller than the time of the sitting of members of the Dáil, that, even, if an allowance of £200 a year is made to Senators it would be just as much as and perhaps more open to what I might call the non-salaried class to assume the responsibility of Senator, in the future, than it was in the past. A man could spare the odd days required for the sitting of the Seanad, and the £4 a week, which £200 would give him would more than make up for the monetary loss he would suffer. So that I think the proposal is entirely clear of what I would call the slur thrown upon it that it is an attempt to limit the class from which the members of the Seanad can in practice be selected. It does not seem to me to have that effect at all.
I have no elaborate case to put forward in support of the Bill. The case is one that carries its own argument on the surface. It is simply and purely a way of looking for economy. There is no elaborate motive behind it despite the ingenious theories framed in that respect. It is for each member of the Dáil to decide for himself whether he thinks that economy worth while or not.
I am aware I am addressing the House after the report of the Committee has been issued with which this proposal did not find favour. Nevertheless the Independent Deputies for whom I speak think that the matter is one on which the Dáil itself, as a whole, should give its opinion and they have decided therefore to take the opinion of the Dáil upon it. I have no doubt, as I said before, that those who vote for the proposal will do so for very different purposes. Our purpose is to maintain the Seanad with all its dignity and responsibility and importance. I have no doubt that the support which the Fianna Fáil Party have promised to this proposal in what they said on the amendment is given for quite a different reason because they wish to get rid of the Seanad. That is not our purpose at all. In fact if we vote for this proposal together we vote for it from quite distinct and opposite reasons— as opposite as the Poles. I do not think it is necessary to go into the report any further because the arguments on this particular matter that came before the Committee seem to me to be very briefly those with which I have dealt already. On behalf of the Independent Deputies I propose that this Bill be now read a Second Time.
I think when introducing a Bill of this description it should have been based on justice, on service, and the cost of giving service. I think a broader view should have been taken by both Houses of the Oireachtas. I suggest to the mover that it would be in better taste if consideration was given to both Houses. The word used is "allowance" for members of one class and salaries for another class. To one class it is an income and to another class an allowance. Any Bill having an object such as this one has, should be based on service and the cost of giving that service. The original idea was to give allowances to Deputies and Senators, and a flat rate was struck. At the time, I opposed the flat rate on the ground that Deputies from the country should, to some extent, be compensated for the expense they were put to in coming to Dublin, leaving their homes and business, and finding temporary accommodation in the city. People who had their homes and their business in Dublin were in a different position from people who had to come up from the country. I hold that view more firmly now than I did then. We know that those who have to leave their homes and to live in Dublin for a portion of the week are under considerable expense. If they have a business they have to find a substitute and pay him, and there is the additional risk that their business will not be done as well by substitutes as by themselves.
If the Deputy was actuated by strict justice and the giving of service the Bill would be on much broader lines. An allowance for men coming up from the country becomes an income for those who live in Dublin, because the latter can live at home and attend to their business. I do not know if it were the intention to narrow it to a circle of people with means who could afford to come here as a hobby or as an amusement, and have a few letters attached to their names. The effect has been to narrow the circle to people living in the city of Dublin. We saw at the recent Seanad election the number of Dublin citizens anxious to serve their country. Numbers of them were around the corridors trying to serve their country, for a consideration. Very few people from the country came around lobbying.
I believe this Bill should contain a clause dealing with services given. I am prepared to support any Bill which will withhold money from Deputies or Senators who do not give service, who just qualify to be entitled to the allowance, and whose only function is to draw it. I will go a long way to keep that class of individual from drawing any money. I refer to the man who has no expense and who does not attend, whose only function is his connection with the Minister for Finance. That class of individual is receiving money under false pretences. The word "allowance" has been stressed by Deputy Thrift, but an individual of the description I have mentioned, who has no expenses, is receiving money by false pretences, and that is perpetrating a fraud on the public. I could understand a proposal based on service, but I cannot understand this Bill, which is supposed to be in the interests of economy. The Deputy seems to me to have blundered into this Bill without any consideration of the justice of the case or making a comparison of the two Houses. I know members of every Party who have to spend two or three nights in Dublin every week. They leave home on Tuesday morning and they cannot return until Saturday. Some of us can get home on Friday night late, but men from Cork and other places cannot get home until Saturday. I know that the allowances do not cover the expenses they are put to, not to mention the neglect of their business, which must suffer in their absence.
I think the Deputy would be very well advised, at this stage, to withdraw the Bill, and if he is actuated by a desire to save expense, let us have a more fully-considered Bill, based on justice and on service, which will have the support of the House. Let a Committee sit down and try and hammer out a measure based on justice, and it will have support. Even if a general reduction in the present allowances is agreed on I will not oppose it. I will not stand, however, for picking and choosing. The Party that I belong to knows that there is a great difficulty in getting representative men throughout the country to come up and spend their time in the Dáil or Scanad. That is certainly the case in connection with the Dáil. It is very difficult to get men in the country to go forward for the Dáil, while hordes can be got in the city, knowing that it is a good job; that the money is an income. It is an income to the city man. There is no getting behind that. There are hordes of people in the city who want to represent country constituencies.
Not at all.
Some of them are going to Wexford.
As Deputy Thrift explained, this Bill was originally introduced in November, 1928, prior to the election for the Seanad, which took place towards the close of that year, and when it became obvious that certain allies of the Deputy in the Upper Chamber, if I may call it so, were about to walk the plank. I do not want to attribute any motives whatever to the Deputy. He said himself that his only motive in introducing the Bill was to impose economy. I am prepared to take his word for that, although I think it extraordinary that the motive did not prove of longer duration than it did, as has been evidenced by the votes cast by the Deputy on the Special Committee which resulted. When the Bill was introduced a Deputy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party moved an amendment referring the question to a Special Committee. That amendment was carried. The motion was considered in the Seanad, and was there amended, extending the terms of reference to cover not merely the remuneration of Senators and Teachtaí, but the remuneration of Ministers. The Committee met. I was a member of it. It seemed to me quite obvious from the beginning that the purpose for which the Committee was set up, and the main object of the Cumann na nGaedheal members of it, was not to discuss the proposal to reduce the allowances of Senators to £200 per year, but to devise a scheme for giving pensions to ex-Ministers.
If that was the object would it not be outside the scope of this discussion?
I am not quite sure about that. The Committee was set up in consequence of the introduction of the Bill. The motion to set up the Committee was moved as an amendment to the motion for the Second Reading. It seems to me, therefore, that matters discussed at the Committee could be properly discussed on the resumed Second Reading of the Bill.
I do not think so. I think on this particular motion we could not go into anything further than the allowances to Senators and Deputies. If the report of the Joint Committee is to be discussed in general, I think another opportunity must be taken. If we were to go into all the matters dealt with by the Joint Committee, I think we will wander very far from the question of allowances to be paid to members of Seanad Eireann. I think the point made by Deputy Gorey must be deemed to be relevant, namely, the allowances paid to the different types of Deputies. I think the other general question dealt with by the Joint Committee must be discussed in some other way than on the Second Reading of this Bill.
I think it is likely that we will get an opportunity of discussing that particular proposal when Deputy Gorey's measure is introduced.
As I understand it, we can discuss the allowances to Deputies now.
Yes.
The Minister can attack from behind cover now. As Deputy Thrift pointed out, the Joint Committee rejected his proposal. Despite the valiant efforts of the Fianna Fáil-Trinity College combination, we were unable to get the Cumann na nGaedheal and Labour Members to see our point of view.
Or to keep your own truce?
We do not reckon as being on our side those who have allied themselves with the enemy.
A member of your own hierarchy was on the Committee?
Not on our Committee. The fact remains that it was quite obvious the entire Seanad, irrespective of Party, was united in one solid block to defeat this proposal. Despite the efforts, however, of the Fianna Fáil-Trinity College combination the proposal of Deputy Thrift was rejected, but I am glad to say we were quite successful in restraining members of the Seanad from recommending an increase in their allowance. There was at one time considerable danger that the result of the Committee would be a recommendation that allowances should be increased all around. I grant you the proposal to do that was merely a preliminary manoeuvre in preparation for a subsequent proposal to increase the allowance of Ministers.
On the point of order that arose. When the Second Reading of this Bill was moved in the Dáil an amendment was moved. This was the amendment:
That it is expedient that a Joint Committee consisting of five members of the Dáil and five members of the Seanad be set up to consider and report on the question of the amount of the allowance which should be paid to members of Seanad Eireann.
The amendment moved here, therefore, had relevance only to matters in relation to this Bill, but in subsequent messages between the two Houses and at the instance of the Seanad, the Joint Committee was given wider terms of reference. Those wider terms of reference cannot be introduced here, and the Deputy will realise that if he introduces other matters besides the allowances paid to Senators or Deputies, other people will be entitled to reply. If other people are not allowed to reply, the Deputy is now taking an unfair advantage.
Is there any reference to Deputies in that Bill?
Mr. Boland
Deputy Gorey spoke mostly about Deputies. I submit that the question of Deputies' allowances only came into that Committee. It was not brought into the Bill. Therefore, I imagine it should not be relevant here, if the question of Ministers' salaries is not relevant. We have no objection to having Deputies' allowances discussed provided Ministers' salaries are discussed.
I criticised the Bill for what it did not contain, and I gave an indication of what I would support.
That was out of order.
Deputy Gorey was absolutely relevant, and was, therefore, not called to order. He was relevant not because he alluded to matters which were contained in the Report of the Joint Committee, and which the Joint Committee considered, but because, as a matter of pure reason, the allowances to Deputies may be regarded as relevant to the allowances paid to Senators.
That is too abstruse for ordinary members.
It is not abstruse; it is common sense. The question of allowances to Senators and Deputies may be discussed, but the question of salaries of Ministers is in a different category and must be discussed on another occasion. I have frequently told Deputies that rulings from the Chair nearly always contain the word "now." We cannot "now" enter into any discussion about salaries.
Did I understand you to say the allowances paid to various types of Deputies? You ruled that it was relevant to discuss the allowances paid to various types of Deputies. Therefore, it is in order to discuss the allowances paid to Ministers.
Ministers are not paid allowances; they are paid salaries.
Therefore, I think it is quite relevant to compare the allowance made to a Deputy, from the point of view of the value given by a Deputy and a Senator respectively.
Deputy Thrift did that.
Why is it not in order to compare the allowance paid to Senators for their work in relation to the salary of Ministers for their work?
The word salary explains that.
