Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 1938

Vol. 22 No. 6

Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) Bill, 1938—(Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

At present, the law governing the payment of allowances and the grant of travelling facilities to members of the Oireachtas is contained in four statutes—The Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1923; the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) (Amendment) Act, 1925; the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1928, and the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1933. One of the purposes of the present Bill is to consolidate the law in one measure and to carry out the amendments to it which, after consideration of the supplementary report presented by the Shanley Committee of Inquiry into Ministerial and Other Salaries, the Government have decided, are desirable. Under this Bill, it is proposed that, on and after the date of enactment, the allowance to a member of Dáil Eireann shall be at the rate of £40 per month instead of £30 per month, as heretofore. It is also proposed that the allowance to a member of Seanad Eireann shall continue, as at present, to be paid at the rate of £30 per month. Although admittedly, these proposals depart from the majority recommendations in the supplementary report of the Shanley Committee, they are not out of harmony with the views expressed by some members of that committee.

The Government has carefully considered this matter. They are aware that for some years—not merely recently but earlier—there have been strong representations by many Deputies that the allowance paid to them was not sufficient to cover all the expenses involved in the exercise of their responsibilities. It has been pointed out that, with the development of parliamentary government, in this country, with the extension of the Government's activities in many spheres and with the new and improved social services, the demands which have been made upon the time of Deputies, and particularly the demands made upon them arising out of the correspondence they receive, have been growing and, in our view, will continue to grow. Apart altogether from the sittings of the Dáil which recently, except perhaps, in the present year have, I think, been more frequent than they were, say, ten years ago when the allowance was first fixed, there has been an increase in the postage accounts of most Deputies, a heavy increase in their travelling expenses in their constituencies and a considerable number of other uncovered and, possibly, undefinable claims upon Deputies, as well. The Government, after close examination of various suggestions which have been made from time to time for relieving the burden in the respects I have mentioned, have come to the conclusion that the most satisfactory method is to increase the allowances to Deputies. In the case of Senators, the Government have noted and accepted the view of the Shanley Committee that Senators will not necessarily be involved in the same amount of expense as Deputies; but the Government, having regard to the amount of time which many Senators have to give in attending this House and the sacrifices which many of them have to make, particularly those who have to travel long distances, and bearing in mind the necessity for a uniform allowance which should cover not the case of the Senator who has to make the least sacrifice and, perhaps, not the case of the Senator who has to make the greatest sacrifice, but the case of the average Senator, have decided to retain for Senators the present rate of allowance instead of making the reductions recommended by the committee of inquiry.

As these sums are paid to members of the Oireachtas by way of allowance towards meeting the expenses incurred by them in fulfilling their duties as representatives of the people and are not to be regarded as in the nature of payment or salary for these services, it is proposed in this Bill to continue the provisions of the existing law under which the allowance payable to a member of the Oireachtas is exempted from income-tax and it is also proposed to exempt that allowance from any provision in any other statute in relation to the abatement or suspension of pensions. The Bill also continues the existing provision by which the salary of an appointed office, if held by a member of the Oireachtas, is deemed to include the allowance which otherwise would be granted under this Bill.

The Government have decided to amend the statutory provision relating to the commencement of the allowance and travelling facilities in the case of any member of the Oireachtas who is elected or nominated after the passing of the Bill. Having regard to the recommendation of the Shanley Committee and to the representations made by Deputies from time to time, the Government propose that the allowance and travelling facilities shall commence as on and from the date of election or nomination, subject to the condition that within 30 days from that date the member shall, by compliance with the Standing Orders, become entitled to sit in the House to which he was elected or nominated. This latter proviso is intended to guard against the payment of large arrears of allowance in the case of a member who, for no sufficient reason, does not for a prolonged period comply with the Standing Orders entitling him to take his seat. Sub-section (2) of the relevant section—Section 5—in this matter provides accordingly; and in sub-section (3) of that section provision has been made to meet the case of a member who is prevented by illness or some other involuntary or innocent cause from complying with the Standing Orders. It is not necessary to provide in the Bill any definition of the date of election in the case where a member is returned after contest because, in such a case, a member is elected immediately after the close of the poll.

These are the principal features of this Bill apart from those provisions which relate to the increase of travelling facilities for Deputies. In the Shanley report it was suggested that the Minister for Finance might take any powers necessary to enable him to deal specially with cases in which the public interest would be served by enabling Deputies to inspect public works or attend functions to which they might be invited as public representatives. Arising out of the consideration of this suggestion, the Bill provides for the payment of travelling expenses to Deputies or Senators who attend State functions on the invitation of a member of the Government or who, on the invitation of a member of the Government, inspect public works or visit institutions or places or districts. The circumstances in which payment of travelling expenses may be made in each case will be governed by general regulations and the power to make such regulations which is contained in existing Acts is continued in this Bill.

In paragraph 30 of the Supplementary Report of the Committee on Parliamentary Allowances, the point was raised as to whether some provision should be made to cover the cost of journeys undertaken by Deputies within their constituencies in connection with their duties as public representatives. A minority of the committee expressed the opinion that some such provision should be made, but the majority of the committee took the view that the arrangements already made, as provided by Statute and Regulations, were adequate. The grant of free facilities for travelling within constituencies would result in such conditions that it would be a matter of great difficulty to examine claims for recoupment. In the circumstances, the Bill makes no provision for the grant of free travelling facilities within constituencies, but it is the opinion of the Government that the increase in the allowances to Deputies will permit a Deputy to undertake such travelling as is involved in what might be regarded as his normal duties—and that is one of the considerations which has moved us to propose to increase the allowances to Deputies.

To meet a point which has been raised in a few cases, provision is made in this Bill for the payment to a Deputy, who does not reside in his constituency, of travelling expenses between Dublin and any place in his constituency, or between Dublin and his normal place of residence for the time being. On any occasion on which he travels direct from Dublin to any place in his constituency, travelling facilities will be granted from that place to his normal place of residence. When he travels direct from his normal place of residence to his constituency, travelling facilities will be granted between such normal place of residence and, if he enters his constituency by rail, the railway station in his constituency nearest to the point of entry, or, if he enters his constituency by road, the point of entry.

Under Section 10 of the Constitution (Consequential Provisions) Act of 1937 the revival of the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Act, 1923, so far as Senators are concerned, operates only with effect on and from the date of the first Assembly of Seanad Eireann. This gave rise to the difficulty that Senators who were obliged to travel on the day prior to the first meeting of the new Seanad to attend that meeting could not be granted travelling expenses incurred in coming to Dublin. To meet this difficulty, provision is made in the Bill for the payment of travelling expenses to Senators who found it necessary to travel on the day prior to the first meeting of the new Seanad.

Sub-section (5) of Section 5 of this Bill is new. Under the Oireachtas (Payment of Members) Acts there is no statutory authority for the grant of travelling facilities to members of the Dáil who are in Dublin on the day of a dissolution. In practice, travelling vouchers in the hands of members at the time of a dissolution were honoured if presented at the railway booking office within a period of three days from the date of issue of the voucher. This practice has always been open to challenge, and it seems reasonable that, where former Deputies found themselves in Dublin on the date of the dissolution, they should be provided with travelling facilities to enable them to to return to their homes or to their constituencies within a reasonable time. Three days is provided for this purpose in the Bill. The new sub-section will remove any risk of challenge as to this payment and will do no more than has already been done in practice, in the past. One other sub-section provides that, where travelling expenses have been incurred by a Deputy, he must lodge his claim for recoupment of these expenses within 100 days after such travelling expenses were incurred.

This is the Bill which is now before the Seanad for its Second Reading. I recommend it to the House. I think that, in these days, when it is necessary that all sections of the people—all sections of the country and the State —should be represented in the Oireachtas, and when it is desirable that no man of talent or capacity should be debarred from seeking the suffrages of the people or from seeking a mandate from the people, by reason of the expense to which he may be put as a result of serving in that capacity, this Bill is in the best interests of the community as a whole, and, accordingly, I recommend it to the House.

Mr. McLoughlin

I have never heard the Minister introduce a Bill in this House in a more perfunctory fashion. In his statement he said that the Dáil was sitting more frequently now than it had sat at any other time in its history—that is hardly correct.

Mr. MacEntee

If I may correct the Senator, what I said was "with the exception of this year."

Mr. McLoughlin

Well, I remember when the Dáil used to sit from Tuesday to Friday every week. However that may be, I regret to have to oppose this Bill. Indeed, my first inclination when I read the Bill was to put down a motion that it be referred to the Prices Commission. According to the census of retail trade, most of the shopkeepers of the country are earning no more than £4 or £5 per week, out of which they have to pay income-tax to the Minister, and these people are forced to wallpaper their, premises with price lists so that the public may not be plundered to the extent of an extra halfpenny in a dozen of eggs or an extra shilling in the price of a perambulator. Yet the people who were so anxious to curb profiteering bring in a Bill to enable themselves to profiteer.

I want to emphasise that nobody publicly asked for this Bill. According to what I hear, Fianna Fáil Deputies decided at a Party meeting that they were worth £2 10s. a week more than the men who manned the Dáil for five years before them, and the Government accepted this valuation of their services. Remember, this demand for a "rise" came from men who, nine or ten years ago, decided that the parliamentary allowance was so excessive that they could afford to devote a large portion of it to patriotic purposes. I recently came across a statement, issued about that time by a prominent member of Fianna Fáil, in which he said:—

"They did not seek election for self-gain or to secure a salary of £360 a year. The policy of Fianna Fáil with regard to these allowances was to pool the whole lot into one common purse, out of which those who required it would be paid to enable them to carry on their public duties. The surplus would be used for national purposes or for helping to alleviate distress in the constituencies."

A very virtuous and praiseworthy scheme of abnegation! but was it carried out? Not at all. It was only chloroform—it was merely dope for the needy electors. Once the "abnegationists" heard the jingle in their pockets, little more was heard of the patriotic fund to which they pledged themselves to contribute. I believe it would pay the people to pension a large number of T.Ds., even to the extent of £480 per annum, in order to get them out of the Dáil, but I certainly do not believe in paying £480 a year to keep them there. After all, £480 represents ordinary earnings of about £10 per week, if freedom from income-tax be taken into account. A sum of £10 a week may seem a small sum to the Minister and those associated with him, but I can assure him that, in the part of the country from which I come, £10 a week is, as a neighbour of mine put it, a "power of money." It would go a long way towards keeping ten families in the Donegal Gaeltacht. I hope I am not reflecting unduly on the originators of this proposal if I say that not one of them is the equal, in value, to the nation, of ten families.

Mr. McEllin

Did not the Senator's Party accept the principle of the Bill?

Mr. McLoughlin

I am speaking as an individual. In my opinion, this Bill is a flagrant and flagitious example of political profiteering. In my opinion, the services which a T.D. gives to the State are grossly overvalued at £480 a year and, saving the presence of this distinguished Assembly, I think that the services which a Senator gives to the State are, likewise, overvalued at £360. We used to hear a lot from Senator McEllin and other people associated with him about this being a poor, overtaxed country, unable to maintain the standards of a rich empire, but this Bill proposes to pay our legislators on a higher scale than that paid in either England or France.

Mr. McEllin

That is not right.

Mr. McLoughlin

I understand that, in France, it amounts to about £340 a year. In England, of course, it is £600 a year, but quite an amount of that is subject to income-tax, which would bring the net allowance down to about £453 per annum as against £480 per annum in this country. I suggest also, subject to correction, that members of the English Parliament have to pay their own travelling expenses.

Mr. McEllin

What is the allowance for Ministers there?

Mr. McLoughlin

I am not talking about Ministers. This Bill has to deal with allowances to Deputies. The Minister talked in the other House on the hardships of T.D.s, as if that office were thrust upon them. If they feel that they are ill-used, there is an obvious remedy—they can get out. No man is a member either of this House or the other House under compulsion. We are all here because we went to a lot of trouble, and, in some cases it is alleged, to a lot of expense, to get here; and if we are not satisfied with the salary or allowance we get, we should resign. All this talk about the hardships of T.D.s and Senators is merely designed to bolster up a hopeless case. The truth is that we all enjoy our evenings here. I do not know any better form of recreation than listening to Ministerial speeches, either in this House or the other House, on Bills such as this—and then thinking back to the speeches made by the same men when they were on the economy rampage. When I recall the "gold ounce" speech of Deputy MacEntee, for instance, and then think of the soft whispers in which the Minister proposes to settle his colleagues on the gold standard, I cannot forbear to smile. The idealists and economists who wailed about the salaries of their predecessors and almost caused the dead walls to weep over the extravagance of national expenditure are now out to remunerate themselves at a rate which would almost create envy amongst the film stars. Of course, they are doing it in the interest of the poor man! Whenever extravagance is to be excused, the poor man is dragged into the limelight. Now, I quite admit that the politician is worthy of his hire, and I am not in favour of putting any obstacles in the way of the poor man taking his part in the public life of the country, but still I think that the poor man who cannot carry on his parliamentary work on £7 a week has developed epicurean tastes, and should not be encouraged by the State in his extravagance. There is no reason why the poor man should not work for his living as well as any other man, and, if £360 a year does not compensate him for two days in the week here for four or five months of the year, then his further subsidy should come from some other source than the taxpayers' pocket.

The Minister, after dissolving into tears over the woes of those T.D.s who find it impossible to continue a nightly patronage of Shelbourne Park on £360 a year told the Dáil that the increased stipend "would attract a better type of man to the public life of the country." I had thought that, to the extent of at least 77 of its members, the Dáil was the last word in personal perfection, but the Minister thinks that the extra £2 10s. per week will improve the quality of the material behind him in the other House. My own opinion is that it could be improved without the expenditure of an additional sixpence, and I am fortified in that view by no less an authority than the Taoiseach. Here is what the Taoiseach said in the Dáil on 13th July, 1928:—

"We recognise that people can live on £1,000, and comfortably educate their families on £1,000. We have seen it done and know it can be done... We have seen people who had been talking idealism suddenly reverse engines."

So we have!

"Allowances given to the Ministers and Deputies ought to be clearly understood to be allowances to enable them to devote themselves to public service. They tell us we will not get good men. I deny it. I do not think the best public service is going to be got by the attractions of salaries. We are told we must have a high standard of pay to attract young men into the service. I do not believe it."

That was Mr. de Valera's answer to the contention of the Minister for Finance that men must be bribed to enter the public life of the country. In this connection, I should like to remind the Minister for Finance of Deputy MacEntee's view on the same occasion, when he emphasised that the money for the public services was derived from "the labour of private individuals, workers amongst us, who are living just on the subsistence line," and when he urged that no person should be paid at a very much higher rate in Government offices than is paid outside by independent employers. If the members of the Minister's Party, who in secret conclave decided to award themselves £10 a week for their work were to offer their services to a private employer, I wonder if they would regard with disdain a salary of £360 for full-time, not part-time, employment?

There are a few minor points in connection with this Bill to which I should like to draw attention. I notice that no distinction is drawn between the sexes. If the Minister insists on paying women in the Civil Service less than men, why should not the same principles apply here? What is sauce for the Civil Service gander should be sauce for the Oireachtas goose. No distinction is made either between married men and bachelors, although in the Civil Service, I understand, that bachelors are paid on a lower scale than married men. Why is the same distinction not drawn here, or why is not the allowance made subject to tax so that the poor men about whom the Minister is so solicitous would derive greater advantage?

These questions apart, I am completely opposed to the Bill. I have had 16 years' experience of the Oireachtas, and I am satisfied that £360 is an adequate salary for a Deputy for the service he gives. I am equally satisfied that the sum recommended by the Shanley Commission would repay the members of this House for the attention they give to public business. If I might borrow a picturesque phrase from the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, I should say we are "travelling first class on third class tickets." The country cannot afford this magnificence, and if there is a division I shall vote against this Bill.

