I would like to congratulate Deputy Thrift on having introduced a Bill which, apparently, defies criticism. The Bill has now been under discussion for many hours, and so far, I think, it can be said that nothing in the way of reasonable criticism has been advanced against it. No one will deny that Deputy Thrift made a strong prima facie case for the Bill, and that the task of those who opposed the Bill should have been to find fault with that case and to show how the Bill is unworkable. Instead of that, we have had a great deal of vulgar abuse, far more than the usual amount of irrelevant talk, and nothing at all in the way of pointing out where Deputy Thrift's case fails. It is, I think, a very poor tribute to Deputy Thrift, who during all the years that he has been here has been not only a strong but one of the most determined supporters of the Government, that when he makes a reasoned case for a considerable reform, his friends in the Government make no attempt to treat that case seriously. Apparently, their philosophy is: as we cannot find fault with the Bill, as we cannot point to any big flaws in it, we will at least show that Deputy Thrift is in shocking bad company, and in that way we will weaken the support which the measure is obviously entitled to on its merits.
We have the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce—the Castor and Pollux of the Government front bench —both coming out and making, apparently, the best possible case they could. After all that, we find that the criticism of the Minister for Agriculture only amounted to this:
I say this Bill should not be supported until some attempt has been made to meet the problems that arise not only in connection with Senators' and Deputies' allowances, but until there comes a realisation here that there should be some value for the allowances paid.
The Minister does not attempt to say when the House is to consider that question. He does not even promise what he will do to bring about the realisation that he speaks of. He does not say whether there is to be further consideration of this proposal this year, next year, or in ten years' time, and yet we know that all over the country there is a tremendous cry for economy. We know that this saving of £10,000 would have a very big effect on the country, that it would have a great moral effect in that it would reduce, to some extent, the cynicism that is rapidly growing with regard to this Assembly and to its personnel. Is it always to be a case of: "To-morrow we will consider means of economy, but the time has not yet come? We admit the case for economy all right —everybody has to say that—but there is a slight flaw in this proposal and at the present moment we are not prepared to consider any means of dealing with that flaw. You will have to wait." The people who are crying out, and deservedly crying out, for some economy in the expenditure of this State are just to get that message to-morrow or the next day.
Is there a single farmer in Deputy Mathews' constituency or in any other constituency who, having read this debate up to the present, would not make up his mind that those opposing this Bill are opposing it for anything but legitimate reasons? The Deputies who have opposed the Bill up to the present have not attempted to show that any greater injustice would accrue to Senators through the passing of this Bill than, relatively, accrues to many Deputies at the present time. It has not been denied that the expenses of a Deputy are far in excess of the expenses of a Senator, that the duties of a Deputy call for a greater expenditure of time and money than the duties of a Senator. It has not been denied that a Deputy's bill for postage, keeping in touch with his constituency, and so on, makes a very considerable inroad on the £360 a year he receives. I venture to say this, that taking an average over five years, taking into account the expenses that a Deputy is put to at two elections during that period of five years, that his allowance of £360 a year is reduced to not more than £200 a year. Certainly that is the case in regard to a considerable number of Deputies. I do not know what the position is with regard to Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies, because I do not know how election expenses are dealt with by that Party, but in the case of a considerable number of Deputies in this and other parts of the House, if one takes into account the expenses that they are put to as a result of two elections over a five-year period—that is, supposing a man is unfortunate enough to be elected to this Assembly a second time—their net allowance during those five years would certainly not be more than £200 a year.
The Joint Committee appointed to consider this matter unanimously reported that there was no case for increasing Deputies' allowances at the moment, that in the present economic circumstances of the country £360 a year was as much as the State could afford. The Minister for Industry and Commerce made great play with Deputy Lemass for having agreed to this phrase in the principal resolution passed by 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." The Minister did not attempt to say what he found wrong with that sentence, but apparently he thought it was very damning to the case Deputy Lemass made, because he went on to say that the implication was there that in other economic circumstances the Deputy would be in favour of larger allowances being paid. I wonder is there any one here who would say that in different economic circumstances larger allowances than are being paid at present might not be justified. The different economic circumstances that Deputy Lemass had in mind might mean a State in which you had a 100 per cent. increase in production. Yet the Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks that because of that phrase in the resolution passed by the Committee that he made a wonderfully strong case against Deputy Lemass.
It shows how hard pressed was the Minister, usually so prolific in debating points, but not so often in sound arguments, for a case against this measure when he had to fasten on that particular phrase. I think one of the strangest cases made against the Bill was that by Deputy Law, who comes from a very poor constituency and who has frequently shown his great interest in the problem of the poor people who form the great bulk of the population of that constituency. Further, he has been a member of the mother of Parliaments, as he has so often reminded us, and as he is an occasional contributor to the "Irish Statesman" he is obviously a very distinguished man of letters. Here is his apologia for supporting the measure.
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 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 elaborate 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 hardly think all that verbiage would be much consolation to the unfortunate people in the Gaeltacht in Donegal. It is surely the vaguest excuse, the strangest type of apology that was ever uttered by a responsible Deputy. Deputy Law, mark you, goes so far as to speak of the moral value of this Bill, but yet he does not refer to the tremendous moral value that would accrue if the measure was passed—the tremendous encouragement which would be given to the people to think that at least this Assembly had some little interest in giving them a chance to live in their own country, and that it was somewhat true to its pretensions to being the people's Assembly, and that it did not turn its back on any proposal which offered a reasonable case for the saving of public money. I think that Deputy Thrift has made a big case for this measure. In my opinion, the saving of that £10,000 would be very valuable in itself and valuable morally. Ten thousand pounds spent, say, on organisers who would endeavour to get support for Irish industry all over the country would be sure to result in a very big increase in production, and it would, in that way, have a cumulative effect, for it would mean that employment was being developed, which again would lead to development of other employment. Again £10,000 might be spent with advantage, say, on the fisheries in helping to provide boats for the unfortunate fishermen who are at present going out in miserable boats in which it is unsafe to trust human life. Or £10,000 could be spent, say, on improving communications to the islands adjoining the coast, which would be a great boon to the unfortunate inhabitants of these places. These considerations, however, are turned down by two leading Ministers and by the spokesmen of the Party opposite.
We are told that until certain adjustments can be made—the vaguest thing in the world—that until a problem that is one of the most difficult with which this House is faced, that of trying to adjust payment in proportion to service rendered to this House can be attacked, there should be no attempt to make a saving. Let no one be mistaken about what the magnitude of the task that the Minister and Deputy Gorey say is necessary before this Bill should pass, that is, that some attempt shall be made to meet the problems that arise not only in connection with the allowances of Senators and the allowances of Deputies in order that there should be some value for the allowances paid. That is surely putting away reform until we are dead and gone, because we must first have all the urgent business of the State disposed of. We would want to have a whole blank session before we could say that the House had time to consider that question. No question that has been considered here would take more time than that would take. If I might make a prophecy, I would say that after all the time that could possibly be spared had been spent on it anomalies would still remain, and there would remain the fact that some Deputies and some Senators were drawing bigger allowances than they should relative to the services they render. The argument of the Minister and his followers is a dishonest argument and should not be used in connection with a Bill that has so much to recommend it. I would like the House to show they so regard it by passing this Bill by a big majority.