We will get back to the particular proposal in the Bill. The report of the Committee states that in arriving at the conclusion not to recommend any reduction in the present scale of allowances it was influenced by two main considerations. The first is that in a democratic State—they presumed that this was a democratic State—membership of either House of the Legislature should be open to citizens of every rank without undue sacrifice of private interests. That is a very high-sounding principle to which I am sure all Deputies and Senators subscribe. They went on to say that, secondly, having regard to the actual interference with such interests and to the expense inevitably incidental to their position as members of the Oireachtas. Senators and Deputies should discharge their duties conscientiously, giving full value to the State for the allowance now paid. It is on that second item that I join issue with the majority of the Committee. Deputy Gorey has given a very interesting contribution to this discussion. I am very much surprised to know that he considers an allowance of £200 a year too high for Senators. I thought that when Deputy Thrift proposed to reduce the allowance from £360 to £200 he would have met any possible objection which Deputy Gorey might be inclined to bring forward. That we should find Deputy Gorey unsatisfied and anxious to reduce the allowance further is, I must say, a complete surprise to us.
I did not suggest that.
I am certain that the Deputy said that Senators should be paid in accordance with the value of the service they gave.
Yes, service they gave.
Would not that involve a reduction below £200 a year?
I do not know.
I appear to have misunderstood the Deputy.
Some of them give no service at all and should get nothing.
It is, perhaps, news to Deputy Gorey to know that members of the Seanad are in fact required to do very little work. The Seanad meets on an average about forty days in the year and meets for the purpose of watching the Clerk stamp Government Bills and of discussing the advisability of adjourning for tea. Senators have no constituencies and are not bothered by voters who require matters to be taken up with various Government Departments. They have nothing to do except to meet in the Seanad Chamber forty times in the year and go home again. We, that is, the Trinity College-Fianna Fáil combination, suggest that having regard to the actual interference with their personal interests involved in such work the allowance of £200 a year should be adequate. Members of the Seanad were not, of course, prepared to subscribe to that particular proposal and they fought strenuously against it but were unable to produce any real arguments within the terms of reference of the Committee as to why the proposal should be rejected. So they threw the rules of order to the winds and brought in proposals which had nothing to do with the terms of reference to the effect that the amount of work entrusted to Senators should be increased. Whether it is or is not possible to increase the amount of work entrusted to Senators is a matter that has been discussed in this House previously in various forms. The view of Deputies on these benches is that if we want that work done well it should not be entrusted to Senators, but if it is of an unimportant nature which would be likely merely to waste the time of the Dáil it might safely be entrusted to the Second Chamber. I refer to such matters as the protection of wild birds and things of that kind.
And amendments to the Constitution.
Yes. I thank the President for bringing to my notice a type of work for which the Seanad is ideally suited—matters of no importance, matters of pure academic interest such as amendments to the Constitution.
Mr. Hogan
Such as the treatment of political prisoners.
That is a matter of much greater importance than amendments to the Constitution. As a matter of fact, I notice that an eminent medical man who was discussing that particular question in Dublin recently outlined the system adopted in America.
In regard to the payment of Senators?
Oh, no. This report with which I was dealing stated that a minority contended that the allowance to Senators should be reduced because the Parliamentary duties and public activities which Senators are required to undertake are not so extensive as in the case of Deputies. The minority consisted, of course, of the Trinity College-Fianna Fáil combination, but that combination did not last long. The alliance between Cumann na nGaedheal, Labour, the McGillycuddy of the Reeks——
Mr. Hogan
And Colonel Moore.
Yes. That combination defeated us on the particular issue of allowances to Senators, but then broke up, and Fianna Fáil was left to fight a lone battle against other proposals to effect economies to which Deputy Thrift alluded.
Mr. Hogan
Perhaps Deputy Lemass would make it clear whether Colonel Moore was speaking as a Senator or as a member of Fianna Fáil Executive?
I think it would be very advisable to omit Senator's names from this discussion.
I could read the terms of reference. It appears from the resolution that the Committee was appointed by the Dáil and Seanad. Presumably Colonel Moore, not being appointed by the Dáil, was appointed by the Seanad. I may say that if my recollection is correct the gentleman mentioned owes his membership of the Seanad to the nomination of the President.
Oh, I do not think so. Please relieve me of that responsibility.
The President cannot possibly be relieved of that responsibility. The majority of the Committee contended that the existing allowance should be regarded as a minimum for members of both Houses. That particular sentence in the report brings us up against Deputy Gorey's proposition. Apparently Deputy Gorey, in asking that members of the Seanad should be paid in relation to the value of the service which they give, did not contemplate any reduction in the existing allowance. It is obvious that his purpose is to ensure that certain Senators who give some service should have their allowance increased as a token of the Dáil's appreciation.
I did not mention anything about increase. I think they are paid enough, both here and there.
I am afraid I misunderstood the Deputy.
Yes, purposely.
The Deputy gave me the impression that he was dissatisfied with the existing arrangement. I am glad to hear that he is not. Perhaps he is only dissatisfied with the existing arrangement in regard to the Dáil. Surely this altruism on the part of Deputy Gorey is worthy of great praise. If Deputies are to be paid in relation to the value of their service Deputy Gorey's self-sacrifice should be recorded in the official records of the Dáil.
If you mean by serving giving away all the gas, I know what service you give.
I would not call it gas—hot air.
Yes, hot air.
The Deputy mentioned that it was very difficult for the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to get representative men from the rural constituencies. That fact is not to be attributed to the arrangement regarding allowances. The members of Fianna Fáil Party are paid the same allowance, but we have no difficulty in getting representative men from the rural constituencies. I suggest that the Deputy should seek the cause of the inability of Cumann na nGaedheal to get such representative men in the policy of his Party and not in the system of paid allowances. Apparently, however, according to the Deputy, they have no difficulty in securing hordes of representative men in Dublin. "Hordes" was the word actually used by the Deputy, but he did not explain how representative men——
I did not say "representative men."
If hordes of representative men in Dublin are anxious to become members of Cumann na nGaedheal how did certain members from Dublin come to be selected by that party? Surely if they had no difficulty in getting hordes of representative men they would not have selected Deputies like Deputy Dr. Hennessy, Deputy Peadar Doyle and Deputy J.J. Byrne.
Surely the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies for Dublin compare very favourably with the representatives of Fianna Fáil for Dublin?
Deputy Byrne is quite entitled to his opinion. It is quite obvious that Deputy Byrne, having been a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party for quite a considerable time now is suffering from a superiority complex. That is the particular feature most noticeable amongst members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I agree, A Chinn Comhairle, that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party does not properly arise on this Bill. The methods of payment of members in different countries were considered and it was agreed unanimously that the present system of payment at a fixed rate is the most satisfactory arrangement. Deputy Gorey can be quite satisfied that the method which he had in mind was considered by the Committee and unanimously rejected by the Committee and the Committee included certain prominent members of his Party—I mean the Party to which he is now attached. The majority of the Committee then went on to make a most foolish remark. They said that a member of the Oireachtas—and I would remind the Deputy that the term "Oireachtas" included both Seanad and Dáil—must be prepared to devote much of his time and attention to Parliamentary business in general. I think that that is a fallacy. I think it is well known that there are amongst members of the Dáil and Seanad many who devote very little of their time to Parliamentary business in general. In fact I would say that 90 per cent. of the members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party outside the Executive Council have no interest in Parliamentary business other than the interests of the Chief Whip.
The Deputy is now departing from his opening statement, that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party is irrelevant.
I am merely giving examples.
The Deputy said that they were irrelevant. I agree most heartily. I agreed with him on the same point about Fianna Fáil last night.
I take it that we will be allowed to give a number of examples, having regard to the examples which the Deputy has quoted.
I think I am entitled to an increased allowance having regard to the Deputy's remarks.
I think the Deputy is certainly entitled to an increased allowance. He is probably the most useful member of Cumann na nGaedheal to his Party.
We are attending here when the members of the Deputy's Party are not here.
There is no reason why this debate, having started in a good-humoured vein, should develop into the old familiar wrangle which will not carry us anywhere.
Deputy Thrift having given us his reason for introducing this Bill, that reason being to effect economy, went on to say that the Seanad should be made an important part of the Oireachtas. It is quite noticeable from the particular phrascology used by the Deputy that he does not consider the Seanad an important part of the Oireachtas at present. Nobody can.
I think the Deputy misunderstood me. I said I wished to make it even a more important part of the Oireachtas than it is at present.
Things that are equal to the same are equal to one another. I agree with the Deputy that the opportunities for increasing the importance of the Seanad are unlimited. Let us consider that particular suggestion if it is not irrelevant. Is it desirable that the importance of the Seanad as part of the Oireachtas should be increased? We have had one suggestion put forward by the President to-day, namely, that the Seanad might be utilised for the purpose of discussing amendments to the Constitution. Is it necessary to amend the Constitution? Surely the Government were never restrained in their activities at any time by the difficulties arising out of an Article of the Constitution? They just ignored it, and, having ignored it, sometimes they felt bound in conscience to amend it, and no particular difficulties ensued in consequence of that decision. A Bill was introduced, the closure was applied, it went to the Seanad, it was stamped with the rubber stamp by the Clerk, it went to the Governor-General, and then became law. Is it necessary to keep the Seanad in existence in order that amendments to the Constitution might be effected? I do not think so. If that is the only purpose for which the Seanad is required, the case for its abolition is overwhelming, and I would remind Deputies that that is the only reason which the President gave for its existence.
The Deputy hoped to awaken Senators to a sense of their responsibility by this Bill, but these hopes are doomed to failure. I think it would be impossible to secure that end by any act of this House. If the reduction of the allowance from £360 to £200 a year would have that effect, then there is a case for the Bill stronger than anything which the Deputy has advanced heretofore, but the Deputy must realise, I am sure, that the task of awakening Senators to a sense of their responsibility is not likely to be achieved in a generation. I agree with the Deputy that there is no possibility in present circumstances of the Senators' work becoming whole-time work. There is consequently no need why Senators should be granted an allowance upon the same scale as members of the Dáil, who are expected to give a much greater amount of time and attention to the work that comes before them. It is impossible under present circumstances for anyone seriously to recommend an increase in the allowances paid to members of the Dáil. If the unfair balance between the Dáil and the Seanad is to be rectified it can be done only by reducing the allowance of Senators. That proposal, I agree, is not undemocratic. It will merely prevent a form of extravagance to which the Government is particularly prone. I would like to remind the Executive Council that the £10,000 a year saved in consequence of the passage of this Bill could be put to a very useful purpose. We had a discussion last week or the week before on the great services rendered to the country by the holding of motor races in Dublin.
The question of the motor races does not arise on this Bill.
Deputy Moore leaves the House again when this is mentioned.
If it is not possible to mention the direction in which money saved in consequence of the passage of this Bill can be spent, I would ask the House to consider this proposal. There are serious grounds for adopting it, and no serious grounds have been advanced against it. I do not think we are likely to get them, certainly not from the Minister for Agriculture.