Mr. MacDermot

I think that the Seanad has some cause for complaint against the Government because of the manner in which it is being treated with regard to this Bill and the Bill which will next come before us for consideration. The situation is that if the Minister could be persuaded to accept any recommendations of ours for improving these Bills he could only do so on the basis of calling together the Dáil to consider them in Christmas week, an action on his part which I venture to think is somewhat unlikely. I, therefore, appealed to him, but without result, to hold over the final stage of this Bill and the other Bill in Dáil Eireann until after Christmas, and allow us to consider those measures at leisure and to make our suggestions to him at leisure, with some chance of prevailing upon him to make the changes that we thought desirable. However, there it is; we are now faced with a situation where nothing that we can say or do is likely to have the least effect upon the Minister's mind or upon the Minister's actions.

Now, I am opposed to this Bill on three grounds: firstly, because it has not been approved by the people; secondly, because I believe that the present allowance is sufficient; and thirdly, because I believe that the effect of increasing the allowance will not be to improve our parliamentary institutions, but more probably to do them injury. First, as to the question of approval by the people, I quite realise that a Government cannot be expected to produce a popular mandate for any and every measure that it introduces. Some measures are much too complicated for the ordinary elector really to understand. Other measures are of an emergency character. They have to be passed without waiting for an opportunity of consulting the electorate, but there is no such excuse available in the present instance. This is a thoroughly simple Bill, capable of comprehension by the least educated person in the entire country. It is not an emergency measure, either in the sense that it is imperatively necessary for the country's good to pass it at once, or in the sense that it has arisen out of new and unexpected circumstances. If there is any question that a Deputy has been able to consider over a long period of time, surely it is the question that must come to his mind every month as to the relation between his incomings and his outgoings for political purposes. If the Government are now as convinced as the Minister for Finance says they are that this is a very good measure, an excellent measure, a necessary measure, surely the conviction has not dawned upon them so suddenly that they could not have given some indication of it to the electorate of this country at the time of the general election. On the contrary, so far as I am aware, there was not a whisper of anything of the kind. It does seem to me that if there is any sort of measure that it is indecent to pass without some kind of consultation with the country, it is a measure which affects the personal interests of the members of the Oireachtas on the one hand and the pockets of the country on the other hand. What class or what profession in the entire country could be trusted to make itself the complete arbiter in its own case in the matter of fixing its own remuneration? If you use every man according to his own idea of his deserts, who would escape an income of £1,000 a year? Here, we are setting ourselves up as the sole judges of what we are worth, and giving the country no opportunity at all to consider the matter or to show their will about it.

It was impressed upon the Minister in the Dáil that he ought to take a referendum on this Bill, and he overwhelmed the suggestion with ridicule on the grounds that it would cost £100,000 to do so. Now, I do not know if it would cost £100,000 to do so. I should doubt it, but I will take his figure. According to him, the cost of this Bill will be £14,500 a year in perpetuity. Actually, it will be greater, because the real cost of this Bill should include about another £7,000 in regard to the Seanad, representing the difference between what this Bill proposes to pay the Seanad and what the Shanley Committee proposed. In addition to that, there is the possibility that this Bill will lead to further increases, and consequently to greater expenses in time to come, but, even confining myself to the Minister's estimate of £14,500, I am quite sure that the Minister's mathematical knowledge and knowledge of finance are quite enough to show him that that represents the interest at 4 per cent. on no less a capital sum than £350,000 odd, so that even assuming that it costs £100,000 to have a referendum, it remains true that if that referendum were to decide against this Bill, the country in the long run would be substantially the gainer, even financially.

Another plan the Minister could try is to have one or two by-elections, to allow a few Deputies who are enthusiastic about this Bill, to resign their seats and fight them against other men on this particular issue, if we could succeed in confining a by-election to this particular issue.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is the rub.

Mr. MacDermot

I do not think there is a single rural constituency, at any rate, in Ireland in which I would be afraid to stand. A simpler and, perhaps, less expensive plan than that would be to postpone the Bill until after the next general election. As I said, there really is no urgency for it. This is not a particularly suitable or appropriate moment for passing this Bill. We are not on a wave of prosperity. The country does not feel too rich; it does not feel too happy about the economic position at present or the economic position in the future. There is nothing to mark out this as the moment when such a Bill ought be passed and it would be becoming, and be in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution, and decencies of public life, to leave this matter over until the electorate had a chance of showing their feeling about it at a general election.

The second ground on which I oppose this Bill is that I consider the figure proposed by the Shanley Committee is adequate. The first argument in favour of that view is that the Shanley Committee came to the decision that the figure was ample. The Minister for Finance has prudently refrained to-day from saying anything about the Shanley Committee, and what occurred before it, except to make the barest reference to it. But he was not so prudent in the Dáil. There, he felt himself called upon to give some reasons for ignoring the decision of the Shanley Committee.

I think it will be found profitable to glance at those reasons. The first was when he stated that he knew that Deputies felt a delicacy about going before such a committee and making "a poor mouth" about their expenses and obligations. I must say I detest that phrase, "a poor mouth," and I detest the implication that, in this country especially, there is anything to be ashamed of in being poor. I cannot imagine a worse kind of snobbishness than the snobbishness that looks down on poverty. Is it true, or is it likely, that any Deputy was deterred from going before the Shanley Committee because of delicacy about what is called "making a poor mouth"? After all, what was such a Deputy called upon to do? The Minister for Finance says that he shrunk from making a full disclosure of his affairs. I do not see why a man should even shrink from that. There was no occasion for Deputies to make a full disclosure of their affairs, or to tell the committee about every penny of the income they had from all sources, and how they spent it. All they had to do was to show that the £360 which they received for political expenses was inadequate for these political expenses. They could have done that without any betrayal of innermost secrets. Personally, I do not believe that any Deputy was restrained by shyness from going before the Shanley Committee, and I have more difficulty in believing it when Deputies in favour of the Bill showed absolutely no disinclination to get up in the Dáil and make what the Minister called "a poor mouth" about their situation. Why should one shrink from making, in the semi-privacy of the Shanley Committee, what one was quite prepared to make in the full glare of publicity of the Dáil?

The Minister's suggestion on the subject seems to me to be quite absurd. In addition to these arguments, which are drawn from the elementary facts of human nature and commonsense, we have the statement of the Shanley Committee. The committee did not indicate that they had any difficulty in getting the sort of evidence they required. On the contrary here is what they state:—

"... Naturally, we could not hear evidence on the subject from every Deputy, but we believe that the evidence we did secure in the manner indicated enabled us to form a fair and full appreciation of the expenses necessarily incurred by Deputies, so as to estimate the adequacy or inadequacy of the allowance and facilities which have hitherto been provided. The various witnesses gave their evidence in the fullest and frankest manner possible. We are very grateful to the Deputies who gave us their assistance in this way, namely: Deputies Anthony, Bartley, Brady, Carty, McGilligan, Murphy, Myles, O Braonáin, O'Neill and Pattison."

Amongst those Deputies were, I think, three Labour Deputies. Certainly two of them represented Labour. I do not know whether Deputy Murphy mentioned was a Labour representative, but Deputy Anthony and Deputy Pattison were Labour Deputies. It would seem, therefore, that the Shanley Committee had, in fact, every opportunity of considering the facts of the case. The great difference between getting up in the Dáil, and talking about the inadequacy of their allowance to meet expenses, and doing so before the Shanley Committee was this: that before the Shanley Committee facts and figures had to be given and in the Dáil they did not have to do anything of the kind. They could be as vague there as the Minister was with us to-day. One would have thought that the most elementary and obvious thing, for anyone proposing a Bill of this kind, was to bring forward a detailed estimate of what the expenses of an average Deputy would be. I agree that there can be very great variations in these expenses. I agree that there is no limit to the amount of money that a Deputy might spend either on his constituency or on his Party, but the allowance to be given to Deputies cannot take account of the extraordinary cases or extraordinary generosities. The allowance given to Deputies is to cover such political expenses as can reasonably be thought normal.

I have endeavoured to do what the Minister ought to have done, and that is to compose an estimate of a Deputy's reasonable expenses. I put it before the Seanad for its consideration, and to give the opportunity to other Senators to make alternative suggestions, if they feel so inclined. In the first place, I assume that a Deputy has to spend 100 days in the year in Dublin, and away from home. I believe it will be agreed that that is not taking too low a figure. I imagine the number of Deputies who spend a full 100 days away from home is small. The average sittings of the Dáil are, of course, considerably less than that. I have assumed that the cost of lodging in Dublin will be the same as I find in my own case, that is 15/- a day. I think it will be agreed that any man can live quite comfortably in Dublin, and get board and lodgings for 15/-a day. At any rate I do it. That works out at £75 a year. While in Dublin a Deputy will want to get about, perhaps from where he is staying to the Government offices and to Leinster House, and I allow 1/- a day for tram fares for that purpose. That is another £5.

Mr. McEllin

Did you ever try that standard of living for yourself?

Mr. MacDermot

Certainly. The figure I have quoted is actually what I am paying for board and lodging in Dublin at present.

Mr. McEllin

And maintain your wife?

Mr. MacDermot

A parliamentary allowance is not for the purpose of maintaining your wife. A parliamentary allowance is not supposed to be a full-time salary. It is an allowance for political expenses. For postage I allow what I think will be agreed as a sufficiently generous figure, £1 a week, the whole year round, and not merely during the time the Dáil is sitting, but including holiday time and vacations at Christmas and Easter. That is £52. I also allow £1 a week for secretarial assistance. That is assuming that the normal Deputy does not want to have a secretary wholly to himself. That is an assumption I think I am entitled to make. It will be agreed that £52 a year is enough for a Deputy to spend on secretarial assistance. Then come charitable subscriptions for which it is very difficult to assess a figure. I am open to correction here if I am wrong. I am assuming that the average Deputy does not spend on charitable subscriptions, which arise out of his position as a Deputy, more than a tithe of the present allowance of £360, and I am allowing £36 a year. Only one item remains, and that is for transport within a member's constituency. It has to be borne in mind that the State pays for his transport from his constituency in Dublin, and is now, in addition, going to pay his transport from wherever he lives, if he lives outside the constituency, to his constituency.

Therefore, there only remains the question of transport inside the constituency, and a distinction is drawn between the amount that a Deputy has to pay for Party purposes and Party meetings, and the amount spent on the getting about he has to do to attend to the needs of his constituency, in pursuance of his duties as a Deputy, rather than in pursuance of his duties as a politician. For such transport I allow £2 a week the whole year around, including such period as he may be in Dublin attending to his parliamentary duties. That is £104 for the whole year. The total of the estimate comes to £324, and leaves a balance of £36, even out of the old allowance of £360. If there is added to that £36 the new £120, there is £150 a year which, so far as I can see, is clear profit over and above what a Deputy has to spend on his parliamentary expenses. The obvious reflection that occurs to me, if these figures are anything like right, is this, that, over a normal parliamentary period of four or five years, the average Deputy will have accumulated quite enough to pay his full election expenses out of his own pocket, even on a considerably more generous scale than such expenses are at present paid by Parties. I would like to suggest to those in the country who feel annoyed when confronted by this Bill, and who disapprove of it, that they should, at least, recoup themselves, so far as they can, by never in the future subscribing 1d. to Party funds because Deputies ought to be well able to take care of Party funds in future themselves.

According to the Minister for Finance the Shanley Committee did not go carefully enough into all these things. So far as I can see there is no evidence to support that statement. I think they did go carefully into these things. The Minister stated in the Dáil that they had ignored the question of increased expenses produced by postage and travelling within one's own constituency. The statements of the members of the Shanley Committee show that that is not so. On the contrary, they say that they gave particular attention to the matter. In paragraph 27 of their report this is what they say:—

"We gave particular attention, in view of the remarks of witnesses, to the question whether any increase in the present allowance would be justified on account of the expenses incurred by Deputies on postage and travelling within the constituency. The majority of the committee considered that the existing allowance provides a sufficient margin to cover the expenses of the average Deputy under these headings."

The Shanley Committee also went into the question of the allowances in other countries, a question which I see occasionally raised in the newspapers in such a way as to suggest that our parliamentarians here are less favourably treated than others. With regard to that, I would say, in the first place, that it is very misleading to compare ourselves to members of parliament in countries like Canada and South Africa and New Zealand, where a relatively scanty population is scattered over an enormous area and where members of parliament, in consequence, have to go right away from their homes, lock, stock and barrel, with their wives and children, when parliament is sitting and remain in the capital until the end of the session, instead of as we do here, where we continue our household at home and get back there for weekends.

I would say it would be much more illuminating to compare our situation with other countries in Europe which resemble us in size, wealth and population, and if we do that we will find our Deputies are already well paid in comparison with others. The nearest country to us in size and population in Europe is Norway. In Norway the members get £300 a year. In Denmark they get about £325 a year. In Holland, which is very much larger and richer than we are, they get £450, which is less than what we are now proposing to pay, and very much less, if we bear in mind the exemption from income-tax which we give in this country, and, so far as I can find out from the books of reference, is not given in other countries. In Switzerland a Deputy is paid only 30 francs for each day that the Federal Parliament is sitting, roughly £1 10s. for each day the Parliament is sitting. So that if we look at countries that most closely resemble ourselves, we will find that our existing scale is already very good.

There remains another argument, referred to very trenchantly by Senator McLoughlin, for believing that the present allowance is sufficient, and that is that there has been no stampede to resign. There is always eager competition for nominations as candidates in all parts of this country. Certainly in my time in public life, not only have I never known anybody to resign because the parliamentary allowance was too small, but I have never known here of anyone contemplating resignation on that ground. Men sometimes retire from public life because their business avocations call them away; they are all-important and make too many demands upon them to be reconciled with parliamentary life. But it is not the difference of £120 a year that is going to keep in Parliament a man in that position. It would, indeed, be an argument for an increase if the Minister or anybody else could say that a lot of our best Deputies or Senators would disappear from public life unless the proposed change were to be made. But so far from there being a shadow of evidence of that, there is the strongest evidence to the contrary in the fact that there is cutthroat competition for nomination to Party candidatures in the various electoral constituencies throughout the country and for entry into this Assembly. I maintain, therefore, that on the grounds that I have stated the present allowance is enough.

There remains to be considered what is likely to be the effect of an increase in that allowance. If we were going, as the Minister suggested, to attract better, abler or more high-minded men into public life by raising the allowance, then, in spite of everything I have said, one might be tempted to ask the country for permission to raise it. But is that likely to be the case? I can see no evidence of it. My own feeling is that it is much more likely to attract into public life men who would be better out of it. I know that sometimes a man with nothing else to live on must still be able to go into public life. There are such men to-day in the Dáil, men who have boldly stated that they have nothing else to live on but their parliamentary allowance, in spite of the fact, by the way, that the Minister for Finance upbraided them for making such a confession. Deputy Coburn told the Dáil that he had nothing else to live on but his £360 a year, and that ever since he had been in politics he had maintained not only himself but seven children and a wife on his parliamentary allowance, and on that ground he opposed this Bill.