Mr. Hogan
This proposal has been put forward quite seriously by Deputy Thrift, but I regret that it has not been considered seriously by Deputy Lemass. I am decidedly of opinion that it will not be considered seriously by the House. I intend to vote against the proposal for that and other reasons. Deputy Lemass is quite right in stating that this particular proposal has a rather interesting history. His historical knowledge, however, is always at fault. It is too recent. It began in 1916. In other matters, and even in this matter, it is a little bit too recent. This has a longer history than the Deputy thinks. It is true that Deputy Thrift introduced a Bill dealing with this question, and it was agreed upon that that particular Bill should be sent back to a committee to consider not only the question of Senators' allowances but also allowances to Deputies, Ministers' salaries and other similar questions. We all know what happened to that committee.
No.
Mr. Hogan
The report and evidence are here, and, as I understand the ruling of the Chair, I am relevant now in dealing with not only the question of Senators' allowances but also Deputies' allowances. This particular proposal has a most interesting history. I remember 1924 and 1925, before the Deputies opposite came into the Dáil. I listened then to many Fianna Fáil speakers down the country for want of other occupation, and while I was waiting for an opportunity to speak and talk sense to the people. I remember at that time the trend of their speeches, and I am glad to pay this tribute to the Fianna Fáil Party—they are still consistent. They were strongly of opinion then that the Seanad was useless, that it was a waste of money to pay Senators a penny; but they were equally strong in the opinion that the Dáil was useless, and that every single penny of the £360 that a Deputy draws was a waste of money.
The Fianna Fáil Party did not exist in 1924-1925.
That is a mere historical inaccuracy.
They had not deserted the Republic then.
Mr. Hogan
Quite so. They were absolutely clear on that point. I heard Deputies in my own and other counties explaining to the people at great length that every penny paid to Deputies was a pure waste of money.
That was before Fianna Fáil came in.
We are still of the same opinion with regard to the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies.
Mr. Hogan
The Deputy will later have an opportunity of making one of his eloquent—
And lucid.
Mr. Hogan
—and lucid speeches. Deputy Lemass talked about the sacrifices on the part of Deputy Gorey and said that they should be put on the records of the House— that they should be recorded here. I heard them telling people whom they alleged were down-trodden and over-taxed that the day they would go into the Dáil they would see that Deputies' allowances were cut down, that Deputies were paid commensurate with the services they gave and that they would be paid much less than £360 a year. In fact, some of the more patriotic and less scrupulous Deputies suggested that they would work for nothing, that they would do everything for pure love of country, for love of Kathleen Ni Houlihan.
Will the Minister give us one single quotation in that connection?
Mr. Hogan
I assure the Deputy that I did not go to the trouble—
Give a quotation.
Mr. Hogan
I have something better to do for my £1,700 a year than taking down the drivel, the dishonest drivel, that has been talked by Deputies on the other side on public platforms. Do the Deputies deny that they made those statements time and time again?
I must intervene here. Deputies are under the impression that they are entitled to make speeches but that their opponents are not. It is a melancholy fact that their opponents are so entitled.
Are we not entitled
The Deputy is not entitled to interrupt the Minister at all.
Mr. Hogan
The Deputy will have every opportunity of speaking later.
But the Minister interrupted Deputy Lemass when he was speaking.
We helped him.
When a Deputy is speaking and gives way to interruption, well and good; but there are different kinds of interruptions. Constantly the position is created here that a Minister is not to be allowed to speak at all without constant interruption. Apart from that being disorderly there is to be considered the ordinary element of fair play. It is constantly happening, and Deputies ought themselves to realise it.
Are we not entitled to hear a little more about Kathleen Ni Houlihan?
Mr. Hogan
As the President has said, so far from Deputy Lemass being interrupted when he was speaking, we helped him. Deputy Smith loses his nerve on the slightest provocation. Deputy Lemass is the one who spoke, and he got plenty of latitude. I am speaking the truth, and what every Deputy knows to be the truth, when I say that it was the gospel of Fianna Fáil up to the time they cashed their first cheques, or lost their first cheques, that they would cut all Deputies' salaries. Some of them said that Deputies should not be paid at all. All, however, were clear that Deputies were overpaid, and they declared that when they had anything to do with the state of affairs they would see to it that Deputies' salaries and allowances would be reduced within proper limits.
What happened? We heard a lot at that time about the sweets of office, how people became corrupt the moment they got a little money and position. What happened? The Deputies came in; they got their first cheques at the end of the first month and they cashed them, reluctantly, I am sure. I am perfectly certain there was the greatest reluctance among Deputies, whom I do not see on the benches opposite now. But they took them all the same. I suppose they found it a little easier the second time, and at the end of the year they were taking their money like the rest of us. Deputy Lemass said something about the motives of Deputy Thrift and why he had not introduced this proposal long ago. The Deputies were a year in the Dáil and they did nothing except cash their cheques. I might add that to a great extent, so far as the members of their Party are concerned, they failed to attend the Dáil or to do any work. We set up this Committee and after long deliberation they failed to come to any decision on any question but the one.
Any unanimous decision.
Mr. Hogan
Any unanimous decision. They decided unanimously that one thing was quite certain, and that is that every one of us, patriotic or not, Republican, Labour or Cumann na nGaedheal, should draw his £360 without a single penny being deducted. That is just one good example of Fianna Fáil consistency. Take the history of this question since 1923. Remember all the protestations that we heard from Deputies on the other benches and their predecessors. They come into the Dáil and sit tight for a year. They draw their cheques. When a Committee is set up—not by them— to go into this whole question, it is unanimous that whatever else happens—even though the sky might fall—Deputies must get every copper of the £360.
The Minister said that was the only unanimous decision of the Committee. It was not. There was another decision on a motion proposed by myself and recorded on page xiv.
Mr. Hogan
I am sure it is quite a proper decision.
The Minister should read the report before he proceeds to speak about it.
Mr. Hogan
Are we agreed that that was a unanimous decision? If I have not stated the particular position properly let some Deputy from the opposite benches tell me where I am inaccurate. I have not read the whole of the report because I have not had time.
I thought that.
Mr. Hogan
I take it that it is common case that there was a unanimous decision, and that is the history of all the heroics of the last three or four years. Moreover, when it comes to Senators' allowances, the only representative of Fianna Fáil from the Seanad on this Committee was also clear that Senators' allowances should not be touched. You have there a rather interesting position. Once the Fianna Fáil Deputies tasted, we will say, British gold —perhaps I should have said accepted—they got to like it and they want to continue to take it.
Thirty pieces of silver.
Mr. Hogan
As the President says, thirty pieces of silver. The Fianna Fáil Senator was corrupted in the same way. I suggest to Deputy Lemass that when he is President, which, of course, is certain to happen shortly, he will change his mind about Ministers' salaries also. I think that all the indications point to that, but in any event the history of this matter shows that it is a question that has not been considered seriously. It has not been considered on its merits by the Deputies opposite. They will vote for it for entirely different reasons to the reasons put forward by Deputy Thrift. It is a typical piece of Fianna Fáil eye-wash and the whole history of the matter shows that. Deputy Gorey made suggestions about making allowances corresponding to the expenses of the particular classes of Deputies and Senators. I do not think that that is practicable at all. I do not think that you can do more than approximate in this matter. But Deputy Lemass was very facetious on that question. He asked what should Deputies be paid and what should Senators be paid. That is a very interesting question— what should Senators be paid? Equally interesting it is to consider what Fianna Fáil Deputies should be paid.
The burden of taxation is too heavy.
Mr. Hogan
What happens here? There is a Party opposite with nothing to do, nothing to do except politics. The Party on the Government benches are mainly men with other interests, mainly men who have to work hard at home. On the Fianna Fáil benches—there are exceptions—a very large proportion of the Deputies on the Fianna Fáil benches have nothing to do except politics and draw their cheques. What is the experience here? The Party opposite on any important issue have more absentees from the Dáil than any other Party in the House. That is notorious, and the case was so bad and it had got to be so publicly noted that they had to be hauled over the coals by their own organisation. Yet Deputy Lemass has the impudence to come here and to make suggestions as to how the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies are neglecting their duties. I have a certain amount of interest in Deputy Lemass. He is promising. If he did but develop his sense of humour it would help him. If the Deputy developed a sense of humour he could not take the line that he has taken. A sense of humour would be very useful to the Deputy.
That concludes that line now.
Mr. Hogan
I am sure this Bill will go to a division. I am equally sure that the Fianna Fáil Deputies will troop into the Lobby in favour of it. They will do so under the very strict discipline of the Fianna Fáil whip. Fianna Fáil is the best regimented Party in the House, and the Deputies will troop in there in favour of Deputy Thrift's motion. They will do that for their own reasons, but clearly those reasons are not on the merits of the Bill. Deputy Thrift is in a difficult position. I admit that this is a sound proposal from this point of view, and it is put forward honestly. But I am not going myself to be a party to this Fianna Fáil eyewash, and that is what it will come to. I am with Deputy Gorey, for if ever this question is to be considered it should be considered on its merits. Not only should the allowances of Senators be considered, but the allowances of Deputies. And some consideration should be given to the services that these Deputies have been giving. We heard something from Deputy Lemass about the waste of time in the Seanad. They meet, we are told, to consider whether they will adjourn for tea and to put stamps on Government measures. Now when it comes to a waste of time there is far and away more waste of time in this House. Will Deputies, and especially Farmer Deputies, consider the amount of time that has been wasted during the last six months, and will they consider the amount of drivel talked on the question of wheat-growing here during Private Deputies' time when useful work could have been done for the country? I had to sit here and listen to Deputy after Deputy getting up and talking the most nauseating nonsense——
Now, now.
Mr. Hogan
Time and time again I have listened to a futile discussion here. There is more waste of public money in the Dáil in a week, in my opinion, than there is in the Seanad in a month. The Seanad does more useful work in the same time, undoubtedly.
The Seanad agrees with the Ministers.
Mr. Hogan
That is another slight weakness of his also and he has it in common with other members of his Party. The Deputy has got to realise that talk is not work. Many of them seem to imagine that to come here—many Deputies of his Party seem to be under this impression—that to come here and talk on every subject whether they understand it or not is doing the work of the country. I cannot agree with the Deputy that the Seanad is not doing useful work. I am satisfied that there is more time wasted here in the Dáil than there is in the Seanad. I put it to the Deputies here that this motion is not being considered on its merits, that the motion itself is not being considered on its merits. I say that this Bill should not be supported until some attempt is being made to meet the problems that arise not only in connection with Senators' but Deputies' allowances and until there comes realisation here that there should be some value for the allowances paid. I am sorry to notice that that realisation is not coming and there appears to be no sign of it on the benches opposite.
I can understand that a general feeling of irritation which may be attributed to the baser instincts of human nature should arise when the vexed question of salaries or the allowances of Deputies and Senators comes under consideration. If the Ministers feel that right is on their side and that wrong is on our side why not call in the Chamber of Commerce or somebody else and appoint a committee to go into the whole question? In that way we would be spared this discussion which generally engenders a lot of heat and, I am sorry to say, an amount of personal animosity. I do not think that the Minister, in spite of the fact that I find in him a slight improvement and that I find a more reasonable frame of mind running through his speech, helps his case, for which I admit there is strong support and a good deal of reason, when he falls back on the old jibe about cashing our cheques. If the consideration of cashing cheques was the paramount consideration it is extraordinary that, except for one or two errant sheep, that a larger number of Deputies could not be got to enter this House before the Fianna Fáil Party entered it. It is extraordinary that men could not be found to cash those cheques at an earlier period.
The Minister seems to forget in that connection a matter about which I have no hesitation in reminding the House. And that is that during the period when we were outside this House the Government in office had full power and complete patronage at their disposal. I for one have no hesitation in saying that they used that power to the full and that any plums that were going or any public positions that were going, naturally, and I suppose inevitably, in the circumstances, fell to their own Party and to their own supporters. If the Fianna Fáil Deputies were hard up and undoubtedly they were hard up I think that is no disgrace for them. I think on the other hand it is of some credit to them that they did come in at a time when they considered it necessary for the benefit of the nation that they should come. They estranged a good deal of their own supporters by doing so. They did that not because they were hard up and reduced to a particular condition, though I do not deny that. There existed amongst many of them very hard circumstances. Many of them had fled the country and a great many of them like myself had lost their positions because they had been dismissed by the Government opposite. I do not introduce that for any personal reason, but I want to answer the contemptible sneer that has been made that we came in here to cash our cheques. If we went to Chicago or any other city in America, at the very least we would get as good cheques as we are getting out of this place.
Mr. Hogan
I did not make that point. I did not complain that Deputies had cashed their cheques. What I said was that they protested before that they would never do the like.
I say that the Minister cannot show where any Deputy on this side ever said that. I took a most prominent part in what may be called the extravagance campaign. Perhaps I may have modified my attitude or I may not, but I devoted my attention chiefly on the platform to the viewpoint that those at the top should reduce their own salaries before asking those at the bottom to do so. I was quite glad, however, to find Deputy Gorey, who is well known to his constituents as being a strong supporter of the policy that labour costs and wages should be reduced on every conceivable occasion in order to lighten the burden of taxation on farmers, getting up and adopting an entirely different policy and saying that members of the Seanad should have no reduction made in their allowances.
I did not say that.
Deputy Gorey is very strong on advocating a policy of a general reduction all round. Why has he not produced a proposal in this House urging a general reduction all round? Why is he always taking advantage of his position on every possible occasion to cut the under dog?
It was done.
What was done? If you mean that the teachers' salaries were cut, of course they were cut all right, and the Deputy can take some credit for that.
And the old age pensions were cut.
The Minister has made great play with the name of a certain Senator associated with our Party. Senator Moore's position, in connection with this matter, is that he regards it as one primarily for the Seanad, that the Seanad ought to decide its own affairs. I dare say he believes that no such action should be taken with regard to the Seanad without corresponding action being taken in the case of the Dáil. The Senator is entitled to hold that view. I am sure that most members of this House would hold the converse proposition that an attempt at a reduction in the allowances of members of the Dáil should not be carried through without a similar reduction being made in the allowances of Senators. Senator Moore, in that matter, takes up the position that the Seanad is a body which is doing some work. That is his own personal point of view, and we are not going to bind him in that matter. If he thinks that the Seanad is doing good work, and that in the circumstances the members of it should get allowances, well in that he may have a different point of view to us. He speaks for the Seanad, and quite apart from the consideration that there are other Fianna Fáil members in the Seanad. Senator Moore has ideas himself about the Seanad, and whatever Deputies may say about him, he has done something to make the Seanad a place where live issues are discussed, and of preventing it from falling into desuetude.
The Minister also made great capital of the point that Fianna Fáil Deputies absent themselves. Undoubtedly a number of them were absent. For Deputies who have taken on responsibilities to their constituencies, who should be here but who are absent through their own fault, we are going to offer no excuse. We think that such Deputies should be here. But on this side, as well as in other parts of the House, there are times when Deputies have to absent themselves for health reasons, or on account of urgent business. This was a matter that was discussed at the Committee. I find that Deputy Lemass made the following proposition:—
That the Joint Committee is not satisfied as to the feasibility of any general scheme involving automatic diminution of allowances on account of non-attendance of Members of the Oireachtas, but thinks that the law should be amended to permit of each House establishing a procedure for dealing with special cases of protracted absence or irregular attendance of its members which may occur; that the Committee recommends that such procedure should make provision for the summoning by the House of the member to attend, failure to comply with this summons without adequate explanation being followed by withdrawal of allowance, either wholly or any part, for a specified period.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
This was unanimously agreed to, that if members were persistently irregular in their attendance or showed protracted absences from the proceedings of the Dáil, steps should be taken to invite such members to give an explanation, and that if the explanation were not satisfactory to reduce the member's allowance accordingly. The Fianna Fáil organisation discussed the question of the attendance of their members. It speaks well for it that it was not ashamed to discuss the question. Fianna Fáil Deputies will have to answer their organisation—I can assure the House it is a pretty vigilant organisation—in this matter of their attendance here. If the Fianna Fáil Deputies are not able to argue their case and prove that they have carried out the duties they undertook when elected, then let the Cumann na nGaedheal Party make all the capital they can out of that at the next election. I say that the attendance in this House has improved, and that the general work of the House has improved by reason of the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party is here. Without referring at all to the individual capacity of the members here, the fact that this Party has come into the House has improved the position and improved the business. It has had the result of establishing a greater feeling of security. It has given the country the feeling that practically all shades of opinion are now taking a hand in shaping legislation, are giving voice to their different views and are trying to get those views embodied in the legislation passed here. That has been of enormous benefit to the country.
If the members of the Government Party are better attenders than the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, of course that is one of the misfortunes of the Party in office. For a period of four or five years the Government Party, when they had nobody in opposition except Senator Johnson, who did his best to carry on with a small Party of twelve members or so, it was comparatively easy for the members of it to absent themselves. There was no fear of the Government falling. During all that time it was only on exceptional occasions that the attendance went up to fifty or sixty. The average attendance in the House at that time would have been about forty. We are constantly being twitted with the statement from the opposite side that the legislation that was passed at that time, when our Party was not in the House, was much better than anything that we have contributed to. Therefore, I suppose we may take it that the quality of legislation does not depend on numbers. If you get forty good members in this House, fairly constant attenders, they will probably do as good work as seventy or eighty, or even one hundred and twenty, provided they apply themselves to the work to be done.
In connection with Deputy Gorey's point, with which I have some sympathy, that some allowances for their subsistence should be made for country Deputies who have to come up and spend several nights in Dublin, although it has been stated by Deputy de Valera that it would be better to have Deputies from country constituencies who live in those constituencies and carry on some kind of work there than that an increasing number of members of the Dáil should be persons like myself who do not happen to have any other business, it must be remembered also that members who live in the country have the trouble and annoyance of travelling up to and down from the city and they cannot apply themselves seriously to the work on hands. You cannot because of that get a sufficient number of persons to go through all the business before the Dáil carefully, produce the necessary amendments and carefully watch the proceedings if, as I understand from Deputy Gorey, their main work lies really outside the Dáil. If their main work lies on the farms or in businesses, and they find it impossible to carry on with substitutes, I do not see how they can continue to remain members of the Dáil.
The Fianna Fáil Party have achieved the result of increasing the attendance here considerably by virtue of the fact that the Government Party have to be constantly on the qui vive and the attendance has gone up from an average of 40 to 100. Whether legislation has improved or not the fact is that attendance is far better. The Minister has also forgotten in connection with the absence of the Fianna Fáil Deputies that very little important legislation has been brought before us during the past twelve months. With the exception of the financial business hardly any first-class measures have come before us. It is only natural that Deputies who, as Deputy Gorey says, have their farms or other business or personal matters to attend to would sometimes absent themselves for that purpose. Discussions on a Bill such as the Greater Dublin Bill would not be of much interest to them or to their constituents. Neither are they interested in the League of Nations and things of that sort. Their attitude on matters of that kind might be expressed in the words of Solomon: "The eyes of the fool are on the ends of the earth." Let the Minister sneer as he will about the wheat proposal, but when we have real legislation that will mean the building up of our industries and we have chiefly come into the House to participate in legislation of that kind—in which the country will take an interest, you will have as good an attendance from the Fianna Fáil Party as from any Party.
Deputy Gorey is concerned with a general reduction all round. We are in favour of it. We will take a general reduction as well as any others. The country desires economies to be made, and some gesture should be made by the people at the top.
Mr. Hogan
By the other fellow.
Exactly. Some gesture should be made by the people at the top. If the Government Party think that the standard of taxation must remain for normal purposes at £20,000,000 a year, I cannot see where money will be available for housing or any other purposes. The Government are not able to borrow money. They have not finances, and they are not able to bring in legislation. They take up rather a petty attitude in this matter. We say we are more in touch with the feelings of the people in the country, because on every county council and local authority you have men of Deputy Gorey's stamp crying out for small reductions, crying out that no improvements are to be made out of local rates—no improvements in roads, sanitation or housing—because these things will involve an increase in the rates, but when they come up here they have quite a different story and they are opposed to the doctrines they preach to the local authorities. Let them have a little consistency and stand up for economy here sometimes.
The Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the salaries and allowances of members of the Seanad and Dáil has come in for a good deal of criticism. Deputy Lemass has given a very entertaining description of the mentality of the Committee, but not the least interesting section of the Committee was the Fianna Fáil representation. They had their own little interests too. Some of them were interested in the salaries of Deputies and others were interested in the salaries of Senators. Both sections fought strenuously against a reduction in either, and there was no motion from Deputy Lemass for reducing salaries of members of the Dáil. The Seanad representative made a very good and strenuous fight for the salaries of Senators. I believe reductions could be made, especially in the cost of the Seanad, and the better way to make the reduction would be in the reduction of its membership. I do not know that you could apply the same rule to the Dáil for the simple reason that the more members you have returned to this House the greater will be your selection to get a decent standard of ability for your Ministers. I believe if the business of this nation is to be done well you must get men of capacity to do it, and I believe we have men of capacity at the helm. Many of them are in their position at great sacrifice to themselves and their future. They are men who have made their names in the Universities and elsewhere.