The Minister for Finance was so embarrassed, not to say flustered, by that statement of Deputy Coburn that he suggested, in the first place, that it was not true and, in the second place, that Deputy Coburn had an unusually small constituency, which he has. In the third place he stated that if it was true, Deputy Coburn was as near as makes no matter to committing a fraud on the public by using his parliamentary allowance for purposes for which it was not intended. Being less harsh than the Minister, and less intolerant, I feel there must be cases of men being in public life with nothing else to live on but their parliamentary allowances. I do not think that sort of thing ought to be encouraged. I do not think it should become normal. It is not at all in the interests of the country that it should become the usual thing for a man in politics to be depending on the profits he gets out of politics. We want to preserve an unprofessional spirit in politics. We want to keep alive a sufficient spirit of independence, a sufficient high-mindedness, so that a Deputy will be prepared on the score of principle, for the sake of justice, for the sake of truth and in the interests of the country in case of need either to throw over the ties of Party or even to go against the momentary will of the electors in his constituency.

It has been one of the glories of democracy, in every country in which democracy has been a real success, that there have been men prepared to taken an intensely unpopular line, either unpopular with their Party or unpopular with the general public, when a case arises for the sake of principle. If you have a man who is totally dependent on his political salary for the livelihood of himself, his wife and children—although you will find, I agree, men so high-minded that even in that situation they will sacrifice everything for principle—it is in general, I submit, putting too great a burden on human nature to expect that such a man will have the same degree of independence as a man to whom the political salary is not the sole means of livelihood.

The line along which this State has gone up to the present is that politics is not a whole-time occupation for any of us, but a part-time, always excepting, of course, the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. Once a man gets to that stage of his political career, politics necessarily become a whole-time occupation and it becomes necessary to do what we are going to do under the next Bill, and what I approve of, and that is to provide pensions for Ministers when they cease to be Ministers. Mark my words, if you are going to have the Dáil and the Seanad composed in the bulk of men solely dependent on politics for their livelihood, you will have to establish a system of pensions also for members of the Dáil and the Seanad. That has already been done in at least one country, and I may say it has caused very great evils; it has brought very great evils in its train. I do not want to see politics in this country professionalised or filled to that extent with men who will depend on politics for their living.

In case anyone should question that politics is supposed to be a part-time occupation at present, I draw attention to the fact that on no other ground can you justify the exemption of political allowances from income-tax. They are exempt because they are regarded as being merely allowances to meet necessary political expenses, because they are not regarded as being a man's livelihood. A few years ago, when the present Government brought in the Temporary Economies Bill for reducing the salaries of all and sundry in the Civil Service and so forth, an amendment to that Bill was introduced by the Centre Party proposing that a proportionate reduction should be made in the allowance to Senators and Deputies, so that we should be making some sacrifice in what was regarded as the emergency of the time. That amendment of the Centre Party was rejected by the Government, again on the ground that the parliamentary allowance was not comparable to any man's salary as a civil servant or anything else; that it was an allowance to meet definite political expenses, and that these expenses had not decreased as a result of the country's difficulties and that, consequently, they were not prepared to make the proportionate abatement in parliamentary allowances that they were making in the salaries of civil servants, dispensary doctors and so forth.

I think the Government and the Seanad should hesitate a long time before taking this step which must undoubtedly tend towards professionalising our politics. It has not been found in any country that raising political salaries has been the way to attract better men into politics. I think America is a country in which political salaries are highest and America is also a country in which it is perhaps most difficult to get decent men to go into politics at all. Political salaries reach a certain point. They become such an intense attraction to third-rate men that they will do anything to get them and they make the whole atmosphere of public life less pleasant. Let nobody suppose for a moment that I am suggesting that politics should be merely an occupation for a man of leisure. Not at all. It should be what I have said, a part-time job, and the average man in politics should have some other occupation outside politics which does its part towards providing him with a livelihood and to which he can return, as Deputy Keyes said the other day, with his head up in case he goes out of politics, either by his own wish or by the wish of his constituents.

In his speech advocating this Bill in Dáil Eireann, General MacEoin expressed the desire that the prestige of politics should be raised throughout this country and that political life should be made something to look up to, and something that should not be sneered at. I fully agree with General MacEoin in that, but I am astonished that he should imagine the way to achieve that is to increase our salaries behind the backs of the country, against the will of the people and to hold ourselves up as a spectacle to all hard-working people in every part of the country who manage to support their wives and families in a whole-time job on the basis perhaps of a university education on which they have spent a lot of money. Nevertheless, after all that, they have to content themselves with a salary less even than a Deputy is receiving at the present time—£360. And it may very reasonably be asked if we are going to pay our Deputies on a scale of £480 a year, has not the country the right to expect more from them? Are not we now going to be paid not only on the scale of a whole-time occupation but of a skilled occupation? Ought not Deputies and Senators be required to qualify themselves by a course in such subjects as political economy, economies, political science and modern history, either before or after they are elected?

Mr. O'Donovan

And elocution.

Mr. MacDermot

Yes, and even elocution. It seems to me that that might very reasonably be asked. It seems to me that there is very great room for improvement in the knowledge of these subjects in the parliamentary institutions of most countries, but perhaps, specially, this country. If we are to call upon the people to pay us on this scale they would have a very good right to expect us to qualify ourselves as thoroughly as a man has to qualify himself for other positions or occupations by university education. I think something ought to be done for Deputies, but not to increase their pay. An immense amount was said in this debate in the Dáil as to the multiplicity of the duties which Deputies have at present to undertake. I think it would not only be no public disadvantage but a great public advantage if some of these duties could be eliminated. Some of the greatest expenses in relation to the carrying out of a Deputy's duty are incurred in chasing around interfering with the operations of the Civil Service. Just as in another Bill we are going to consider to-day under which we are going to pay one set of men for governing the country and pay a special allowance to others to encourage them to impede these men in governing the country, so we are paying a large staff of civil servants whose duties are to decide on the merits of thousands of claims throughout the country and then we pay Deputies to interfere with the civil servants in the performance of their duties, without as a rule, the Deputies having as much evidence about these cases as a civil servant has. Deputies interfere with them often without even being able to take into consideration whether the evidence is in favour of the claim or not, if the political claim of a man in his constituency is sufficiently strong. If he helped him at the last election or if he can help him at the next election, and if that man is likely to be estranged and made hostile by our telling him that his claim is a bad claim, are we all so strong-minded that we will refrain from pressing his claim upon the competent authorities if his claim is a bad one? I am afraid we are not. I am afraid we think that other Deputies are doing the same thing and that we must stand by the claim and press for its most favourable consideration.

I would not suggest that the Deputy should cut himself off from the poor or from close contact with his constituents, but I do suggest that there is far too much pressing of claims of individuals because they belong to a particular political club and subscribe to it or that they supported one in the past or will support one in the future. It is very questionable whether better justice could not be done and claims and things of that nature dealt with more quickly if there were not interference by Deputies at all. And a propos of that, when I am told that Deputies could not wait until the next general election, until they knew what the country would think and say about increasing salaries, I call to mind case after case of a most pitiable kind where claims had been kept waiting for one year or a year and a half under the existing system. Under these circumstances I feel I have no alternative but to oppose this Bill.

Mr. Quirke

I rise to support the Bill and, in doing so, I believe I am acting in the best interests of the country. Listening to Senator MacDermot's speech, I thought it was a great pity that the members of the Dáil were not all invited to come here to-day, because I am sure every one of them would appreciate this lecture of Senator MacDermot's as to how they should do their business. It is also a pity that Senator MacDermot did not think of this lecture before the last election, go before the people and convince them of his ideas as to how members of the Dáil should treat their constituents. Running through Senator MacDermot's speech there was made evident the feeling that only a certain section should be represented here in the Oireachtas——

Mr. MacDermot

That is not true.

Mr. Quirke

——and that only a certain type of person should represent people here in the Oireachtas.

Mr. MacDermot

That is not true.

Mr. Quirke

I hope that anything I shall say in my speech will be nearer the truth than anything Senator MacDermot said because from the time he started until the time he finished he never uttered one syllable or one word of the truth; even his figures were not true and did not approach the truth. He went along and said that, in his opinion, this Bill was not approved by the people; secondly that the salary was already sufficient, and thirdly, that the passing of the Bill would not improve the type of people who would come forward for election as public representatives. If I ever thought that Senator MacDermot knew anything about this country or the people of this country I am now convinced as a result of this speech that he knows nothing about this country or about the people in it. He says that the present salary is sufficient and then he goes along and gives figures. I do not propose to go into his entire speech, but I will deal with one or two figures given by him. First of all he said a man could live here in Dublin on 10/- a day——

Mr. MacDermot

I said 15/- a day.

Mr. Quirke

The Senator suggested that he should be allowed 15/- a day, but that he could live on 10/-.

Mr. MacDermot

I never mentioned 10/- a day at all.

Mr. Quirke

I thought the Senator said 10/-. However, I am quite prepared to argue on that position and to say that the average man cannot live here in Dublin at 15/- a day. I go further and say that Senator MacDermot himself could not live on 15/-a day. I think he suggested that it would be an average of 10/- a day.

Mr. MacDermot

No.

Mr. Quirke

At any rate, Senator MacDermot is himself living in a privileged position, because he has not to maintain a permanent residence in this country. I do not know how the Senator lives; perhaps he makes up in one way what he loses in another way. I do not know what he is paying in income-tax, nor do I care, but I say that a man who comes up here to represent the people of the country— no matter what section of the people —is entitled to live comfortably here when in this city. Any man who has tried to live in a hotel in Dublin and pay his way cannot live on 15/-a day and Senator MacDermot knows that well.

Mr. MacDermot

What figure does Senator Quirke suggest?

Mr. Quirke

I will come to that later. I am suggesting that we should pass this Bill as it stands.

Mr. MacDermot

What figure does the Senator suggest at which a man should live in Dublin?

Mr. Quirke

Did the Senator say without criticism?

Mr. MacDermot

No, I asked the Senator to suggest the figure.

Mr. Quirke

Then I must be getting deaf, but perhaps it is because Senator MacDermot is as inaccurate in his elocution as in his figures. The Senator comes along and says that a Deputy can cover his travelling expenses in his constituency at the rate of £2 per week. Surely the Senator is not serious when he suggests that a man can travel to any extent at all in his constituency at that figure. Many Deputies do not own a motor car and the Senator surely knows that if a man has to hire a motor car even for one drive it is going to cost him £2.

Sir John Keane

What about a bicycle?

Mr. Quirke

At any rate, Senator MacDermot may need exercise on a bicycle to keep his health in order, but the man who is doing his work here in the Dáil and doing it in his constituency does not need to ride a bicycle when he goes back to his constituency. Then the Senator goes further and suggests that the average Deputy should be allowed £36 a year for subscriptions by way of charity. I am not one who would boast about my subscriptions to charities, but I am quite well aware of the fact that many Deputies here pay a figure in excess of that by way of subscriptions to one fund or another and that because of the fact that they are members of the Oireachtas.

We hear an awful lot about what could be done and what should be done from Senator MacDermot. A few years ago he tried the same sort of ticket or the same sort of attitude in the Dáil. At that time he refused to accept his salary. I do not know what became of his salary since that time but, if he wanted to give his salary or any other money to charity, I would suggest there are various ways of doing that without shouting from the house-tops what he was going to do with it. If he wants to do that in the future, I am quite sure nobody will have any objection whatever. As I say, I support the Bill because I believe in doing so I am acting in the best interests of the country.

Senator MacDermot mentioned democracy. I do not know why he ever mentioned such a word but I say, if we are to have democratic government, we must have a situation wherein it will be possible for any member of the community who is offering himself for election to the Dáil or Seanad, to be in a position to go forward for that election without the fear that he will not be able to carry on financially. As I said in the beginning, it is quite obvious that Senator MacDermot believes that only a certain type of man should be encouraged—he used that word later on in his speech. He said that men who were entirely dependent on their salaries as members of the Oireachtas should not be encouraged to go forward. In other words, we should go around and find men who would be in such a financial position that they would be prepared to accept the job merely as a recreation. I say that any such system as that would be entirely contrary to democracy and that, if we are to have democratic government here, if we are to have government of the people for the people and by the people, we must make it possible for the representatives of the people, no matter from what walk of life they may come, to come here and carry on their business as members of the Oireachtas without the fear that they or their families are going to be without the next meal.

Senator MacDermot quotes Deputy Cogan, I think it was, as a member of the Dáil who opposed this Bill, and represented him as a man who was living absolutely out of his salary as a member of the Dáil. Not alone was he living comfortably, he said, on that salary but he was supporting a wife and, I think, seven children. I do not know Deputy Cogan very intimately——

Mr. Crosbie

Coburn it was.

Mr. Quirke

Coburn? But I do know he is not absolutely dependent on his salary in the Dáil for his own personal support and the support of his children.

Mr. MacDermot

He said he was.

Mr. Quirke

I am saying what Senator MacDermot says, and I am contradicting him and let him prove that he was dependent.

Mr. MacDermot

Is a Senator called on to prove what Deputy Coburn says?

Mr. Quirke

Senator MacDermot says that a man can live comfortably on £360 a year. I would like to know from him how many years ago it is since he tried living on less than £360 a year, and how he liked it. I would further suggest that the people to whom Senator MacDermot refers and who, in his own opinion, should not be members of the Oireachtas at all, who should not, in his own words, be encouraged to become members of the Oireachtas, are men who did live on a salary far less than £360 a year, and men who gave their lives in the service of this country absolutely free, gratis and for nothing. When they began to work in the interests of this country, when they, if you like, entered the public life of this country, they did not look forward to an increase in salary in the year 1938. They did not look forward to a salary of £360 or £160 a year—and I am not referring to any one side of the House. I see men sitting on the Opposition Benches to whom my words refer just as much as they refer to the men on these benches here and men on both sides in the Dáil, but, according to Senator MacDermot, none of these people are fit to be members of the Oireachtas. No; we should have a certain type of men who would be in a position to come along here, who live luxuriously at a club or out of the country, if you like, and lecture the representatives as to what they should do or how they should treat their constituencies, and then come along and tell them they were too well off on their salaries and propose they should reduce them.

Senator MacDermot says that the most loathsome, the most contemptible —I do not know how many other adjectives he used—thing he could possibly imagine would be the man who would look down on poverty. If Senator MacDermot wants to know something a little bit more loathsome than that, it is the man who is going around the country bragging about all the money he has, that he never earned himself, and creating or trying to create the idea that, "Here am I, and, above anybody else, I am in a position to live without this salary. I am the type of man you should have in the Dáil or the Seanad, and I will not have to be depending on the salary." He goes a little further, and says it is only human nature that people who have to depend on these little salaries are not really to be relied on. We are to assume, I suppose, that Senator MacDermot, if he were to be perfectly honest, would say: "If you want a man who can be really relied on, I am the man." It is an extraordinary thing that Senator MacDermot did not go forward at the last election. He suggests here to-day that this measure should be put to the people by way of referendum. Why did he not put himself to the people by way of referendum at the last election? He goes a little bit further, and says he would be prepared to stand as Deputy in any constituency on this particular issue. I said by way of remark during his speech that I thought the Senator was an optimist. I think the House was in agreement with me, because it was a well known fact that the Senator did not go forward at the last election because he knew he had not a ghost of a chance of being elected in any constituency. Lest it might be taken that I had any objection to Senator MacDermot being nominated by the Taoiseach on that occasion, such is not the case. In fact, I would like now publicly to congratulate the Taoiseach on having nominated Senator MacDermot, for the simple reason that, as long as Senator MacDermot stands up here as a Senator—I am afraid he will never again be a Deputy—in this House, he will be here as a monument of what a certain type would do if they had control in this country. He will be here as an example to the people. There is a man who may have a grievance because he would not be elected in any constituency. He may have a grievance against political organisation as he has against every political party, as far as I know, because they would not put him up in any constituency. Here he is standing before the people, and let them examine him, and I know what the verdict will be. Whatever votes he would get at the last election, I would say he would get about 1 per cent. of those in the next election.

Senator MacDermot suggests that the Minister or the people supporting this Bill never knew of a man to refuse to go forward for election because the salary was inadequate. I say definitely that I know several people who refused to go forward because the salary was inadequate and I say definitely that I know several people who resigned from politics, not because the people turned them down or because the people or the Party refused to put them up, but because they believed they would be making too great a sacrifice and that they had already made sufficient sacrifices in the interests of the country and could be replaced by somebody else who, perhaps, would not be similarly handicapped. There are several of these men—I can give their names if necessary, but I do not want to. I also met a Deputy to-day who has not been very long a Deputy. I know that particular man to be a very methodical individual. I know him to be a very honest man and I know him to be a man who is very definitely interested in his work as a Deputy. That man told me that he kept a very accurate account since his election and that he had lost, because he was a member of the Dáil, at the rate of £200 a year. He did not put his expenses, perhaps, as high as even Senator MacDermot allowed some of the Deputies but in any case he decided, having charged up everything to his account, he finally had a balance of £40 a year to live on. That man has a wife and four children, and I think he would like that Senator MacDermot should have a private conversation with him and tell him how he would support his wife and four children on £40 a year. I am quite sure Senator MacDermot could do that.

Senator MacDermot goes along then and tries to make comparisons between the allowances for Deputies and Senators here as compared with the allowances made in similar circumstances in other countries. He says that the salaries in the United States are perhaps the highest salaries in the world and tries to suggest that we here in this country are practically approaching the same level as they are in the United States. I do not think it is inexact to suggest that there is absolutely no comparison. Senator MacDermot must know as well as anybody else that the dollar in the United States is regarded as in or about the same as the shilling is regarded here and that there is no sense whatever in making a comparison. The Deputy here who has to do his work or who does his work as a Deputy should do it, very definitely needs this increase which is being given him under this Bill. He needs the facilities which are being given to him in connection with travelling expenses and I believe that, by making the position of Deputy more attractive, if you like, you will definitely get a better type of man to come into the Dáil. Senator MacDermot doubts that very much. I am quite serious and quite honest when I say that. I know as much about a Deputy's work as any Deputy in the country. I say that a Deputy has a perfect right to go to a political meeting. Senator MacDermot does not think he has. He thinks he should stand on his high horse and wait until the next election and tell the people what he thought of them. That is not how they are elected. I think it is part of his work as a Deputy to attend political meetings and to meet his constituents. Who are his constituents but the people who elected him? If one man goes to a political meeting of one Party and another man to a political meeting of another Party, I say definitely those men are really making contact with their constituents and that that contact is absolutely necessary if we are to have democratic representation here. I believe that in supporting this Bill I am doing a good day's work in the interests of democratic government. I believe that it is the only way that we can get what we all desire to have here, that is, democratic government, government of the people for the people and by the people.

Mr. Douglas

I rise principally because I take a somewhat different view of this matter from any of the three previous speakers. In order to make my position clear, I would like to deal first with the proposal made in the Dáil and afterwards made by Senator MacDermot that this is exactly the kind of matter that should be put to a referendum. I will not follow Senator MacDermot in his figures, though I do not think they are quite accurate as far as the difference between £100,000 and interest on £350,000 for all time is concerned. For most of us "all time" would be from this until the next general election, if the people wish to change it. But those are not my grounds. I will be forgiven for being a little egotistical, but this is a matter to which I gave a considerable amount of thought not just this year but from the earliest days of this State.

Mr. Mac Fionnlaoich.

We all are a little egotistical.

Mr. Douglas

I confess it, at any rate. And I came to the conclusion that, in order to get complete and satisfactory stability in the State, there were certain measures which, even in the interests of democracy, could not be put by means of direct referendum to the people but for which the Oireachtas or the Government had to accept responsibility, and if it was to be changed it would be changed by the defeat of that Government or by a change in the members of the Dáil.

It seems to me that, of necessity, this is one of those measures. This is not the question of whether members should be paid or not; this is a matter of the amount which they should be paid. If you went to the people for any expenditure I do not believe you would get a referendum in favour of it unless that expenditure was going to benefit directly practically every elector. And we know, of necessity, that some of the best expenditure in the first instance benefits one part of the country or seems to benefit one class. The country and the people can judge of the total results. They cannot have the facts before them in order to form a wise opinion with regard to expenditure. Equally, in the case of taxes, we know perfectly well that taxes, while we hate them, are necessary. Can you think of any tax unless it was a tax confined to some very few people, that you could pass by means of a referendum? At the time of the first Constitution I read a great deal and made a good many personal inquiries and I then formed an opinion as the result of my reading and from what I could gather as to the best experience in democratic countries and it was this—that, in matters of finance, the Parliament and particularly the Executive of the day do accept this responsibility, that the people see the results and stand or fall, not on the particular action, but on the results.

I am, therefore, of the opinion that the amount which should be paid to Deputies or Senators, subject, of course, to criticism and advice in the House, must be the responsibility of the Executive of the day. Nothing would be worse for good government than going about on the hustings and elsewhere, making the kind of effective criticism which it is extremely easy to make on a measure of this kind. I could think of a good many arguments against these Bills which have not so far been mentioned either by Senator MacDermot or Senator McLoughlin and I would find it easier to find further criticisms than to defend this Bill. But, may I say again, that I do not believe that this issue can be decided by any of the points which have been argued backwards and forwards from one side to the other in the Dáil, and which we have heard in this debate to-day, points such as whether £52 for postage or £2 to travel in your constituency, is sufficient? If you take every member of the Oireachtas you would find that the figure was different in each case, and of necessity different according to the circumstances. It is equally useless to attempt to decide the personal loss which a Senator or Deputy may incur by giving up his time to public life. You may say that he need not suffer that loss if he does not like to. Of course, he need not but sometimes, in spite of the low opinion which we profess to have of one another, we have men who go into public life because they stand for a particular idea or ideal and think they should do it. I certainly do not believe that you are going to get the best type of independence either by paying far too much or by paying too little.

I believe this State suffered—I certainly do not want to hark back to old history—because the first large Opposition in this country had not, at the beginning, a full sense of responsibility and because they went in for a certain type of criticism in regard to financial matters; but I think they are now doing their best in the changed circumstances to face that responsibility. I hope those who now find themselves in Opposition, no matter how sincerely they disagree with the Government of the day, will not, for the good of the State as a whole, make the same mistake. The question of allowances for members of this House came up in the old Seanad some years ago and was a matter of considerable discussion between a number of us who were then members. I formed the opinion then that there was no case that I could be convinced of for a small allowance. I believe that the allowance has got to be adequate to cover all classes or that there should be no allowance at all. If an amendment were moved here to provide that there should be no allowance, other than travelling expenses of the members of the House, I would find it difficult to oppose it. It would change the character of the House. It would not, of necessity, mean that only rich men could be Senators, but it would mean that the Seanad would be composed of two classes—either of those who could afford to give their time to the Seanad without payment or those who were connected with organisations, vocational or otherwise, and who were paid for work of that kind and who, therefore, would be at liberty to attend an Assembly such as the Seanad. That would mean that their time would be paid for by an organisation or that Senators would be completely and absolutely independent.

To my mind, if the country has the right to make a demand on Senators, it should provide them with an adequate allowance. I have never sympathised with those who put in a very small average attendance here, as we had sometimes in the old Seanad. That was one of the biggest criticisms that could properly be levelled against that Seanad. It did not apply to a considerable number, but if Senators are to attend here with reasonable regularity, the allowance has got to be reasonably adequate. Having formed the opinion then—and I have read through almost the whole of the debate in the Dáil—that the allowance should be adequate to meet all reasonable expenses—as adequate as the State can afford—the next question is what the allowance should be. At the risk of being accused of cowardice, I am going to say frankly that I do not know. In any business, some of us in the position of directors for the time being have frequently to come to decisions of this kind and without getting exact data, we have only to say: "Having regard to all the circumstances, this is the amount which we propose." I believe that that cannot be improved upon by debating backwards and forwards small points as to what is the exact expense involved, whether the proposed allowance is reasonable or whether Senator MacDermot's opinion or Senator Quirke's opinion should find most favour with us.

Let us accept the fact that there is room for a perfectly honest difference of opinion, that this question should be dealt with seriously and with a full sense of responsibility of what we are doing. In that spirit, I have come to the conclusion that the decision of the Executive is the best and wisest course that can be taken in the circumstances. I do so although, as Senators are aware, I do not support the Executive generally.

Mr. McEllin

I was thinking very deeply when I heard Senator McLoughlin and Senator MacDermot speak, as to the type of mind that has to be developed to voice such feelings as they expressed. Senator McLoughlin was so cynical in his statements that I could only think that he was suffering to a certain degree from old age. Being a shirt manufacturer, he evidently believes in the people keeping their shirts on them, although it looks as if he were inclined to pull the shirts off Deputies. Senator MacDermot was also in a rather severe mood in discussing the merits of this Bill. I have a hazy recollection that when Senator MacDermot was a Deputy in the other House, representing Roscommon, he thought so little of his £360 a year that he made an offer to his constituency to put it into a fund or to invest it for the benefit of some charitable institution in his constituency. He invested it in the Hospitals Trust, and when it turned up trumps, he forgot about the charitable institutions in his constituency, and did not go back there again. Of course, that is the type of individual or the type of person Senator MacDermot believes should represent us in the Dáil.

Mr. MacDermot

If the Senator will make that statement outside this House, he will find himself in the law courts.

Mr. McEllin

If the Senator says it is not accurate, I will withdraw it. As I say, I was speaking from a hazy recollection.

Mr. MacDermot

It is better not to make offensive accusations from a hazy recollection.

Mr. McEllin

I withdraw the accusation. However, Senator MacDermot opposes this Bill in a way which reminded me of a type of individual who is pandering—for what motive I do not know—to the meanest instincts of some of our people, by saying that this was a rotten Bill and that there was a rotten principle behind it. Senator MacDermot ought to realise that the feelings and the nature of the rank and file of the people are such that they do not grudge another person what he gets. Having regard to the general position of a Deputy, the work that he has to carry out, the difficulties that he has to contend with in meeting the wishes of his constituents, the people with whom he is most in contact are prepared to admit quite openly that a Deputy's position is a most unenviable one, no matter what salary he gets. I think that a Deputy is giving good service for the allowance he receives if he attends properly to the needs of the people he represents. If he succeeds in getting for them even a portion of their requirements, in order to raise their standard of living, he is not sufficiently paid for his work.

We have heard some comparisons this evening as to what representatives in other countries are getting. I have heard Senator McLoughlin say that British Members of Parliament were getting £600 a year. I have here a document taken from statistics which shows that Deputies in South Africa are getting £700 a year. Senators are paid the same amount by the same token. As well as that £700 a year, Deputies in South Africa receive travelling allowances and allowances in respect of members of their families. In New Zealand, a country like ours but much poorer, I think, Deputies get £450 a year and travelling expenses. In Canada, they get £1,000 a year and travelling expenses. In Australia they get £1,000 a year and travelling expenses and in the United States 10,000 dollars a year. A number of small countries are mentioned and the allowances which they give indicates the standard which they believe a Deputy should maintain in representing the people and in carrying out his responsibilities. I personally feel at the present time and have felt for a considerable number of years past, that if a Deputy is really and conscientiously doing his duty he is worth every penny of the allowance made under this Bill. As a matter of fact, I think if he carries out his work he will spend every penny of it and more along with it. That particularly applies to Deputies who represent constituencies along the western seaboard, from Kerry to Donegal.

I know one case in which a Deputy lives 40 or 50 miles from a railway station. It takes him two days to get here. When he comes here, he has to leave his wife and family after him until the session concludes. If, in the meantime, he goes home for a weekend, he has to spend Friday and Saturday going and Monday and Tuesday coming back. When Senator MacDermot talks of the amount on which a Deputy can live in Dublin, he does not take into consideration all the difficulties of their work or what these Deputies have to expend in travelling to and fro. I have not very much more to say but I do hope that the sort of mentality which suggests that a certain type, the independent class —independent business, if you like— are the class who are ideally suited to represent the people of this country, is very far removed from the general outlook of the people. We had a quotation from some Senator to the effect that you want decent people as representatives. I do not know what the Senator had in mind when he used the phrase "decent people." What is a decent Deputy or what goes to make a decent man? In my view, you will find as decent, as good, as clean and as honest a man beside the poorest fireside in any thatched cottage as in some of the luxurious flats in Merrion Square. Would those people who talk about decent people suggest that the poor man was not a decent man, or that that poor man should not have the wherewithal to set himself as high a standard as that of the people amongst whom he moves when he comes here? That is the least he would be entitled to, and just because he has more money to spend in keeping up the standard he is entitled to have here does not mean that his point of view is going to be upset or his outlook changed. I am of the opinion that the people opposing this Bill are merely following the line of least resistance, and working on the line of argument of individuals who have lost their backbone and are lashing their lazy bodies, moryah, for the good of the common people. The type of man who comes along with that sort of argument is indulging in nothing short of brazen hypocrisy. I only hope that that hypocrisy will cease in the future. As Senator Douglas has pointed out, it is far more difficult to get up here and argue the merits of the Bill on behalf of those who will get benefit from it than to argue against it.

Professor Tierney

I find myself in general agreement with the views expressed by Senator Douglas, and I only intervened at all because there are a few points to which I should like to draw attention. I think it is rather a pity in a way that a Bill like this should have to come before the Oireachtas at all, and especially at a time like the present. I think it is still more a pity that the debate on a Bill such as this should follow the lines it seems to be inclined to follow. I should like to suggest to Senators that we will get far more valuable work done and make far more progress if we do not discuss it so much from the purely personal point of view, as we seem to be in danger of doing, and also that we should be doing more valuable work if we did not wax so eloquent about the hearts and feelings of unfortunate Deputies, and perhaps of unfortunate Senators, in the matter. It is a difficult and painful matter enough to discuss without personalities and sentimentalities being dragged in, but as it comes before us, we may as well face the facts and discuss it.

This is a matter which has arisen in its present form and at the present stage, to my mind, because both the Governments which this country has enjoyed since the Treaty have been at fault in regard to it. I believe the first Government made a great mistake in fixing all these public allowances and salaries, Ministers' and Deputies' included, at too low a figure, if anything, and I believe that the Opposition which held the field in the first ten years of self-government made a still more tragic mistake in making salaries and allowances one of the principal points of their attack on the then Government. All this business began as long ago as 1926, when a ramp was started about salaries and that ramp was looked on as offering favourable fuel for Party politics. It was worked up until finally we got to a stage when it was scarcely admitted that any man in the country was worth a payment of even £500 a year. It is because that ramp was worked up and a situation created in which it was found impossible for Ministers and Deputies to carry on that this unfortunate debate has to take place here, and the other unfortunate debates had to take place in the Dáil.

In a way, it is a pity because people like me find ourselves in a curious situation with regard to the present Government. There is a tremendous temptation, when they come forward with a Bill like this, to rake up all their utterances in the past and to point out that they have been eating their own words very successfully and very skilfully for the last couple of years; but, at the same time, we are hampered by the fact that we do not want to stop them eating their own words. The more of that diet they take the better for them, for us and for the country generally. We are, as I say, hampered in our criticism. All we can do is to cheer them on and to hope that, having seen the mistakes of the past, they will continue on the good road. In saying that I do not mean to suggest that I want them to continue raising Deputies' salaries until they reach an astronomical figure. It applies to their general conduct. They have reformed in a most remarkable and gratifying fashion in the last year or so, and it is a cause of the greatest regret, in one way, to people like me, who spent so many years pointing out their weaknesses and defects, that we cannot continue it any longer.