When Deputy Lemass measures the capacity of members on this side of the House he does it with a salt spoon, and the contents of the salt spoon is generally wormwood and gall, but when it comes to estimating his own services or capacity, and in estimating the capacity of those on his side of the House he does it with a hogshead—a hogshead of old wine. Deputy Lemass seems to think that capacity finds its equivalent in speech making. There are some members of his Party for whom I have the greatest respect who have never made a speech in this House. They are men of considerable ability. True enough, they have contented themselves with voting, and voting is far more important when it comes to making decisions than irrelevant and irreverent speeches. We often feel it our duty when a man—I do not like to use a common or vulgar expression—is talking through his hat to leave the House and give him as few of an audience as possible. That may cure him and his Party, and it may ultimately save the country. Deputy Derrig has made a speech which was, on the whole, a reasonable speech. It was a speech which showed that he has learned something since he came into the House. On the whole, I think the Fianna Fáil Party has learned a good deal, and that though their knowledge was a slow acquisition nevertheless it is there, and their experience will eventually come to something. A good deal of capital has been made from time to time regarding the salaries of Ministers, and that you should commence with those at the top. We have first to learn that their salaries are excessive.
I do not think we ought to discuss Ministers' salaries.
Then I do not propose to say any more.
I feel in rather a difficult position, because I find myself in partial agreement with Deputy Gorey in some of his statements. In fact, I find myself so much in agreement with Deputy Gorey lately that, owing to the statement he made last night, I am getting nervous of myself. If I had my pockets tied up I would sit beside him. There is a lot in what he says about the expenses of members coming from the country and the expenses of those who live in Dublin. I also find myself in partial agreement with the Minister for Agriculture. The longer a member spends in this House the more he realises the futility of it. I suggest it should be seriously considered that after the general election the majority party should appoint an Executive Council and let the rest go home and stay there, and see what saving there would be. I suggest that, in view of the attitude of the Executive Council even towards the members of their own Party and towards the House in general.
Deputy Hennessy made a very wise remark when he said that the important thing was the voting. The more we realise that no matter how strong a case we put up it is going to be knocked out by a majority varying from 6 to 15, the more we will realise the futility of coming here at all. Of course, there is one good thing done by coming here, and that is that in spite of the attitude of the Press we manage to expose a few little jobs that are going on. I am surprised at the attitude of the Minister for Local Government in this matter. He apparently has very strange ideas in regard to the payment of members. For a far more important body than this or the Seanad he has laid down a mileage allowance for members of 4d. per mile one way.
Not at all.
Yes, and the members must attend two-thirds of the meetings in order to get their allowance.
We are not discussing the expenses of county councillors now.
The Minister lays down the fees for one body, and, at the same time, tries to hold that whether a member attends here or not he is still to draw his allowance. I think that is a rather extraordinary attitude. In view of the position of affairs in the country, and the attitude adopted by the Ministry even towards their own Party, the House should seriously consider whether it would not be better to leave the Executive Council in charge of affairs altogether and clear out; have no salaries at all, frank members' letters to the Departments, give them £50 per year for travelling in their constituency, and let them stay at home. That would be far better from every point of view. The more you look into the matter the more you see the futility of it, in view of the attitude of the Ministry. As a matter of fact, I would seriously suggest that the Executive Council themselves should clear out and leave the six Independent members, who really rule this House, to come in and rule it. I make that suggestion in view of the famous occasion on which the Minister for Local Government introduced an amendment here, spoke on it for half an hour, and when he was opposed by the real rulers, immediately climbed down and voted against his own amendment, bringing his fifty or sixty lambs into the Lobby against it. That was the most striking example of the manner in which the country is ruled given during my time here. It was a very striking example of the mind of Ministers. Of course, I do not know if Deputy Good is yet prepared to take up office.
I must express myself as in favour of the reduction. I am in favour of any reduction that will succeed in getting rid of the Seanad. Deputy Thrift talked of a different class of people being brought in there. The more representatives there are in the Seanad of the class which is not drawn from the people, the better I shall like it, as the sooner that worthless and useless assembly is got rid of the better. Ministers here have adopted the attitude of dictators. There is no doubt about that. We had a striking example last night from the Minister for Justice of who the real rulers are. We have it every day in the week from the Minister for Local Government. Then we had the Minister for Agriculture who said that he had more important work to do for his £1,700 than listening to the drivel spoken here.
That has absolutely no relation to the Bill.
The Minister for Agriculture said no such thing. He talked of the drivel that Deputies speak from public platforms.
He spoke of the drivel and waste of time in this House in regard to private members' time being taken up on the wheat question. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government was not here, that he, too, was attending to more important business.
He spoke of that not as a waste of his time, but as a waste of the time of the House.
In view of the manner in which the Minister for Agriculture has gone against the officials of his own Department and of the changes that are occurring there lately, we do not know where we are.
I should like to hear the Deputy on the Bill.
I have said all I have to say on the Bill. I do not know, whether the Minister for Local Government has any conscience left or not, but if he will consider that famous occasion when he spoke for half an hour on an amendment and, a quarter of an hour afterwards, voted against it with 50 or 60 members of his Party, and will graciously vacate his position and let some of the real rulers take his place, then he will be doing some good.
I want to say why, after a good deal of hesitation, I have decided that I cannot support this Bill. There are two considerations which inclined me in favour of supporting the Bill. I am rather inclined, in the first place, to agree with Deputy Derrig in one of the observations he made, that at a time when economy is of importance, it is desirable that the example of that economy should come from the top, and the top in this matter, as I conceive it, is really the Oireachtas and, in particular, that Chamber of the Oireachtas which is charged with the special duty of finance—that is the Dáil. There is another consideration which, I think, is too often forgotten. We talk constantly of salaries paid to members. We tend sometimes to forget that the real basis of the thing is not a salary, but an allowance for expenses. From that point of view, I should, in the first instance, be very much inclined to say, looking at it in the abstract, that there is considerable ground for holding that the allowance paid to Senators should be less than the allowance paid to Deputies, because it is, I take it, notorious that, with the exception of certain individual Senators, whose expenses are unusually heavy, it is true that the expenses of Senators are considerably less than those of Deputies. Therefore, looking at the matter in the abstract, there would be a good deal to be said for putting the Seanad on a somewhat different basis. To that extent, I should be inclined to favour the Bill. But there are two other counter considerations which, to my mind, completely overweigh these particular ones. In the first place, we have had quite recently a committee upon this whole matter. I was not a member of that committee and I am not aware of the considerations they had before them, but, rightly or wrongly, that committee came unanimously to the conclusion that the allowance paid to members of the Oireachtas, whether of one House or the other, should not be reduced. That being so, I find it difficult, in the absence of any fresh evidence, to go against the conclusions of the committee.
Not unanimously.
Mr. O'Connell
So far as the Dáil is concerned.
Secondly, and this weighs very much more. I do not like to be a judge in my own court. The chief value of the reduction is not going to be the amount of money you are to save. As a matter of fact such reduction in the allowance as the Bill proposes to Senators would be a trivial matter in itself. The value, if any, as a moral value—the example which Deputy Derrig has spoken of as the value of the reduction—would in my judgment be negatived by the encouragement given to that meanest kind of parsimony only too prevalent in this country which consists in jealousy at the advantages enjoyed by the other fellow. I do not like the idea. If this were a Bill of a general scheme for the reconsideration of the whole matter then certainly my feeling would be entirely engaged in support of it. But I do not like the idea to be a party here, without further and more claborate consideration of the whole matter from top to bottom, than is afforded by this Bill, to taking money away from my neighbours while I claim to retain myself in full possession of the emoluments appertaining to membership of this House.
I wish to say that though I happen to be a member of this Committee whose findings were discussed often in this debate I was unfortunately not able to attend the meetings of the Committee except in the early stages, when the really controversial points had not arisen, and so far as important decisions have been come to by an actual vote of members of the Committee I regret I was not present and took no part in the proceedings. I am sorry I had not an opportunity of being present when Deputy Thrift made his case this morning in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, but I listened carefully to Deputy Lemass and he told us that Deputy Thrift gave as his reason for introducing this Bill the question of economy. I intend to oppose the Bill and my case has been made already, perhaps more strongly, than I could make it, by Deputy Lemass on the occasion, just twelve months ago, when this Bill was before the House.
During the course of the discussion on the Second Reading of that Bill on 22nd February, 1929, Deputy Lemass spoke as follows:—
I believe that the members of the Independent Group who acted primarily in this matter came together prior to the election of a number of Senators some time ago and decided to introduce this Bill. Their main desire was to find some means by which the privilege, if it is a privilege, of membership of the Seanad would be retained for that particular section of the community which they represent. Under the system of election which prevailed before the change there were a number of people who secured membership of the Seanad who could not possibly have got that membership if popular opinion or popular vote had any influence in the matter. A change was effected—a change with which in some respects we disagreed, but it resulted in the elimination of a number of people who, in my opinion, were undesirable in the Seanad, even though it did not make the utility of that body any greater. I believe that the motive which actuated the Independent Group here, and I think the motive which actuated certain members of the Seanad who also moved in this matter, was to ensure that it would be possible for those only to seek election to the Seanad who were provided with independent means of livelihood; in other words, that membership of that body would become the exclusive privilege of the moneyed class.
Again he said:—
We think that if the Seanad could possibly at any time serve a useful function in the Government of this State, then its members should be provided with an allowance which would make it possible for the poorest member of this community to fulfil all the functions of membership. Whether £200 a year or £360 a year is an allowance adequate to that end, I am not going now to express an opinion, but I would like to point out that it is possible for a shopkeeper or a professional man to carry out the functions attaching to the Dáil or the Seanad without any serious diminution of his income from his profession or business. There are very few working men earning a weekly wage who could, I think, persuade their employers to permit them to be absent from their work while the Dáil or Seanad was in session, and to return to their work during the recess. A working man, therefore, who becomes a member of the Dáil or Seanad is practically compelled to devote all his time to it. He is certainly not in the position to find any source of income to augment the allowance which he receives here. It was, I think, to exclude possibly all persons without private incomes becoming members of the Seanad that this Bill was originally introduced.
[Parliamentary Debates, columns 381-82, 22nd February, 1929.]
These are Deputy Lemass's actual words.
He has learned sense since.
Mr. O'Connell
I say no Deputy on these benches could be more cloquent on the effect of this measure than Deputy Lemass then was. I failed completely, and still fail, to understand why Deputy Lemass, who professes to have the interests of democracy and the working man so much at heart, should seek thus to exclude him from any right that any other member of the community possesses. So far as I am concerned this is all I have to say on the matter: that although there may be questions of the utility of the Seanad, or the value of the amount of service it gives, yet, while the Seanad is there and is an essential part of the Legislature in this country no vote of mine will be given which would have the effect, as this Bill would have, of confining it to members of the privileged or moneyed classes. That is all I have to say on the matter. I shall vote against this Bill.