The great point that occurs to my mind in considering this question is the paradoxical nature of the Government's action in the matter. I do not believe there is any use at all in a big body like this, and still less in a big body like the Dáil, discussing the details of Deputies' allowances, and whether such and such a Deputy is worth what he is getting, half it, or twice as much. You could never get anything like a satisfactory conclusion to an argument like that. As Senator Douglas pointed out, in a certain sense, every herring must hang by its own tail. Every Deputy has his own valuation—not merely the valuation he puts on himself, but, objectively, every Deputy is worth so much, and scarcely any two Deputies or Senators either are worth the same amount. It seems to me that the proper way to deal with a question like this was the very wise course the Government took at the beginning. They appointed a committee of reputable people in a public manner, and asked that committee to consider this big question of the remuneration of Ministers, and the allowances of Deputies. They got a very careful, well-considered and thorough report from that committee. Now we find that they have gone in a direction diametrically opposite to the findings of that committee in both regards—in regard to Ministers' remuneration and Deputies' allowances. Speaking as a member of the public, I think it would be well if the Minister and members of the Government gave the public a clearer and fuller explanation of that paradoxical action on their part than they have done so far.

It is a point you cannot hide. There is no use in thinking that if we do not say anything about it, nobody else will. It is something which everybody in the country knows and something which I, personally, find very difficult to explain. You have a committee, a good committee, set up, which worked very hard and produced an excellent report. It is not that you reject the report—I could understand that well enough—but you take one part of the report and adopt it, and reject another part. In both regards, there are two great parts in the report. One recommends that Deputies' allowances be left as they are, and the other, that Ministers' salaries be raised, and in each respect, the Government, in its wisdom, decides to go entirely against the findings of the committee. I should like to know what the reason for that is. I have not yet seen any reason that satisfies me. It is a matter more, perhaps, of tactics and of the right way of doing things than anything else, because personally I am not prepared to argue the question of Deputies' expenses, or whether their travelling expenses cost them so much, or how much they have to spend on motor-cars. Indeed, having a certain little experience myself, I am prepared to go very far with Deputies in this respect.

The expenses of Deputies are very high, much higher than the rigid schedules of Senator MacDermot would incline us to think, but that is not the question that emerges from this position. It is the question: Why has the Government implemented and failed to implement the report of the Shanley Committee in such a very curious fashion? It arises in connection with the next Bill, and in both these regards I am inclined to think that the Government would have done much better and, on the whole, would have shown much more courage, when all is said and done, if they had taken the recommendations of that committee and carried them out. I have the greatest sympathy with Deputies, but I doubt very much whether it could be shown, in spite of what Senator McEllin has said, that any Deputy has lost very grievously because he has been a member of the Dáil for any length of time. Every case, as I have said, has to stand on its own feet. No two Deputies are alike, but, on the whole, I am of the opinion that the original salaries, fixed in 1922, were about as low and and about as sound as they could possibly be. They were too low, to my mind, if anything, but once they were fixed, it would have been wiser to have left them as they were. If we are going to change them, the right way to do it is after careful inquiry by a small body like the Shanley Committee, and if you set up a committee like that, let it bring in recommendations and, then, not accept them, I think the least you might do is to explain to the Oireachtas why you are taking that course.

I am quite prepared to admit that Deputies, in certain cases, have great expenses, but surely there is another way to deal with that question besides the proposal to raise Deputies' allowances. When we talk about allowances —and I say this without intending to be offensive to anybody and merely as a person who has the general interests of the country at heart—we are reaching a point, if we have not passed it, at which these allowances to Deputies have, in fact, become salaries. There is no doubt that the ordinary small farmer in Galway regards a Deputy's allowance, not merely as a salary, but a magnificent salary, and the question arises whether, having passed this Bill and raised the allowances to the figure now being fixed, it is going to be sufficient in future, and whether we are not going to be faced with a long process of continual increases in Deputies' allowances. That is a question which, again, I say, the ordinary citizen is undoubtedly asking himself very seriously at present. It is a question which he has every right to ask himself seriously; and if we are faced with a condition in which Deputies' expenses are very high and that something ought to be done about it, I do suggest seriously that there are other things that could be done about it besides this process of indefinite increases.

We could, for example, investigate the causes of these expenses. Senator Quirke, Senator McEllin and Senator MacDermot, too, have pointed to the enormous correspondence which Deputies have to indulge in, if that is the correct word. It is not, as a matter of fact, very much of an indulgence for them. It is one of the things that make public life in this country a misery, and hardly worth the allowance, no matter how high. There is an amazing mass of often very futile correspondence in which Deputies are compelled to engage, but what is the reason for this mass of correspondence and all these other duties? Surely there are two very obvious reasons. I suggest, from the point of view of the country as a whole, that these are the things that should be considered in this connection, at least, as much as the question of raising the allowances. One of these reasons is the fact that this country has been dominated ever since it got self-government by a most rabid form of two-Party politics. Deputies down the country have to consider not the interests of the country— very few spend most of their time thinking of the public interests of the people—but the interests of their Parties, how to circumvent the other fellow and how to get votes for themselves at the next election. Any Deputy who takes up that work is condemning himself to a very unpleasant sort of career. To my mind that kind of Party politics is about as unpleasant a life as anyone could engage in. To anyone who examines the question fairly there can be no doubt that the great bulk of the ordinary Deputy's activity is not public activity in that sense. It is Party activity. I do not know whether Senator Quirke maintains—perhaps he does—that that sort of frantic two-Party politics is a good thing. If he does, I certainly do not agree with him.

I suggest that one means of getting rid of this mounting expense for Deputies' allowances is for the statesmen to come together and put an end to that kind of two-Party politics, of that futile, foolish bickering and wrangling over things which year by year are of less and less importance, and become more and more a scandal to the public. That is one thing that could be done, and, if done, would at once bring down the expense of public representation in this country.

Mr. McEllin

Competition is the life of trade.

Professor Tierney

It may be the life of trade. It certainly is the life of Parties. I suggest that is one of the reasons why the expenses of parliamentary representation have gone up as much as they have. There is this point to be considered: that a Deputy is not merely in competition with his enemies in the locality but with the members of every other Party, so that you have two sets of meetings and two sets of influences at work in every house in the country, but he is also, owing to our peculiar electoral system, in competition with his colleagues in his own Party. I believe that the system of election we have here—Proportional Representation—is one of the most expensive systems of democratic government that you could possibly have because it creates, as I have said, that sort of inter-Party competition. It certainly in this country has done nothing to allay that kind of competition, and it is calculated to create competition within the Parties themselves.

One of the great causes of a Deputy's expenses is that the constituencies in this little country are enormously large. You have constituencies stretching across the country over a distance of 50 or 60 miles, so that if you were to drive over them in a motor car for any length of time you could not do it on the figure that Senator MacDermot allows. There is no doubt that your expenses would be much more like £2 10s. a day if you were to employ a motor to do the work. I had some little experience myself. Suppose, for example, you were a Deputy for a constituency like North Mayo and lived in Ballina. You may have to attend one meeting in Belmullet and perhaps on the same day another meeting at Swinford. That would mean travelling 60 or 80 miles in the one day. In addition, you may have to visit influential people and attend small committee meetings. The expense of travelling over a constituency like that is enormous. There is no question about it. I have the greatest sympathy with Deputies in that matter, but at the same time is it not worth while seeing whether we could not cheapen all that expensive business and improve our system of election by going back to the old system that we always had in this country—the single-member small constituency, and thereby get rid of the sort of competition of which I have been speaking?

Mr. O'Donovan

Since the system of Proportional Representation is embodied in the Constitution, I submit that the Senator is out of order in speaking on this.

Professor Tierney

I have said all I wanted to say on the subject. Even if it is embodied in the Constitution, surely that is no reason why we should not consider getting, if we can, a less expensive system.

Cathaoirleach

The Senator is quite in order since he has related the subject to the Bill before the House.

Professor Tierney

I have yet to learn that it is impossible to amend the Constitution. Even if it is embodied in the Constitution, surely that does not preclude the House from considering other methods than the one suggested in the Bill before us. It is highly advisable, I think, that this matter should be settled once and for all; that we should reach a figure in regard to these allowances for Deputies and of remuneration for Ministers on which there will be general agreement, that we should not have this matter coming up every two or three years with continual struggles going on at the hustings and with the whole country turned into a vast competition in regard to increases in salary, allowance and so on, with all the miserable recriminations that that sort of thing entails. That is one reason, at any rate, why I am prepared to vote for the measure. I hope that, when it is passed, we shall have heard the last of this question of Deputies' allowances and of all kindred subjects for a long time to come.

Mr. P. Hogan

This is the first time that I find myself in the happy position of being able to speak in the National Parliament without having to consider what effects—what reactions —my remarks may have upon my constituency, and, as this is an institution which scorns the Party system, I am speaking in splendid isolation for myself alone. This Bill, I think, has afforded both sides an opportunity for exaggeration and for extensive exaggeration. I do not think there is any danger that democratic institutions are likely to topple over or to be laid low if we do not increase the salaries of Deputies. Neither do I think that there is any great chance or likelihood that we are going to attract to the national parliament men of very undoubted ability if we do increase the amount from £360 to £480 a year. So, therefore, there has been a good deal of general exaggeration indulged in.

Senator MacDermot, I think, made a very bad case of what might have been a good case if he had dealt with it in what one might consider a reasonable fashion. He told us that the average man should have some other occupation outside politics—that is, the average representative—and then he proceeded to tell us that that man who should have some other occupation outside politics is likely to spend 100 days in Dublin away from home, that he is likely to spend £1 a week on postage, and that he is likely to spend £2 per week in travelling over his constituency. But how, in the name of common sense, is that man ever going to give any consideration to his other business if he is going to spend 100 days away from home, another number of days attending to his correspondence as a Deputy, and a further period travelling over his constituency? It strikes me, if he were to do all that, that he would have forgotten his normal business altogether and have made politics his business instead.

It seems to me, looking back over the past 15 years, that representation in the Dáil has been somewhat lopsided. Those of us who have had experience of it know that some Deputies get a good deal more to do than other Deputies, and that possibly the surplus that was in some Deputy's bag represented a shortage in some other Deputy's post bag. That, probably, is a thing the Government could not set itself to remove or alter. I do remember, in the case of my own correspondence, that the peak point was reached one day with 54 letters. I do know that other Deputies received a correspondence that was at least as great. There is no doubt whatever that Deputies who attend to their work will get a great deal more to do than the Deputies who ignore the correspondence they receive. On that matter, I am somewhat in agreement with Senator Tierney and some other Senators, who suggested that something might be done in order to remove this ordinary routine departmental work from the region of political advantage. There is no doubt that throughout the constituencies a good deal of political advantage is sought to be made of the fact that Deputy A is able to get an old age pension, while Deputy B is not; that Deputy A is able to get a military service pension, and that Deputy B is not. In my opinion, these are things that ought to be removed out of the sphere of political advantage, and that ought to be put into the ordinary routine of departmental work.

I think it should be easy to do that. I think that a Parliamentary bureau could very easily be set up which would act as a kind of clearing house for the correspondence of all Deputies. There is no reason why a comparatively small staff could not get in touch with the various departments, and send out, in the name of the various Deputies, the replies received from these departments, keeping a copy of the letters either for filing purposes in the office of the bureau, or else handing them over to the Deputy concerned. I think that such a bureau would be of immense advantage to Deputies. New Deputies, in particular, would be able, as a result of the instruction and direction received from the officers in the bureau, to find out exactly what to do. I think that such a system would deal more effectively with this question of ordinary departmental routine work, and would result in putting it outside the ambit of political advantage.

But that is not the reason why I am going to vote against this Bill. I am going to vote against it for another reason. I think the Government have not approached this matter in the proper fashion. Even though I may incur the strictures of Senator Robinson on the matter of order, I am going to suggest that this Bill should be brought forward by way of an amendment to the Constitution. When we have comparisons made as to the salaries paid in Great Britain, America and other countries, why should we not make comparisons as to the representation allowed per 1,000 of the inhabitants of this country, and what is allowed in those other countries? Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a population of about 48,000,000, and their representation in the British House of Commons is something like 615. That gives one representative for every 80,000 of the population. Surely it cannot be contended that we here have greater parliamentary responsibilities than the members of the British House of Commons. We have not yet a mandate for Rathlin Island, and yet we have a large representation. The population of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is 12 times that of this State, and yet they have only four times a greater representation in the British House of Commons than we have here. Surely it is time we considered that position.

In France the representation is one member for every 60,000, and I think the basis of representation in Belgium is much about the same. I think it is on that basis that we ought to tackle the problem—the basis as to whether we are over-represented in the two Houses of the Oireachtas. I think that we could very well do with a Dáil of 70 members as we could very well do with a Seanad of 30 members. If we make a trifling calculation we find that 138 Deputies at £480 a year each will cost the country £66,240 a year, and that a Seanad constituted as this is at the moment costs the country £21,600 a year, giving a total for Deputies and Senators of £87,840. If, instead, we had a Dáil of 70 members paid at the rate of £500 a year, we would have a Dáil and Seanad for £56,600, or a saving of £10,000 per year in respect of the two Houses, less than is paid to one of the Houses at the moment. I therefore suggest that that is the way we should attack this proposition; it is the method by which we should approach it.

I am not pandering to the demand that is made outside. I know that people outside do not fully realise what Deputies are called upon to do. None of us who essayed to undertake public representation understood the burden that was being put upon us in the various matters that arise. I suggest that bureau to the Minister seriously as one of the ways of putting this matter aside. I suggest the consideration of the other matter to him quite seriously also—the matter of amending the Constitution. I do know that democracy is being challenged at every step to-day. I do know that Parliamentary institutions are being challenged at every step to-day. But intemperate and dissolute democracy is very often the parent of mad-dog dictatorship. I am opposing this Bill not for what it is doing at the moment, but because it is an indication. I am opposing it because it has not attacked the problem in the way it should attack it and approached it in the interests of the people, leaving out of account the consideration of those who are appointed as representatives.

Donnchadh O hÉaluighthe

Táim ag cuidiú leis an Bhille seo atá ós ar gcoir agus ba mhaith liom cupla focal a rá mar gheall air.

I do not exactly agree with Senator Quirke that Senator McLoughlin is suffering from senile decay. In this House, at all events, he is one of the people we enjoy. His very sharp sarcasm, if you like, is rather interesting and I certainly enjoy it. In my opinion he is an institution in himself. I do not intend to pay too much attention to Senator MacDermot, as I think there has been a bit too much attention paid to him already. Senator MacDermot would have some special qualifications for membership of this House. He did not exactly state what these special qualifications should be, but, as one of the rank and file, I must assume that a member of this House should be possessed of a superior English accent and be altogether devoid of a knowledge of the Irish language I presume. I heard the Senator issue a challenge that he would contest any rural constituency. He had an opportunity a few months ago of contesting a constituency in this State and he did not do so. I think he was a very wise judge.

Mr. MacDermot

When was this?

Mr. Healy

I say the Senator had an opportunity of contesting a seat about last June, which is not very many months back, and that he was a very wise judge not to avail of the opportunity offered to him to contest any seat in this State. Listening to Senator MacDermot brought my mind back to a man I knew of the same name an honoured man whom we all respected and revered, a man with a heart of a lion when fighting for Ireland's cause, and the gentleness of a child. I am referring to the late lamented Seán MacDermot, who gave his life for his country. If his noble spirit hovered around this House to-day and heard this bearer of his name speak as he has been speaking I do not know what his feelings would be. I do not know how far Senator Douglas would go so far as the extension of vocational representation is concerned. I am in this House as a nominee of a vocational body—the Municipal Authorities Association of Ireland, which is comprised of people with different views and different politics possibly, and I am not bound, therefore, to any one view. But if this House was composed largely of sections, each section looking after its own interests and its own interests only I do not know that it would lead very much to peace.