As a member of the Committee, I want to say that I disagree completely with the view of the Labour Party as regards the allowances paid to Senators, and as regards any attempt towards preventing any member of any class becoming a member of and serving in the Seanad. I think this talk of democracy on the part of the Labour Party is so much eyewash.
You ought to be a good judge.
I think we have gone too far with that kind of talk. It seemed to me that the Minister for Agriculture in discussing the report of the Committee, and no other member who was part of the majority of the Committee, attempted to compare the work done by members of both Houses. When I was asked to go on the Committee I accepted the invitation of my Party, and I was delighted with the opportunity of serving on any committee that would set out to reduce the salaries and allowances paid to members of the Seanad. We are told, of course, that under the Constitution membership of that body is given to people who have rendered distinguished services to this country. It is on that condition we are supposed to believe that people are appointed to the Seanad, but I know some gentlemen in that assembly masquerading around with monocles, and God knows I am at a loss to know when they gave service either to the people or to the country. If I had my way I know where I would put some of them who distinguished themselves. I would give them a term in Mountjoy instead of in the Seanad.
I have not spoken here very often, but I hope I was one of the Deputies Deputy Hennessy referred to. I hope he had me in mind, and I want to say that on the Committee or in this House I have not seen any appreciation by the Front Bench opposite, by the Committee or by the Government, of the real position that exists in the country. I do not know whether I have given service for the cheque, as the Minister says, I am cashing, but if I am not going to give service I do not want to come here. I have come here with good intentions, but if my services are not worth what I receive then I am prepared to stay at home and give these services in some other way. I think flippant attacks get us nowhere, and that the Minister for Agriculture would be much better employed in giving more consideration to some of the serious problems that confront the people, who are absolutely clamouring for relief of some description. In this debate, I am sorry we are not allowed to discuss the question of Ministers' salaries, because I would like to have a word to say on that with special reference to our friend, the Minister for Justice.
I am glad to know we are friends.
I would like to have something to say about the Ministry as a whole, but I would love to say something about the Minister for Justice, and what he does for £1,700 yearly, coming in here well tuned up at 10.30, and making his defence up to 11 o'clock, perhaps once or twice a month, bringing in his kicking cow, and being paid at the rate of £1,700 per annum. I would love to say something to that Minister.
You have succeeded very well.
We would just love to hear him.
I do not know what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said. He has been employed recently on foreign affairs, but unlike other Deputies I am not going to touch on that subject. Foreign affairs and the truce that has been referred to have no interest for me or for the people I represent. All the talk about democracy, about a democratic Constitution, and about co-equality has no meaning for me if it does not mean a decent standard of comfort and work for every man. If it does not mean that, it means nothing to me. This Committee, when considering the question of salaries, wages and allowances of members of the Oireachtas, failed to look at the question in relation to the ability of the people to pay, and for that reason I am going to vote for the Bill.
I think Deputy Smith must be labouring under some delusion. Is he aware that he is practically repudiating his leader, Deputy Lemass? Deputy O'Connell simply quoted a speech made by Deputy Lemass in this House on 22nd February, 1929; I want to quote it again for the benefit of Deputy Smith. Deputy Lemass said:—
I believe that the motive which actuated the Independent Group here, and I think the motive which actuated certain members of the Seanad who also moved in this matter, was to ensure that it would be possible for those only to seek election to the Seanad who were provided with independent means of livelihood; in other words, that membership of that body would become the exclusive privilege of the moneyed class...
On the assumption that that was a speech made by Deputy O'Connell a case was built up against the Labour Party. I hope members of the Fianna Fáil Party will take the castigation delivered by Deputy Smith seriously to heart. So far as the Bill itself is concerned I want to say that I am opposed to it for very different reasons to those advanced by Deputy O'Connell. I believe Deputy Thrift made out a very good prima facie case, at any rate, for revision and review. Revision and review do not necessarily mean a reduction. Deputy Thrift pointed out that, in his opinion, the work done and the value given by Deputies in this House was somewhat more important to the State than the work done in the Seanad. I think he found an echo in Deputy Gorey, though Deputy Gorey did not intend it that way, as he suggested that the allowance should be based on service, and that the allowance to Deputies should be somewhat greater than that for Senators. If that is true the obverse is also the case. In other words if less service be given by Senators than by Deputies the allowance paid should be less for Senators than that paid to members of the Dáil. I think Deputy Hennessy mentioned that there were irrelevancies spoken here from time to time, and I think the word "piffle" was mentioned. I think I never heard worse piffle in my time than I heard coming from Deputy Corry a few moments ago. If we have to listen to this sore of drivel I say it would be far better for most of us to absent ourselves for many a session after a general election.
I want to put it to the commonsense of anyone, and I put it to the members of Fianna Fáil, or to any person who has any pretensions to seriousness, education or enlightenment, not to mention culture—because I think that is absent—and to ask if they suggest that in a Parliamentary institution of this kind, after a general election, once a particular Party gets a majority, and is thereby enabled to set up a Government, that the Opposition should withdraw. If that is the mentality of Fianna Fáil I really sympathise with them and their leading spokesmen. There would be an end to Parliamentary institutions if such a grotesque suggestion was ever attempted to be carried into effect. I need hardly dilate any further on that most ignorant suggestion. I repeat most ignorant suggestion, and I suggest that it should not be made in any representative assembly. It is one which, I am sorry to say, has been made in this House, and it reflects very little credit on those who made it, and it says very little for the intelligence even of members prepared to listen to it without shouting it down.
There is something to be said for the Bill. A good prima facie case has been made out, but in my view a case is made out for revision. In that connection it might be well perhaps to stress the point made by Deputy Gorey. There is no doubt that in any revision or review of allowances to members of the Oireachtas that may take place in the future, due regard must be paid to the proximity or otherwise of members to Leinster House. I know that there are members of the Labour Party and members of every Party in the House whose absence in Dublin during the sessions of An Dáil, and whose duties take them over their constituency, losing very heavily. I am aware of the circumstances of more than a dozen members of this House which go to show that they are losing considerably financially. If there is to be an inquiry, I think that in common justice to these members, now would be the time to point that out, for the satisfaction of the mover of the Bill, though I believe he is, in this regard, very just and has a sense of equity. I feel, however, that in any revision or review that will take place, due regard must be paid to the circumstances mentioned by Deputy Gorey, which I would like to emphasise. I am sorry that the Bill was such a short one, and that it was not a little more comprehensive. Then perhaps I would be able to vote for it, but it has not gone far enough. It simply confines itself to a suggested reduction in the allowances of members of the Seanad.
There is an aspect of the whole question which I do not think has been touched on up to the present, and it is this: So long as you have a Second Chamber, and that that Chamber acts in a revising capacity, or in some other capacity, entailing as it does on a particular section of its members absence from home and a break in their relations with either their businesses or their employers, there should be some consideration extended to them by way of allowances. As Deputy O'Connell has pointed out—I think it was in quoting from the speech of Deputy Lemass made here last February— many of those Senators may have to give up their employment altogether, because their employers, in the majority of cases at any rate, would not be able to facilitate them in allowing them time to attend meetings of the Seanad. Undoubtedly, if the Bill were passed here it would inflict injustice on a number of persons, potential members of the Seanad. For that reason amongst others, though I might say it is not my main reason, because there is a case for revision, I oppose the Bill. That case for revision does not necessarily mean a reduction.
Amongst other things that Deputy Gorey suggested might be taken into consideration is the question of allowances based on service, but, of course, I recognise that that is a rather vague expression, and that service in the long run might mean service to Party instead of service to State. So that whilst I can see something good in what Deputy Gorey suggests its vagueness does not make a strong appeal to me. If Deputy Thrift or others think economy should be effected let them bring in another measure. I will reconsider my attitude and possibly support it, but as some Deputies have already said, some of these reductions must come from the top. I believe there is room for some reduction taking place at the top, but, again, I do not want to be taken as suggesting that the Minister for Agriculture, for instance, is not worth £1,700 a year. In my view he is worth twice that amount. As far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned, the only Minister present——
We are not discussing that question.
On a point of order, will we be entitled to take individual Ministers and to say they specifically are not entitled to their salaries, if a member of the House is entitled to say a specific Minister should have his salary doubled?
Perhaps the Deputy would listen to me for a moment. Did the Deputy not hear what I said to Deputy Anthony?
I did. The difficulty is that Deputy Anthony has stated that one Minister should have his salary doubled.
The difficulty with the Chair is, that Deputies sometimes get out very undesirable statements before the Chair is in a position to stop them.
Is it not a fact that Deputies have an opportunity every year of discussing the salary of each Minister on the estimates?
That is so.
Before I was interrupted I was going on to talk about the suggestions made by some speakers here this morning that reductions should come from the top and that if any economies were to be practised they should begin at the top. I say that there is something to be said for that, but I say that no case has so far been made out for having the salaries of certain Ministers reduced.
The Deputy has been told that it is not in order to discuss the salaries of Ministers.
Of course, I understand that there is some relation between the top and Ministers and I want to dissociate myself from this petty, mean talk about the reduction of Ministers' salaries.
There has not been a word said about it. It is out of order.
I do not think that you were in the Chair when it was said. Anyhow I suggest to Deputy Thrift that he should withdraw this Bill and amplify it along the lines I have suggested. Perhaps then we might have a clearer and better case made for revision. I noticed that in the very temperate and well-reasoned speech of Deputy Thrift he was careful to suggest that he did not intend to cast any slur or to belittle the activities of members of the Seanad. As I have said, while we have the Seanad and while it is part of our Constitution I believe that its members should get a reasonable allowance. I hope on some future date that if a Bill is introduced it will be along the lines of revision and along lines which will not mean reduction.
Deputy Anthony has attributed a statement to me which I did not make. I have not, of course, had the national education which he had. He stated that I said that after a general election all members should remain at home. What I said was that in view of the attitude of the Executive Council towards members of this Party, the Labour Party, and even their own Party, it would be well if all members stayed at home.
That is all right.
And I gave instances of that attitude which bore out my statement.
A Deputy
Deputy Anthony should be compelled to stay at home.
I am sorry that Deputy Anthony did not listen to my speech.
I was here all the time and I do not think that I have misquoted Deputy Corry.