Coming now to the question under debate, I read the Parliamentary Debates as regularly as I possibly can, and the remarks of one speaker in Dáil Eireann certainly interested me very much and that speaker was Deputy MacEoin. He, like me, is a skilled tradesman who, before he took an interest in the freedom of his country, earned his living at his trade. I think the statement he made was very apposite indeed. I have some experience of going to different conferences in the country and from my experience of the expenses allowed I really do not know how a Deputy from the country can really manage to live on his slender resources. I was down in Senator Crosbie's city last June at the Technical Education Congress and I was in Galway at the Municipal Authorities Association Conference in September. From going to these cities I have some idea of the expenses incurred by people who go to them. There is an old Irish proverb which says: "Ná déan nós agus ná bris nós," the translation of which is, "Do not make a custom and do not break a custom." If I meet a few friends whom I have not met for some years, such as Senator Hayes whom I met in the Gaelic League years ago, you know what it means. You know how very far the 15/- expenses referred to by Senator MacDermot would go. When we come to these expenses which have been so freely spoken of by Senator MacDermot, it dawned upon me that his lean proportions— I do not want to be hurtful or offensive in the least—may indicate his thrifty living. From his cost-of-living figures it has dawned upon me that he may be a very economical man.

I certainly cannot see how Deputies who come to the city from the country can manage to make ends meet on their resources, up to now at all events.

We have heard talk about Deputies looking after their business outside. I am living in the city for many years and I know how difficult it is to make ends meet. I know, too, how little time I can give to my own business if I have to look after public business. That is why I am in full agreement with the statement made by Deputy MacEoin. One cannot attend to one's own business and attend to public business at the same time. Because of the knowledge of these matters which I have, I intend to vote for the motion before the House. I do not propose to refer to the point made by Senator Hogan because I am sure Labour Senators will themselves deal with it. I am rather surprised at the argument used by Senator Hogan, but one of his colleagues will probably deal with it. Deputies come up here and do their duty honestly and well. They spend their time here and pay their way in hotels and I do not understand how they could live as cheaply as Senator MacDermot would suggest. We, of the Dublin Corporation, are building four-room flats for which we have to charge 17/4 per week. In these circumstances, I do not see how a man could pay rent and live on his allowance. I propose to vote for the motion before the House.

Mr. Madden

It was my desire for a long time to give expression to a view which, I think, fundamentally represents the opinion of the people of the country. I am looking at this question from an entirely different angle from that from which it was regarded by other Senators and I shall, perhaps, adduce a line of argument different from that adopted by the other speakers to-day. For 25 years I have represented an exclusively agricultural community on the board of guardians, the district council and, for 14 years, on the county council. Speaking in my capacity as Senator, I do so with special sympathy for the agricultural point of view. I heard great sympathy expressed regarding the conditions under which Deputies discharge their duties. Reading the debates and listening to some of the speeches in the Dáil, one found that the same atmosphere was created there. I am not going to argue against the equities of the case, if you will, but I heard very little sympathy expressed, and read of the expression of very little sympathy in the Dáil, with the conditions under which those in the country who would be included in the category of taxpayers and ratepayers labour.

I intend to vote against this Bill and I believe that, in so doing, I shall be giving articulate expression to the considered views of a very considerable section of the community, not allied to any definite Party. Since the last meeting of the Seanad there has been a chorus of condemnation by supporters of all Parties of the hasty, illtimed and ill-considered action of the Government in adding this sum to an incubus already intolerable. The taxpayers are not able to bear all this taxation. In my opinion, this is a flagrant violation of the people's interests and the people's rights, and is completely at variance with the promises made by the Government Party when seeking the suffrages of the people with a view to election as a Government, a task in which they succeeded in 1932. There is an old hunting proverb: "A cry-back is good hunting". Let me recall a statement by the members of the Fianna Fáil Party:

"A Fianna Fáil Government will not be satisfied to continue governmental and public administration on the present extravagant, Imperial scale. Our policy will be directed to securing rigid economy in all departments, and we propose to set about reducing expenditure in these directions immediately. There will be no more bloated salaries, no hordes of redundant officials, no more pensions for able-bodied men, and——"

last, and ironically—

"no useless Seanad."

How can the Government Party reconcile their subsequent actions culminating in this measure—involving only an infinitesimal part of their £35,000,000 —with giving increased salaries to Deputies?

I want members to realise the invidiousness of a man in my position. We have difficulty in the county council to which I have had the honour to belong for 14 years in making ends meet. Ours is a purely agricultural county, and I am satisfied that there is a consensus of opinion amongst the people that this measure will have very serious repercussions all over the country. Apropos of its introduction and discussion, there is a motion tabled at my council for Saturday demanding that the wage of workers be increased from 30/- to £2, and the wage of carters increased by 20 per cent. That is due to the increased cost of living and to the inspiration given in the Dáil by the introduction of this measure. That means that the estimate for our county will have to be increased if the motion be passed. Those who make this claim have a legitimate, tangible ground because of the ever-increasing cost of living, which has gone up recently, according to the index figure which I saw in the papers. If we are to make provision for the justice and equity of their case, it will involve an increase in the estimate of £25,000. Since I was here ten days ago, the Minister for Local Government sent to our council an inspector to inquire into the reasons why we were compelled to dismiss ten rate collectors. Ten rate collectors were dismissed because they failed to do what some of us regard as an impossible duty. I do say, Sir, that the dismissal of two of these ten people can be defended on just and equitable grounds, but there are eight other men, some of whom have been rate collectors for 20 years, whose dismissal could not be justified on such grounds. However, because the Minister for Local Government and Public Health reduced the overdraft to £45,000, the pressure became so much that we were forced to dismiss ten rate collectors. For what reason? It was not that they did not close their warrants, which should have been closed on the 1st October, but because they did not have the first moiety collected. Why was it that they did not have that moiety collected? It was because of the fact that the ratepayers in the county, as a result of the generally bad conditions, were unable to pay at the moment. It was because of the general incapacity of the ratepayers there to pay—and that was in one of the best counties, from the point of view of paying their rates and so on, in Ireland. I am speaking here from experience. I am speaking as a man who is in touch with the farming community in my own part of the country—as an auctioneer and a man who has to deal with every aspect of the farming community—and I know all the ramifications of agriculture. I know that there are men in this. Assembly and in the Dáil who are men of great attainments—men who have burned the midnight oil, and who have achieved high academic distinctions, and deservedly so—but I am afraid that they know nothing of the conditions of the rural population and the efforts that have to be made by members of the agricultural community to meet the charges that are put on them.

I must be logical and consistent in this matter. Every fortnight I come up against such matters. I am not critical of the Government in this matter, and I do not approach these things in any spirit of partisanship. I think it will be agreed that I do not approach such matters in a spirit of partisanship. In all such matters I try to look out for the general good of the community, and I say that, no matter what might, possibly, be said for this proposal in other circumstances, its introduction at this time is most inopportune. It is no wonder that there is a chorus of denunciation of the measure all over my county. I have been all over my county for the last week, and there is a general chorus of denunciation against this measure that has been introduced by the Government. I believe that it will have serious reactions and repercussions upon administration, generally, and I also say that it is completely at variance with the policy that has always been enunciated by the Government and that it is a repudiation of their policy and of the promises they made to the people.

Mr. Tunney

In rising to speak, Sir, I wish to say that I am opposing this measure. I am doing that strictly on my own. I am not following the dictates of anybody in this matter, but in opposing this measure I am acting in accordance with my own conscience. I have listened to various Senators this evening who have spoken either for or against the measure, but it is not because of anything that these Senators have said that I am now speaking in opposition to the measure. I am speaking in opposition to the measure because I came in here with my mind definitely made up that, even if I were alone on this matter, I would be opposed to the introduction of this measure at the present time. My reasons for opposing the measure are entirely different to the reasons given by any of the Senators who have spoken so far. One of my reasons for opposing the measure is that I am satisfied that no Deputy is worth £400 a year more than an agricultural labourer is worth. The Government has fixed the wages of agricultural labourers at £70 a year, but before the agricultural labourer receives his £70 a year he must work every day in the year. He must not miss any day in the year before he receives his £70. Now, I hold that a Deputy, no matter how good he may be, is not worth £400 more than an agricultural labourer is worth. Let us also look at the matter from the point of view of the small farmer in this country. There are very few small farmers in this country that are making £200 profit in the year out of their farms. I know that quite well. I understand the position of the farmers. I understand the conditions in County Dublin just as in County Mayo.

Senator McEllin, a very personal friend of mine and a man of whom I think rather highly, has said that it is hypocrisy to oppose this measure. Well, anybody can call me a hypocrite or anything else they like, but I say that I feel I am in duty bound to oppose the measure. One of the reasons for my opposition to the measure is, as I have stated already, that there is too much of a difference between the case of a Deputy and that of an agricultural labourer. Let us give an example to bear out that point. Let us suppose that there was a general election in the morning and that the date for the assembly of the new Dáil was not to be for six or eight months, I think that this country would get on quite well. Let us even suppose that the date for the reassembly was not fixed until 12 months after the election, and that the present Government or the present officials of the Government remained in office, without the assistance of the new Deputies, I think the country could get on quite well. If, however, the farmers and agricultural labourers were to sit down for 12 months, where would the country be? Honestly, in my humble way of looking at this matter, I cannot see where the difference comes in. That is one reason for my opposition to this measure. Another reason for my opposition is that the country is unable to bear any such increase at the present time. The country is simply unable to pay. For instance, no later than last night, at a meeting of a local authority, we had representatives of unemployed men from County Dublin, and I am sorry to say that it was the first time, so far as I know, in the history of the Dublin County Council, that there was not one member to stand up and propose that we should vote a few thousand pounds for the relief of unemployment. We feel that the farmers in County Dublin are not able to pay any more, and therefore, when these men asked for one week's work for Christmas, there was not one member of that council who had the courage to propose a motion that those men should be given that week's employment.

Another reason I have for opposing this measure is that Deputies—or, at least, most Deputies—are not entirely dependent on their allowances as Deputies. Generally, a Deputy has another means of livelihood. Many Deputies and Senators are drawing salaries or allowances from other Government Departments. As far as I am concerned, I am opposed to the drawing of salaries or allowances by Deputies or Senators from other Government Departments. The way I look at it is that, if the job of a Deputy or a Senator is supposed to be a whole-time job, and if he is also drawing an allowance from some other Government Department for what is supposed to be a whole-time job, he must be neglecting one or the other. He is either neglecting his duty as a Deputy or Senator or his duty in his other capacity. There must be something wrong somewhere. That is another reason why I intend to vote against this measure.

Mind you, I have great personal admiration for very many of the Dáil Deputies, particularly the great 77 to whom Senator McLoughlin referred. I am satisfied that there are 77 honest Deputies; I am satisfied that there are even 87 splendid Deputies in the Dáil, and I think that even if you were to give an allowance of £1,000 you would never improve on those Deputies. As a matter of fact, I think that if you did give £1,000 you would have a worse type of Deputy there. The majority of those are true and tried men, who went out and risked their lives in the fight for the freedom of this country. That is the type of man we should like to see in public life, and I think if the salaries are increased you will never improve on those 87 Deputies or, probably, 107 Deputies. I never mind a man's political views; I admire the present Government, that good 77, but at the same time I do not think that by increasing the salaries you will bring in better Deputies. As a matter of fact I think you will bring in a different type.

There are Deputies who are members of public bodies, and all my sympathies are with them, because they spend an enormous amount of time on the work of those bodies. I have been a member of a public body for the last ten years, and that body has taken up more of my time than the Seanad, although I attended the Seanad during the whole period. Some of the members of local bodies in this country have done Trojan work. They go into the very homes of the people, and understand where the shoe pinches the poor. Remember, a lot of those gentlemen do this for the love of doing it, and when you bring into public life a man who is doing that for the amount he gets out of it, and put him against the man who is doing it for the love of the work, I am afraid you will not improve the type. In fact, I think you will rather do the reverse. That is my personal opinion; I may be wrong, but I think I am not.

I have been referring to the difference between the position of Deputies and that of farm labourers. As a further instance I should like to take the case of the dispensary doctor. He is a professional gentleman, who took many years to qualify. He is supposed to be on duty for 24 hours of the day for eleven months of the year. He must go out at 12 o'clock at night if he gets a red ticket. He must have a car and he must keep up a residence. In comparison with that gentleman, I think Deputies are well paid. You have other men who do whole-time work, even in Government Departments. Take the case of postmen and Post Office workers. They are whole-time employees and they are not well paid. But the principal person in this country at the present time, who is not paid at all for anything he does, although he works from 7 o'clock on Monday morning until 10 o'clock on Sunday night, is the small struggling farmer. That is the man who is the backbone of the nation. That is the man who has been always right, nationally. As a matter of fact I look on that man as being the life of this country and the backbone of the nation, and he feels very badly about this increase in Deputies' salaries.

I know that in certain lines he is wrong, because I realise quite well that Deputies' salaries—or, rather, allowances; I should not call them salaries—are not all their own; I know there are many calls on their purse. I do not like to be too hard on Senator MacDermot, because many have been hard on him; but I will say he is very much out when he states that £36 is anything like the amount which Deputies give to charity, that is, in any case, the Deputies with whom I have been associated in Dublin. I will say it is not even half the amount they give.

Mr. MacDermot

I said that I mentioned that figure with great doubt and subject to correction.

Mr. Tunney

The Senator happens to be wrong on that point, in my opinion. Let us take the 15/- a day which he mentioned. The ordinary agricultural labourer at Balbriggan or The Naul or down in Meath, when he reads that that amount of 15/- a day is not sufficient, will wonder what Government official fixed his wages at 27/- a week, and held that it was sufficient for himself and his wife and family. He will think over that matter very seriously. I think the present is not an opportune time to give this increase, and I think it will not bring forward better Deputies. Even taking into account the amount they spend on travelling, I think that in view of the fact that the majority of those Deputies are not dependent on the Dáil they are better off than at least 85 per cent. of the people they represent. When it comes down to a level of about 50 per cent. I think it will be soon enough to talk about an increase. At the present time I certainly think they are better off than 85 per cent. of the people they represent. Here in the City of Dublin, and the same applies to every part of the country, you have gentlemen who spend practically every evening doing social work. I want to say here and now that I am not here in this Seanad for the salary. I would have fought as hard for the Seanad if there had been no salary. I do not look on it in the same fight as Senator MacDermot. I am afraid Senator MacDermot has at the back of his mind the idea that there would be only one class——

Mr. MacDermot

Certainly not.

Mr. Tunney

Well, I will accept that, and I am glad to know it. Remember, there are some people in public life for what they get out of it—that is, for the satisfaction they get out of it. Personally, I would have fought as hard for the Seanad if there had been no salary, and as long as God leaves me health I intend to do my work as conscientiously as I can. I feel that that work does not entail any more time—in fact, not nearly as much—as that of members of the Dublin County Council, and what applies to the Dublin County Council applies to every county council in the country. I am sure Senator Healy, who has already spoken, and Senator Byrne and Senator Madden know the amount of time they spend on public bodies day after day. I do not think it is fair to increase Deputies' allowances at the present time. Again, in answer to Senator MacDermot's reference to 15/-a day, I should say that many homes in this country have far less than that.