In their support of this Bill Deputies appear to have lost the point of view regarding the difference between the expenses of a Deputy and those of a Senator. We have been informed on a point of order that what we are discussing is the question of allowances, that these allowances are in respect of service, and that we should bear in mind the larger amount of service rendered by Teachtaí than by Senators. A Senator has to spend very little time in Dublin, comparatively speaking, and he is under no expense in his constituency. He has not to get around. The House to which he is elected is the creature of this Dáil, and he has not to keep in touch with his constituents. In consequence of the short time which he spends on parliamentary duty and the fact that he resides practically all his time at home are reasons why the £200 fixed in this Bill should be regarded as a reasonable allowance and why this Bill should consequently be supported by the House. The Minister for Agriculture, having turned to the multi-millionaires and the philanthropists on his back benches and having told them how wonderful they were to be here and how condescending they were to come here, pointed to the time-serving politicians on this side of the House and asked us whether we were prepared for a reduction in the allowances to Deputies for their parliamentary duties. We say that if it is necessary —and it is necessary in the public interest—for economies to be made at our expense, then by all means make them.
I believe that the Oireachtas is a costly institution and that it could be run at much lesser expense. The travelling expenses of Deputies amount to quite a large sum in the year. We meet here on Wednesday, Thursday and on Friday morning, but I can see the same amount of work being done in half the time here if we sat, as the British House of Commons sits, from Monday to Friday and if we sat every alternate week. In the amount of travelling expenses which we would save and in the consequent cuts which we could make in travelling allowances there would be considerable saving but, if it is advisable, and I contend it is, and if it is necessary, and I believe it is, in the public interest to cut down the parliamentary allowance then by all means cut it down. During debates of this kind we get lectures about the drivel which we speak in this House and also about education, culture, intelligence and so on. That is part of the campaign, of course, to discredit Fianna Fáil, part of the campaign conducted by the Press, which has redounded on its authors by bringing parliamentary institutions into discredit—so much so that parliamentary institutions are on their trial and the public verdict is very much against them. If the Minister for Agriculture belives that by entering this House any of us have become opulent because of our parliamentary allowance we wish to inform him that, if as a result of this campaign to discredit parliamentary institutions which had its authorship in the campaign to discredit Fianna Fáil, we return to the wilderness, we will not heave any sighs for the supposed flesh pots, the parliamentary allowances. Labour Deputies have contended that it would be impossible for anybody to be elected to the Seanad who has not a private income and that it would be impossible for him to carry out his duties as a Senator unless the allowance remains as it is. If we were to take a census of the number of people in this country with incomes of £200 and under we would find that the vast majority of the earners of this country have a salary or wage of £200 and under and have to exist upon it. In view of that fact, and in support of this Bill, we contend that a man would be adequately remunerated for the duties he has to perform in the Second Chamber by being paid an allowance of £200, along with the travelling allowance which he gets.
I think it would be far better from the point of view of debates and the conduct of debates if we had not repeatedly this ignorant lecturing about the want of education, the want of intelligence, and the want of common sense which we get on every measure on which we choose to speak.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
I do not know if any other Deputy approves of Deputy Corry's suggestion, but if nobody is prepared to stand by him, at any rate I will. I think his proposal has much to commend it. I know it is a proposal which was adopted in a very great country in Europe a few years ago. The exact nature of the proposal was not made very clear by the Deputy, but he suggested, I think, that after election Deputies should retire and stay at home. In Italy, I understand, a special law was brought in that the majority party——
On a point of explanation, what I said was: "while this Executive Council is in office." I did not mean, of course, that every Executive Council is going to be the same as the present dictatorship. The Deputy can understand now. We have a dictatorship at present. I am sorry that the Deputy's intelligence did not grasp that before.
I am not very enamoured of Parliamentary institutions. I think perhaps that they are out of date and that they are a very unscientific method of governing a country, but at the same time I realise that it would be quite impossible to abolish the Oireachtas for many years to come. That may be a misfortune for us, but it cannot be helped.
Why?
Because in this State the Oireachtas is a very valuable safeguard for our national independence, and secondly, if we abolish the Dáil and the Seanad our neighbours in these oceans, British Newfoundland, New Zealand, Canada and America, would all jeer at us and say that we were too uneducated to produce a proper Parliament which was capable of carrying on the government of the country without disaster.
A Deputy
They have never jeered so much at us as since you set it up.
What are you doing here so?
A Deputy
Trying to improve it.
It would be impossible to keep the country going without Parliamentary government. I must say, in spite of what Deputy Thrift has said, and in spite of the statement of the Minister for Agriculture, the time and the circumstances of introducing this Bill did strike me, although I do not wish to be suspicious, as being suspicious. It seemed to me that the Independent members were trying to play politics and to embarrass the State at that particular moment. I may have been completely mistaken, but certainly I did get that suspicion, and nothing that has happened since has completely removed that suspicion from my mind.
May I ask the Deputy to explain why he was suspicious? I would like to know.
The time, the circumstances and the fact that the constitution of the Seanad changed, that the atmosphere of the Seanad changed, that the Seanad was previously, during the chairmanship of the previous Chairman, looked upon as——
A Deputy
Homogeneous.
Not so much homogeneous but as a brake on the more national elements of the country, and seeing that a change took place and that this Bill was introduced at the same time, I could not help associating the two circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that although the Independent members have always consistently been in favour of economy, they never brought in this Bill during the many years before, since the Dáil and the Seanad were established. That struck me as being suspicious, and the combination of the Independent members with those members who belong to the I.R.A., and those members who are associated together for the overthrow of the Constitution, was to my mind very remarkable, although we have noticed signs of this combination on previous occasions. For myself, I think that all the members of the Oireachtas should be considered as equal and that this differentiation between certain members of the Oireachtas and others is wrong so long as we have an Oireachtas.
Deputy Gorey's point, that members of the Oireachtas should be paid for their services, is also one with which I do not agree, because it tends to lower the dignity of the members of the Oireachtas and to imply, to some extent, that they are criminals who have to be watched and forced to do their duty. It is to a certain extent a confession of the failure of democracy that it cannot produce public representatives by election, who could be trusted to do their duty and to earn the moneys which they get by way of allowance except by stringent measures of discipline. I do not think this Bill will pass, but I hope the Government will give more consideration to the recommendations of the Committee which was set up as a result of the Bill being introduced.
I am in favour of the reduction of the salaries of members of the Seanad as at present constituted. I think to pay any member of the Seanad £360 a year for the particular services we get is a charge which the State should not be called upon to bear. I am not taking the line that £360 a year is too much for a Senator. I can imagine a Seanad in which I would be prepared to pay very much more than £360, just as in the same way I can imagine a Dáil in which I would be prepared to pay members very much more than £360 a year; but at the present moment there does not seem to be either in the personnel or the composition, in relation to interests or in the amount of work which is required to be done or is done, a justification for the total expenditure which is now made on the Seanad.
If we had a Seanad of very much smaller numbers selected upon an entirely different basis and made up of men who, whatever their political opinions were, would be chosen because they were experts in particular branches of Irish life, and if that Chamber was used for the purpose of revising intelligently for the information and further consideration of this House legislation which came through this House, I personally would not object to £360 a year, or to any sum above £360 a year, being paid. At the present moment the Seanad is purely and simply a piece of machinery for registering votes. I regard the Seanad as constituted as a Dublin endowed affair, and it is very rapidly becoming an organisation for the purpose of rewarding services performed by politicians for their parties. I am not now separating one party from another, nor am I aiming at the Opposition or at any other party, but. I cannot see any justification for the Seanad.
We had two elections for the Seanad, from one of which the vast majority of the people deliberately abstained. The election lasted for weeks and it must have been an infinitely humiliating experience for every man whose name went up. I know the case of one man who, during the previous elections of the Seanad, went out of the country and stayed away while day after day and week after week they were adding one more contemptible vote to his number on the 31st revision of votes. I think if people will honestly envisage what happened at the first public Senatorial election they will be satisfied that the result was an expression of contempt and an expression of derision by the country for the very Senators who were elected. Why members elected under those conditions in face of an electorate, 75 per cent. of whom deliberately abstained from taking any part in the election. should be regarded as people who are to receive £360 a year. I do not know. If you take the method of appointment of the original Senators, when there was no possible suggestion of any sort or kind that there was democratic sanction behind it, can anybody justify upon democratic grounds the payment to these gentlemen of £360 a year?
We all know what happened in the last election. Parties organised as parties in caucus did elect certain people. It was purely and simply a question of parties putting in their nominees. It made no difference whatever to the effective power of the Seanad that that election took place. It did not alter its composition in any effective way. Does anybody suggest that the election to the Seanad of people either under the original method of selection, the intermediate method of electing them, or the last method of caucus nomination constituted a Seanad of 60 people to whom £360 a year ought to be paid?
As to their work, I am not going to say anything unkind about them with any intention. I went through the list the other day, and I formed the opinion that there were about 15 and possibly 20 men in the Seanad who might claim to be people who would be selected for the Seanad under its constitution as laid down in the Constitution. Why there should be super-added to that 40 people to obstruct their activities, 40 people to give a party and a partisan colour to their decisions, I do not know. Why these 40 people should be paid for obstructing them, I do not know either. If someone were to come forward with a proposal for a Seanad made up of 15 people, those people to be experts in their own particular branches of Irish life, I am not going to quarrel if you offer them £1,000 a year; but I am going to object to 60 people being put to do none of the work but just to divide upon party and interested lines and to carry on the camouflage of a legislative chamber.
If you were to have instead of the Seanad as at present constituted a chamber which was frankly and openly what it will gradually become, a creature of the Dáil, there would be a different aspect. What I mean is that if you had a body to advise the Dáil, to review Bills which might hastily go through here and which might have gaps and slips and things of on kind or another, its usefulness would be apparent. I have in mind a body which would have no power of legislation and no power of delaying legislation; which would be able to carry out a full examination of a Bill, and if that body were authorised to send the Bill back to this House with the comments of the fifteen experts for the information of Deputies, I am not at all sure that they would not be very valuable servants of this State even at £1,000 a year. If you had a body so constituted it would not matter what were the politics of the men selected. In selecting them I would rather choose men who would differ from me in politics and in outlook than choose people with whose opinions I would agree. What I would want from that assembly would be the criticism which I myself was not capable of evolving. If such a Chamber so constituted were established, then there would be some case to be made for a Seanad. There is a considerable case for a highly paid body acting as a Seanad, but there is nothing whatever to be said for the Seanad as at present constituted. Deputy Esmonde says that he is not enamoured of Parliamentary institutions. I am perfectly certain that this Parliamentary institution is not enamoured of Deputy Esmonde, nor has it any reason to be.
That is a purely personal point.