I am not going to detain the House much longer. In conclusion, I should like to say that the effect of giving an increase will not be to get better men-That is my personal opinion. What better type of men can you get in any country than the men who go around amongst the people who elect them and put the grievances of those people before the responsible authorities? I think the Deputy or the public representative who goes around amongst his constituents and puts before the proper authority or the responsible Minister the grievances and hardships of those constituents is doing his duty and doing it well. We have been told about the better type of Deputy who will be brought forward. I do not know what better type can be brought forward when you already have the type to which I have referred, and those gentlemen are true and tried Irishmen. Senator Tierney has said that the salaries are not high enough. I am afraid the Senator does not go around amongst the poor people. I am afraid he does not know the position of the people in rural Ireland to-day. I am afraid he does not know the position of the farmer and the farm labourer. I am afraid the Senator is entirely wrong in his opinion that the salaries are not high enough. I am afraid he has not mixed with the plain people. If he had, he would not have made that statement. There are many responsible people who cannot get credit. Thousands of people will not get credit to the extent of one pound at the present time. These people are in debt. Is it fair to ask them to pay increased taxation to be given to other people at a time when they cannot get credit? I intend to vote against this Bill. I have given my reasons, and I do not care what anyone thinks; whether I will be called a hypocrite or not. I will act according to my conscience. Because of the difference that exists between the position of the poor farm labourer, and other people, and because the present is not an opportune time to pass such a Bill I intend to vote against it. The country cannot afford it.

Professor Alton

I was a member of the Shanley Committee about which so much has been said. I make the admission in no egotistical spirit, and while I am glad that the House makes some allowance for last week's discussion, I am unrepentant. I think in justice to the committee and to myself I should say a few words in explanation of the evidence they had and why they came to their conclusions. The committee, as Senators will remember, was formed primarily to discuss Ministerial and other salaries. It was later in the day that the question of allowances to Deputing came up in a general clause concerning "any matter associated with salaries." We discussed it as carefully as possible, and we kept one thing clearly before us, and that was to discuss allowances as distinct from salaries. The term "salary" was synonymous with Ministers', and we then set out to find out what expenditure was necessarily incurred by members of the Dáil. We had evidence from ten members of the Dáil and I can assure the Minister that that evidence was given with perfect frankness —embarrassing frankness. I heard references regarding expenses and the cost involved by postage, which, to my mind, was shockingly high. If I remember correctly, one Deputy asserted that he spent £4 a week on postage. We went into all these things very carefully and kept clearly before our mind the fact that we were to adjudicate on allowances and not on salary. We framed two clauses which are pertinent to this debate, and which appear to have been forgotten. They read:

"As to the amount of what the flat rate of allowance should in future be, we were forced to the conclusion, on the basis of the information at our disposal, that the existing allowance of £30 a month is, on the average, not insufficient to meet out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Deputies in the discharge of their public duties, and accordingly, as a committee, we recommend that the present rate of allowance be not changed. We wish to make it quite clear, however, that, in our view, no element of salary is included in the present allowance and that there is no provision for what is termed ‘consequential loss'."

We came to the conclusion that Deputies put up a very strong case of "consequential loss." We thought that this might be of an individual character, and did not hold in the mass. We were out to find the average. That was the question before the committee. What an average salary was is another point. As regards the allowance, I think the committee, with the exception of the chairman and Senator Counihan, were of opinion that it should be raised to £35 a month. I do not know how I should vote now. Shall I be logical and consistent, or follow the splendid example of the Minister, and eat my words? Frankly, I am inclined to take the latter course.

Mr. Baxter

May I intervene at this stage to ask if there is any intention of having an adjournment for tea? I take it that, as several Senators have been here for a long time, it might be well to decide about an adjournment now.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is perfectly open to the House, according to the Standing Orders, to adjourn for a short period if such a proposal is made.

Mr. MacDermot

Is the Minister anxious to get the Second Stages of both Bills to-night?

Mr. MacEntee

Naturally, every Minister is anxious to get all the legislation he wants as expeditiously as possible, but I am in the hands of the Seanad. It is a matter for the House to decide.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator would propose an adjournment, the House to resume at 7 p.m. Is that the general agreement?

Mr. M. Hayes

I have always considered the precedent of any Parliamentary Assembly adjourning for tea to be a bad one. I have great sympathy for the Minister from many points of view, seeing he is in charge of both Bills being discussed, and that they come on one after the other. I understand he wants to get away. I would not have any objection, for example, to speak in the Minister's absence, as there are other people here to represent him, but I think this is a very bad precedent for this House, or for any Parliamentary Assembly, unless the intention is to sit late. I do not see why we should not have a quorum present while other Senators are at tea, provided it was arranged that the Minister would be present to reply. I do not see the necessity for adjourning, and never did.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is open to the House to decide.

Mr. MacEntee

May I say that I am prepared to stay on? I should not like to be absent when speeches, perhaps, criticising this measure are being delivered. After all, I have no guarantee that during my absence all who speak will be in favour of the Bill.

Mr. M. Hayes

In that case, the circumstances are rather peculiar. Generally, we have a long debate and two Ministers, but, in this particular case, seeing that it is the same Minister, if he is to be fortified, I am all for the proposal. If he wants to hear all the speeches it is a strange desire.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.20 p.m. On resuming at 7 o'clock,

Sir John Keane

I propose to vote against this Bill and I should like, very briefly, to give my reasons for so doing. In the first place, I think it is the duty of the House to interpret, in so far as it can, the popular will, and I do not know any measure that was introduced recently that has created such concern and resentment in the country. I think the House would only be doing its duty if it was in a position, which I am afraid it is not, to secure that this Bill should be deferred until an election, when it would become an issue before the country. I also think it is a great mistake, and very unfortunate, that the Government should have acted against the terms of the committee that was set up to examine this whole question and that reported that the present allowances were sufficient. I also think, hearing what has been said and using my own knowledge to a certain extent, that the present allowances, although not generous, are adequate.

I do not for a moment believe, and I cannot see how anybody can believe, that an increase of the allowance is going to induce better people to come into politics. I also am further persuaded to vote against this Bill because, although the amount is not large, it represents what I believe to be the growing extravagance of the Government—the tendency all along the line for the Government to have regard to services and other things they would like to have and disregard of the ways and means and the ability of the country to afford all these luxuries. Here it is only a small amount that is concerned, but all along the line we see an increasing tendency to spend more than our national income. For that reason, above all others, I feel it my duty to vote against this measure.

Mr. Counihan

My views on this Bill are contained in the minority report of the Shanley Committee, which recommends £5 a month of an increase to Deputies. The Minister is accused of money grubbing by introducing this Bill, money grubbing for his Party. If the Government are to be accused of money-grubbing, they could have carried out the recommendations of the Shanley Committee. They might not give any increase to Deputies, but they could increase their own salaries by £500 a year, which the Shanley Committee recommended. If Senator McLoughlin and Senator MacDermot are consistent and want the recommendations of the Shanley Committee carried out, they should put in an amendment to the next Bill to increase Ministers' salaries by £500 a year.

Senator MacDermot made comparisons with parliamentary representatives in other countries. He spoke of the members of Parliament in Great Britain and indicated what they were doing. Senator MacDermot should know, as I know, that it costs £2,000 a year, at least, for a British Member of Parliament to nurse his constituency and, unless he is prepared to spend that money, he will not be adopted by any of the big Parties with, perhaps, the exception of the Labour Party. If the Senator wants the same class of representatives in this Parliament as in the British Parliament, he should look for people who will be able to spend £2,000 a year.

Mr. MacDermot

If I may interrupt the Senator, I did not mention the British Parliament at all. I talked about Denmark and Norway. Someone else talked about the British Parliament.

Mr. Counihan

It might have been better to mention the British Parliament, because it would be nearer to our home than Denmark, Norway or Sweden.

Mr. MacDermot

The Senator was drawing inferences that I object to about the class of man that I wanted to see in this Parliament.

Mr. Counihan

I object to any personalities, and the references made by previous speakers in Senator MacDermot's case. There is no question of personalities in this case, Senator. I very much deprecate any personalities coming into this debate. Every Senator should be entitled to express his views and to criticise points put forward by other Senators without entering into personalities. But whether Senator MacDermot mentioned the British Parliament or not, it is quite relevant to the case. I made that reference to show that candidates for the British Parliament could not get elected unless they were men with very big incomes, and in the British Parliament the allowance they get as members of Parliament would count scarcely one iota in their expenses. It is quite different in the case of members of the Oireachtas, both Deputies and Senators.

I submit that the giving of reasonable allowances to Deputies and Senators would lead to a better class of representative; at least they should get such allowance as would enable them to discharge efficiently their public services. With regard to Senator MacDermot's contention, I will on that point ask the House to take the case of county councillors. There is no pay or allowance attached to members of the county council. In the County Dublin I myself approached several important and representative farmers, men who would make capital county councillors—men who were fairly certain of being elected. They told me, one and all, that they could not afford time to attend county council work, and consequently they would not stand for election.

Senator MacDermot is quite right in saying that Deputies did go before the Shanley Committee and did give evidence. In all cases the evidence practically was that they were losing money by being Deputies. Our terms of reference were that we should consider only the allowances to Deputies to meet their out-of-pocket expenses. In the report it was definitely stated that we were considering the Deputies' allowances solely on these lines. If we were to consider the Deputy's salary or any remuneration for Deputies we would recommend £700 or £800 a year. That puts a very different complexion on the report of the Shanley Committee. That report was fairly exhaustive and the evidence we got was pretty comprehensive. We considered the whole thing from the angle I have mentioned but the majority could not find from the figures supplied that the sum stated, £360 a year, did not meet the out-of-pocket expenses. That is why there was no recommendation for an increase except in the minority report where there was a recommendation for an increase to Deputies of £5 a month.

Everybody who has any experience of public life in this country knows that Deputies and Senators and even county councillors cannot carry on without a considerable amount of expenses. The fact that a man is in a public position means that people will expect subscriptions to various funds. Then such men have to attend a good many public functions which otherwise they would not attend. It is because these men are in public positions that these expenses have to be incurred. There is, therefore, no reason why Deputies should not get an allowance for their out-of-pocket expenses—the money they lose in the discharge of their duties. This loss is altogether apart from what they lose in their business through having to come to Leinster House attending to the work of the country. As the question has already been very fully debated I will add nothing further except to say that I am supporting the Bill.

Mr. O'Donovan

Unfortunately, the remark made by Senator Sir John Keane brings me to my feet again this evening. I had not intended to enter into a discussion on this Bill at all, but when I found Senator Sir John Keane establishing himself in the position of being an interpreter of the popular will then I thought, ironically, that the Seanad had something on which to congratulate itself. As far as I am concerned I would far prefer to take the opinion of the Taoiseach as the interpreter of the national will rather than the opinion of Sir John Keane. As I am speaking I wish to make a further remark. I think there has been a considerable amount of hypocrisy attached to this debate. So far I have heard nobody in the discussion making any reference to the recommendation in the Shanley Committee that Senators' salaries should be cut.

Mr. MacDermot

I said it several times.

Mr. O'Donovan

I do not think I heard it.

Sir John Keane

That is not in the Bill.

Mr. O'Donovan

I stand corrected. The Senator criticised the departure from the Shanley Report so far as increasing the salaries and allowances to T.D.s was concerned, but he said nothing about decreasing the salaries or allowances to Senators. I sat here during the debate, and any references in that way must have been passing references. That is my impression as to the Salaries Committee recommending a cut in Senators' salaries. From the experience I have of the work attached to the services of the Deputies in the Dáil I quite agree that the allowances to T.D.s should be increased, while I would be quite agreeable that the allowances to Senators should be cut. So far as my little experience of this House goes, there is no comparison between the work attached to our duties here as Senators and the services that have to be rendered by the Teachtaí in the Dáil. In the first instance, we have no particular constituency. That is, perhaps, to a great extent, a saving. A man with a constituency is at the beck and call of all his electors. He must answer letters from all of his constituents and see everyone of them who approaches him.

Mr. Crosbie

Is not the Senator a vocational representative?

Mr. O'Donovan

I am, but I do not think that the fact of my being a vocational Senator is pertinent to the question. So far as a vocational Senator goes, I am afraid that until the complete national independence of this country is established, and until we again see the unification of the country, we cannot very well proceed entirely on vocational representation. Anybody who was elected here on a vocational panel was not elected because of the panel or the vocation. Senator Crosbie knows that as well as I do. It is because of whatever side he took, unfortunately, in previous Party politics, national issues or antinational issues, whichever way you wish to put it.

Mr. Crosbie

The same applies to Senator O'Donovan.

Mr. O'Donovan

I claim that my election is due to my part in the national interest. I suppose Senator Crosbie does the same.

As far as vocational representation is concerned, unfortunately, it is my opinion that until we have reached the stage of complete unity of the country and complete freedom of the country, until then, we cannot sit here as true representatives of any definite vocation. That, as I say, is really all I wish to remark on the debate. I think we have been particularly selfish in not discussing the allowance that is made to ourselves in the present Bill and the allowance that was suggested by the Shanley Report, but we have been discussing most unfairly the allowances that have been recommended to the members of the other House.

Professor Alton

Would it have been in order for us to have discussed the allowances for Senators? It is not in the Bill.

Mr. O'Donovan

It is in the Bill.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

It would be in order. It is in the Bill.

Mr. O'Donovan

Of course it is in the Bill.

Professor Alton

I beg your pardon. There was some diffidence on my part in the matter.

Mr. O'Donovan

You stand corrected this time, Senator.

Professor Alton

I stand corrected and apologise.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

The speech which was made by the Senator who opened the attack upon this Bill was, in my view, so ill-considered and so ill-befitting this House and the duties and responsibilities which, under the Constitution, are reposed in it, that I should have ignored it even though to-morrow perhaps some of the newspapers will print it and print it rather extensively —those newspapers that think their readers have a taste for that low form of humour. As I say, I should have ignored it except for one thing that Senator McLoughlin alleged—namely that this Bill was the fruit of coercion applied internally upon the Government by the Fianna Fáil Party. You would not permit me, Sir, to give the lie to that statement but I can say there is no foundation whatsoever for it. This Bill is the fruit of prolonged consideration by the Government of this particular problem. In the Fianna Fáil Party, as in every other Party, there were differences of views regarding its merits—regarding not merely its merits but regarding its expedience. There were some who said it ought to be done but that it was impolitic and inopportune to do it. There were others who said it ought not to be done, because they did not think that we were, in principle, justified in making any greater provision for allowances to members of the Oireachtas than is made at the present time. The members of the Fianna Fáil Party, however, both here and in the Dáil, are not, perhaps, in exactly the same position as those who are returned to criticise, whose first function it is to criticise and oppose the Government in its legislative programme. They have been returned by the people in order to ensure that a programme of legislation and a policy of administration will be pursued which appeal to the majority of the people. They are not free upon a matter of comparative unimportance, as this measure is, in so far as it touches the individual lives of every citizen. They are not free to take an independent course and they are not free to beat their breasts and say: "I am not like other men; I am not one of those who are prepared to take an additional £10 a month in order that I may discharge my responsibilities to my constituents."

Their first duty, as I said, is to ensure that the programme which the Government submitted to the country at the general election is given effect to and, as long as they are not asked to do anything which is disgraceful, or which is repugnant to the general interest, they are not exactly in the same position of irresponsibility as those are who have criticised these proposals here this evening, and who criticised them when this measure was before the Dáil.