I also would be prepared to deal with this House by some method of the same kind. I do not object to £360 being paid to any Deputy in this House who delivers the goods. I do object to 152 presumably responsible people being withdrawn from their ordinary activities and brought here to hang about the division lobbies and to wait for the call of the bell, merely to be engaged in neutralising each other's activities. This House today, sparse and scaree as the members are, indicates a long way above the average attendance. Time after time I have taken down here the attendance of members. Often at 5 o'clock, 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock there is not a Committee of the House present. Unless some machinery can be devised under which Deputies will actively attend to the work of the House then there is no reason whatever why the country should be put to the expense of paying 152 men to neutralise each other's efforts. The only thing that counts is the difference between our numbers. You can certainly get that difference without spending 152 times £360 a year.
If after the next election we could agree on the point of sending one-third of our number here and allowing the other two-thirds to go home, we would have exactly the same position from the point of view of the majority in the division lobbies. You would have, at any rate, under that scheme the material out of which you could get a very much better average attendance than you are getting now. We would besides save the State the salaries and expenses of about 100 members. It is not altogether a question of the amount of money that you pay to Senators and Deputies; it is the amount of work which they are prepared to do for it and the efficiency with which they do it. You can afford to pay and pay highly if the work is done, but it is pure folly to have 152 Deputies here and 60 Senators in the other House engaged in neutralising each other's efforts and not even attending in the House while the work is being done. As for the question of arranging the salary at £200 or £360, that is an arbitrary figure. There was a perfectly legitimate difficulty put forward by the Labour Party that there are men on the Seanad who could not afford to be there if they did not get a salary.
I think that point was made by Deputy Lemass, Deputy Flinn's own leader.
I am not complaining at all about it. I think it is a perfectly legitimate point. It is not past the intelligence and ingenuity of the House to find some arrangement by which cases of that kind could be dealt with. It is always difficult to make fish of one and fowl of another. But if sixty people are paid £360 each because there are half a dozen who cannot afford to be there at £200 each, it is a difficulty which I think we can find some machinery to get over and it is a difficulty in the solution of which or, in securing a way out of which I would be prepared to co-operate.
If I may sum up I would say this —I do not object to £360 for any Senator who is doing effective work. I do not think that the sixty Senators in the Seanad are doing anything like effective work. I think their numbers ought to be reduced, their powers ought to be altered and their functions in relation to this House should be changed. Their personnel ought be radically altered and sifted; then the question of what they are paid will simply be a question of their value and their efficiency, and not merely a question of some arbitrary figure of £200 or £360.
Accustomed as I am to diatribes from Deputy Flinn, I must say that I have never listened to a more unctuously self-sufficient speech than that which he has just delivered. On a Bill concerning the question as to whether members of the Seanad should be paid a certain sum by way of allowance, and whether that should be reduced to £200, Deputy Flinn has given us— and he has taken up a very lofty standpoint—his opinion of the Seanad, the members of the Seanad and their value for doing the work of this country. He has touched upon the way in which they got elected and one of his phrases was "the contemptible vote" by which certain people got returned. I would like to have an examination made in order to find out how many Senators were returned by any of the three methods to which the Deputy has referred with a more contemptible vote than that given to the Deputy himself as a first preference at his election, taken according to numbers. That is so much for one point.
The second point deals with the value of the Seanad, or the present members in the Seanad, viewed, as the Deputy said, from the point of their capacity to deal with various aspects of Irish life. There has been too much talk about the Seanad and about the incapacity of Senators to deal with matters from different viewpoints of Irish life. There are men in the Seanad who bear names honoured in this country for their endeavours in industrial matters. There are others there who are experts in finance. There are men in the Seanad who have worked for the country in a variety of ways. There are some who have helped this country in its cultural aspects, and there are some who have added to its fame in art and literature. There is hardly one man there who has not spent the best part of his years in this country, a country which Deputy Flinn left of his own accord. To bring him back it took that big catastrophe, the great World War, and he returned here because of the terrors that might possibly follow that great World War if he were in England. We have members in the Seanad, taking them simply from the point of view of how they can survey matters as Irishmen, to whom I would give £1,000, while I would be prepared to reduce Deputy Flinn's salary from the £360 that he at present gets. There are men in the Seanad who serve this country in a variety of ways, men who possibly do not speak as often as Deputy Flinn, men who do not parade themselves before the public as often as Deputy Flinn, and men who never suffer the humiliation of having one little bit of their hypocrisy paraded before the public as one little bit of Deputy Flinn's hypocrisy has been paraded. The Deputy thinks it is a scandalous thing to have 152 members in this House paid each £360 a year for the sake of neutralising each other's activities. It is a pity he was not here for the speech made by a member of his own Party, Deputy Derrig, a speech that was described by the Deputies who came afterwards as one of the most moderate that Deputy Derrig has ever delivered.
To my mind that was as good a speech as Deputy Derrig has ever delivered of a purely defensive character. What was the great claim that Deputy Derrig made for the party? That by coming here and sitting in the benches—he said distinctly not by talking—they got the Government benches better filled. He claimed as the very virtue of his party's presence here the point that Deputy Flinn makes against the whole House neutralising each other's activities. That was the essence of the claim made by Deputy Derrig—the value the country gets from the presence of the members of his party here:
Deputy Kennedy is in favour hypothetically—he always has a little barrier—of a reduction in allowances even to members of the Dáil. He thinks apparently that they can suffer a bit of a cut yet. That was not the point of view of the Joint Committee or of Deputy Lemass who led on that Committee for his Party. The following resolution was proposed at the Joint Committee by Deputy Lemass:—
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
That the Committee is of opinion that the duties attaching to membership of the Seanad do not necessitate the payment of an allowance equal to that paid to members of the Dáil; and also that the existing economic circumstances of the State do not permit of any increase in the allowance paid to members of the Dáil and recommends, therefore, that the allowance paid to members of the Seanad be reduced.
There is no mention there of any decrease in the moneys to be paid to the representatives attending here. In fact the Deputy was one who afterwards joined in an unanimous recommendation that, as far as certain other facilities that are given to Deputies are concerned, they should be extended, and that "The State should take up with the railway companies the possibility of providing full facilities for travel in all parts of the Saorstát at the minimum real cost, irrespective of the railway companies' existing scheduled charges." The Minister for Agriculture talked about the advances made by the party opposite in this matter of understanding what are the real expenses that fall on a member of the Dáil. He said, but it was denied, that previous to that party coming to the House the claim had been made that members should serve here for nothing. That claim was certainly made.
I had the experience of attending at a meeting where Deputy Killilea claimed that they as a Party had brought in a Bill to reduce the payment of members and that the Government Party had thrown it out. At the same memorable meeting—it was a meeting in connection with the Carlow-Kilkenny election— another member of the Party, Deputy Brady, describing himself as one of the mugs, also said that they had brought in a Bill to reduce the payment of members. That was the brazen claim the Deputy made.
In the presence of the Minister?
Yes.
And reported in the Press?
I do not know about that. It was a small meeting
We have then just your recollection as proof of the statement?
That is all. Deputies, we have been told, came in here to save the country. We have what is now described as the Save the Country Fund, to which payments were to be made out of the surplus moneys that Deputies get by way of allowances. I queried the amount in that fund on one occasion. I think it was then £105 or £150.
It is more now.
I am sure it is. There must have been additions to it since by at least the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are now in the Seanad. We have this extraordinary position with regard to the Seanad. The Party opposite do not believe in the Seanad as at present constituted, but nevertheless they put up candidates for election to it. They do not believe that the members of the Seanad, as at present constituted, either do sufficient work or give sufficient value for the allowance they receive. Probably the seven or eight members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are now in the Seanad, being conscience-stricken that they are not doing sufficient work or giving sufficient value for the allowances they receive, are paying something into this Save the Country Fund. One of the Senators in question was a member of this Joint Committee, and he certainly tried to get everything he could for the Seanad.
He was not conscience-stricken?
That particular individual is not one of the six or seven the Minister refers to.
That Senator has been in some way repudiated.
It was the President who nominated him for membership of the Seanad, and it is he who is now repudiating him.
That Senator has repudiated Fianna Fáil principles, if they are principles so far as payment of members of the Seanad is concerned. That is all. But there are five or six others. They were sent there by the Fianna Fáil Party though it believes that the Seanad is no good, and that the members of it do not do sufficient work or give sufficient value to the country for the allowances they receive. We must presume, however, that the Save the Country Fund is much stronger now, largely as a result of the contributions it has received from these six or seven members. It would be interesting to get some sort of audited accounts in regard to the moneys in that fund.
Let us have a showdown. We will undertake to publish the accounts in relation to that fund if the President undertakes to publish the accounts of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party funds. and the names of the subscribers to that fund?
If the President ever said that the Deputies in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party were getting paid too much for their attendance in this House I would repudiate him, but I do not believe he ever said it. Further, he never said that we would start a Save the Country Fund out of the extra moneys that Deputies get. We have no corresponding fund.
Does the Minister accept the offer that all parties in this House should disclose the whole of their financial resources and their sources?
That question does not arise.
Will you do it?
So far as the Deputy is concerned, I have got the best disclosure I could with regard to him and where his money is lodged, and that is all I want to know about him. I do not say that we are building up a fund. We never said we were. We always had the realisation that the allowances which are being paid are just barely sufficient to meet Deputies' out of pocket expenses. We believe that still.
Does the Minister deny that he tried to collect money from English millers?
I am not concerned with money collected from English millers. If the Deputy wishes to keep his money in an English Bank we do not care, but he should not lecture other people for doing it.
That is not the question.
What did Deputy Lemass propose before the Joint Committee? "That the existing economic circumstances of the State do not permit of any increase in the allowances paid to members of the Dáil." Is there an implication there that if the circumstances were better the allowances would be raised, or an implication that at the moment they are not excessive? We think they are not excessive either for Deputies or Senators.
I did not say that.
Nothing has been said with regard to the fund that was to be added to by contributions arising out of the excess paid to members, and which stood at £150 a couple of years ago, when the Deputies, in the height of their enthusiasm, thought that all work done here should be honorary, and when, as the Minister for Agriculture said, they were in a cross way receiving crossed cheques that came to them monthly. I would like to know a little bit more about the fund.
I have made an offer.
The last time I asked you about the fund there was no offer and I was given no information.
How did you get along in America?
I am afraid there is no fund.
I am prepared to produce my bank-book——
The Deputy is not prepared to do anything except what we disclose to the contrary against him. Otherwise, he will keep up the bluff.
What bluff?
We have no fund of that sort.
No, you get yours from the English millers, and you apply to them for it.
Does the Deputy say that I personally have got some-money from English millers?
No, but Cumann na nGaedheal over your name.
From English millers?
An English miller.
The Deputy will have to substantiate that.
What did you get from Guinness?
Does the Minister deny that he circularised the English millers for funds for Cumann na nGaedheal?
As such, yes?
But the Minister does not deny that he did it?
I do not know whether the English millers were circularised or not.
Perhaps the Minister would now move the adjournment of the debate.
I move.
Debate adjourned.