I wish to say again that there is no foundation whatsoever for the statement which was made by Senator McLoughlin here this evening. This Bill, and the proposals which are inscribed in it, are the fruit of mature consideration on the part of the Government of the problems which are associated with the preservation of representative democracy in this or any other country. We came to the conclusion that, if we were to keep our public life clean, if we were to exalt the standard of public life, we had to make it possible for every man of capacity, integrity and energy who could secure the suffrages of a constituency, to come in here and devote himself to public affairs without having to make too great a sacrifice of his own personal interests. No man who does enter public life in Ireland at the present time, just the same as no man who has entered public life in Ireland in the past, is able to enter that arena unless he is prepared to make considerable sacrifice. Even when this Bill becomes an enactment, as I think it will, there will still be considerable sacrifices of their personal private interests to be made by those who represent the constituencies in Ireland.

Having arrived at that decision and embodied it in a Bill, we introduced this measure, and I say this, that we were gratified to find that those who had had previous experience as heads of the preceding Administrations in this country, those who did know what was involved in this measure and who themselves had reason to give some study to it—the principal leaders of the Opposition—without a single exception, stood up and endorsed what we had done. I think that that fact is going to count for very much with the general public in our State, with the people of Ireland, whether they voted for us or voted against us, or whether they voted for an independent candidate or for a Labour Party candidate at the last election. I think that when the fact comes to be pondered that the leaders of the Opposition who had experience of this problem and who had studied it, as we had, agreed that we were doing the right thing and loyally supported us in the Dáil-that those men who had 15 or 16 years or, I should say, 20 years' experience of public life and of parliamentary life in this country, as most of the members of the last and of this Government have had—it is going to count for a great deal more than the opinion of those who have recently come to the arena here, and who are unfamiliar with this problem and have not studied it.

I think that the debate upon this measure here in the Seanad has been pitched upon much too low a plane. Perhaps it is the fault of the Senator who first spoke against the measure. He set the tone of the debate. I was surprised that Senator MacDermot, who professes to have made a study of public affairs, did not try to base his criticism of this measure upon first principles and did not advance some other arguments than those which normally a mob orator would use in an endeavour to tickle the ears of the groundlings. We had an estimate from the Senator of what he anticipated or considered—I am not sure if he said it was his own experience— that a Deputy's expenses might be. I do not propose to criticise that in detail. I think, as I said, that if I did, I should be pitching this debate upon much too low a plane but I would point to this fact that, during the period that I was in opposition, I spent a great deal more upon secretarial assistance than the Senator apparently was called upon to spend when he was a Deputy in the other House and that, notwithstanding the fact that he has drawn his figures narrowly and strictly, the Senator yet proves the conclusion to which the Government came—that the present Deputy's allowance is not at all sufficient to enable him to do the work which his constituents expect him to do and which, under the Constitution, he is bound to do. The Dáil is a legislative body. The Dáil is a body which has to consider measures, many measures, of great and far-reaching importance, touching many interests and touching large sections of the community in many aspects of their private lives. Surely, if we want an assembly of that sort to work with efficiency and with wisdom, we should expect that one of the normal expenses which those who are members of it would be called upon to incur would be that necessary to befit themselves to participate intelligently in its discussions. Perhaps it may be argued that unfortunately experience has shown that not every member who participates in the debates either in this House or in the Dáil does equip himself to do his duty in that way. That may be so. But surely it is the duty of those who have responsibility for ensuring that our Constitution functions as it ought to, to see that in any event the members of the Oireachtas who would like to discharge that duty, and who are prepared to do it, should be in a position to do it. I am not going to argue as to whether it would cost a Deputy who had to come up from the country more than 15/- a day to maintain himself here in the city. I do not think it is necessary to argue that question; but unless a Deputy has some believe facilities in the city, I do not believe it would be sufficient. I do not believe that even a labourer in County Dublin, who knows what it costs if you have to spend a night in an hotel and get all your meals in a restaurant, would be under any illusion as to whether a person coming up from the country and staying two or three days a week at irregular intervals, could possibly live on 15/- a day. I am not going to argue that.

It might be that some people could do that, but should representatives of the people be put in a position in which they must forego every sort of amplitude which a person normally coming up from the country to spend a day in the city would expect to have in regard to this own private affairs? Or, in regard to the question of secretarial assistance, is it expected that he must cut the wages of those who are to afford him even clerical assistance, apart altogether from any question of properly qualified secretarial assistance, that he must cut all these things to the very bone, that he must skimp himself and cramp himself in order to reduce the amount which he expends on secretarial assistance down to £52 a year? Do you think that the people of this country would be satisfied that that was the proper way for those whom they elected to represent them in the Legislature, to deal with public affairs?

I am not saying anything at all about the other items that have been referred to here-these questions of subscriptions to charities and of the cost of transport. As I say, I am perfectly certain that if it were put to any intelligent body of electors here, say a body consisting of farm labourers, farmers, or the ordinary common people of this country, they would say: "We want the men whom we elect for the Dáil to be in a position to give of their best to us and to the country, and it will be your duty, as a Government, to see that you make such provision for them as will enable them to do that without shirking any of their responsibilities to their families." As I say, even if we had made this allowance much more ample, there would still be plenty of room for self-sacrifice in Irish life. After this Bill becomes an Act, which I believe it will, make no mistake about it, any man who does come into public life is going to come into it not because he wishes primarily to make a profession out of politics but because he is anxious to serve the public weal—because it is only a man who is animated with that spirit who will ever be content to submit to the drudgery which the service of a constituency imposes upon him.

Senator MacDermot, in my opinion, fell short of what a subject of this importance should require in debate. He quoted the views of the Shanley Committee, but even in doing so, as a Senator sitting here, divorced from all the misrepresentations and risks which a Deputy in the other House has to face, but apparently anxious, as a Senator, to make the same sort of case as those who opposed this Bill made in the Dáil as Deputies, he suppressed part of the evidence upon which he based his case. He spoke here, not—if I may say so—like a member of an impartial council anxious to do what was right, but as an advocate anxious to speak against another advocate, another practitioner, before a tribunal. He referred to the report of the Shanley Committee and he quoted the first part of paragraph 26, but he failed to go on and quote:

"We wish to make it quite clear, however, that, in our view, no element of salary is included in the present allowance and that there is no provision for what is termed ‘consequential loss."'

Mr. MacDermot

Might I be allowed to correct the Minister? I did not quote anything from paragraph 26, not a single word. I quoted from paragraph 27 in order to answer a remark made by him.

Mr. MacEntee

I beg the Senator's pardon. I have not the script before me.

Mr. MacDermot

As long as the Minister does not accuse me of suppressing something, I do not mind.

Professor Alton

I quoted paragraph 26.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, but Senator Alton quoted the second sentence there. I should like to correct myself if I am wrong, or correct Senator MacDermot if I am right, by saying that I understood the Senator to quote this paragraph:

"As to what the amount of the flat rate of allowance should in future be, we were forced to the conclusion, on the basis of the information at our disposal, that the existing allowance of £30 a month is, on an average, not insufficient to meet out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Deputies in the discharge of their public duties."

Mr. MacDermot

I did not quote that.

Mr. MacEntee

Very well, then. Of course, I accept what the Senator says and I withdraw any statement I may have made in regard to suppression of some of the facts. But the Senator did base his speech on the report of the Shanley Committee. He did not bring the full facts to the attention of this Seanad, which is supposed to be an august, high, deliberative assembly, supposed to sit in judgment on what the Dáil has already passed, and to reconsider everything that has been done in the other House, many members of which apparently find little favour in the eyes of members of this House, where their work has been likened to that of those who for one reason or another are the least fortunate elements in this community, and who have been told that they ought not to get £480 a year because the wages of agricultural labourers have been fixed at £80 a year. I might digress for a moment and say that I wonder what the allowances of some Senators might be fixed at upon that basis. I wish, however, to return to this question of the Shanley Committee and to remind the House what that committee did find.

They found, as to the first part: "We were forced to the conclusion, on the basis of the information at our disposal"—mark the qualification—"that the existing allowance of £30 a month is, on an average, not insufficient to meet out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Deputies in the discharge of their public duties, and, accordingly, as a committee, we recommend that the present rate of allowance should not be changed." Then, they went on to say—and I am not laying any emphasis upon the second sentence; I am quoting it in order that I may complete the quotation of the paragraph:

"We wish to make it quite clear that, in our view, no element of salary is included in the present allowance and that there is no provision for what is termed ‘consequential loss'."

They then go on to say:—

"Indeed, we are convinced that individual Deputies may be making a considerable financial sacrifice by accepting the duties and responsibilities of public representatives. It is not, however, within our province to make a recommendation as to whether anything in the way of personal remuneration, as distinct from allowances for expenses, should be payable to Deputies; that is a question of

public policy outside our Terms of Reference."

Upon what basis did the Shanley Committee come to that conclusion? They came to it very largely, in my view, upon the principle laid down in subparagraph (c) of paragraph 24 of their report in which they say:—

"The expenses to be taken into consideration in computing the amount of the allowance should be those which arise from the public duties of the member. While holding office, a member may, and usually does, incur expenses in connection with purely Party matters. The line between duties which are of a public nature and those which are not may often be difficult to define, but we see no ground on which the State should be asked to defray expenses which are unrelated to work necessarily performed by a member in his capacity as a public representative."

It is quite clear that, in acting upon a principle of that sort, there was a great possibility that the Shanley Committee may have been altogether wrong in arriving at the conclusions which are expressed in paragraph 26 of their report. They admit that it is very difficult to draw the line between those duties which would devolve upon a T.D. and involve him in expenses as a Deputy, arising purely out of his general representative capacity for a constituency, and those which might fall upon him as a member of a Party organisation in a constituency. They admit that, but they also state a proposition which many people would contest, namely, that a large share of the work which falls upon a Deputy in a constituency is something in regard to which he should not be recouped for any expenses which he may incur. After all, a Deputy primarily represents the people whose political views are the same as his. They have returned him to the Dáil in order that he may give effect to those views. They have not given him their votes in order that he may give effect to the Opposition policy, or to the policy of a third or fourth Party in the Dáil. They have sent him there primarily to ensure that the programme of the Party and of the organisation of which he is a member will be given effect to, and, therefore, as I say, it is at least debatable whether the Shanley Committee, in laying down this principle, did not misdirect themselves.

A Deputy has, of course, a general duty to every one of his constituents, and I hope that every Deputy tries to do his duty to every one of his constituents; but he has not got that duty to the entire exclusion of his duties to those who support him. His duty to those who have voted for him at the election, his duty to those who have worked to secure his election, as well as his duty to the general body of constituents who have neither voted for him nor done anything actively to secure his return, are all part and parcel of his duty as a representative of the people; and, therefore, it was very questionable whether the Shanley Committee, in laying down that principle, did not lay down a principle which was completely indefensible.

Mr. MacDermot

I think the Minister, if I may say so, is mis-stating the principle.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think so. I have stated what they said. They tried to divide up, I think erroneously, the services which a Deputy gives as between the general services which he renders to any person who is a constituent, who may or may not have voted for him, and the other services which naturally he has to try to give, to those who have voted for him, and whose representative he primarily is.

Mr. MacDermot

It does not say "in his constituency". It refers to running around the whole country.

Mr. MacEntee

That has got nothing to do with it.

Mr. O'Donovan

That applies only to Senators.

Mr. MacEntee

I know no Deputy— except those who have to carry the Front Bench responsibilities in any Party, and they are in a different category—who has very much time for running around any constituency except his own. In fact, by the time he has done his work in the Dáil—the three or four days that he may be there, apart altogether from the work which many Deputies are called upon to do on committees on the days in which the Dáil is not sitting, a fact which, I think, Senator MacDermot left out of account in preparing this estimate of his—a Deputy has very little time for running around any constituency except his own, and when he puts his foot in his own constituency, I think he finds his time fairly fully occupied.

Bearing that in mind, I think the proposition laid down in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 24 of the report could be very strongly contested. The Shanley Committee itself admitted that it was convinced that individual Deputies may be making considerable financial sacrifices by accepting the duties and responsibilities of public representatives; and bearing in mind, whether we like it or not—and I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by Senator Tierney and Senator Hogan—that the demands which constituents are likely to make upon their representatives in the future are likely to increase; and bearing in mind also that no matter how we examine these figures, we are satisfied, at any rate, and, as I have said, the figures which have been put before the Seanad to-night by Senator MacDermot confirm me in that conclusion, that the present Deputy's allowance is insufficient, or that, if it is sufficient in certain isolated cases, it allows no margin whatever for expansion and for contingencies. As I have said, that applied to the best of the cases, but the Government cannot consider—and I do not think the Dáil or the Seanad would be justified in considering—a matter like this merely on the basis of the best or the average cases.

We have got to remember that we are under a constitutional obligation to every member of either House, no matter where he lives, no matter what his personal situation may be, to permit him, if elected by the people, to serve the people fully in whatever capacity, whether as a Deputy or Senator, they may choose to elect him without involving himself in too heavy a sacrifice. We could not accept the proposition that, on the average, the allowance was sufficient. We could not, in view of the fact that the committee itself felt satisfied that there are some Deputies, and I should say many Deputies from my own knowledge of them, who are losing a very great deal and who are out of pocket a very great deal by going into the Dáil; we could not in view of that fact, accept the recommendation to allow the allowance for Dáil members to remain unchanged.

This allowance was first fixed about 15 years ago. It may be another 15 years, or perhaps longer, before this matter is reconsidered again. We had at this opportune moment, when the new Constitution had come into force and when other questions germane to this were under consideration, to look to the future, and we had to be certain that for so long as we could foresee for ten or 15 years, people would be elected to represent constituencies in the other House without having to submit to too great a sacrifice of their own personal interests and of their own personal concerns—that is our justification for recommending this increase at this particular time.

Now there is another aspect of this matter to which I want to refer before I sit down, and that is that Senator MacDermot said that the Seanad was being ill-treated. I do not know upon what he bases that charge. He has said that if recommendations are made the Minister will have to call the Dáil during Christmas week. Well, I certainly am not going to ask you to vote against your better judgments if you feel convinced after the arguments that have been advanced here on one side or the other, that you ought to make recommendations to the Dáil in connection with this Bill which would require the Dáil to be called next week or even Christmas week—I am not going to ask you not to make those recommendations under that head. After all, you are not here to consult or consider the convenience or inconvenience of the Dáil. You are here to consider the legislation which has been submitted to you by the Dáil: to form your own best judgments upon that legislation, and to take whatever action in regard to it you feel it is in the public interest to take, and if you do make recommendations the Dáil will have to come back, because the Dáil will have to do its duty just as you have got to do your duty to-night, and we need not be at all concerned about it. Therefore, I say that so far as there is any suggestion that the Seanad was being ill-treated in this matter because of some fancied inconvenience which the Dáil may suffer, I think you can entirely disregard it.

I am perfectly certain that whatever other considerations may actuate you in any action you may take in regard to the Bill, the convenience or the inconvenience of the Dáil, or of the Ministry, will not be one of them. It has often happened before that, at the end of a Dáil session, even when we have been so close to Christmas as we are now, Bills had come up from the Dáil, and that recommendations have been made to them, or amendments have been made, in the Seanad, and that the Dáil has been summoned to consider them. It can happen again in regard to this Bill. I certainly would not like any member of the Seanad to feel that this Assembly is being illtreated—this House which has rights under our Constitution—merely by reason of the fact that you are asked to consider these Bills at this particular time. Owing to one circumstance and another, there is a large accumulation of legislative work in arrear. Some very important measures will fall for consideration within the next session, and there is absolutely no reason why that session, which will undoubtedly be heavily encumbered with legislative work in my view, should be further encumbered by holding up these Bills until then. The Seanad, as I have said, is quite free to deal with these measures as in its wisdom it thinks fit to do.

Question put and declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th December, 1938.