We have had several debates on this particular aspect of this series of Bills, both in the Dáil and in the Seanad. In approaching the subject as to what increases I should propose to the Government and what increases the Government should propose to the Dáil, I took it that, by and large, a certain differentiation had been made in allowances and salaries for all types of public officials and members of the Oireachtas. I proposed that we should take it for granted that the 1938 level was fair and reasonable. It passed both the Dáil and the Seanad then and, if anybody wished to raise it, it could have been a subject of discussion during the elections that were held since. I take it, therefore, that there was general agreement, that that level was fair and equitable, having regard to all the circumstances.
In 1937, the Shanley Committee went into the question of Ministers' salaries, Deputies' allowances and allowances for the Leaders of the two principal Opposition Parties in the Dáil, and made certain recommendations. One of them was that Ministers' salaries should be £2,250 and that both Senators and Deputies should continue to draw the same allowance of £360. Evidence was given by various types of people, including Ministers and civil servants, and every aspect of a Minister's salary, emoluments, perquisites and services was discussed. It was decided by the Shanley Committee to recommend for Ministers a level of £2,250, all of which would be subject to income-tax, and that the system in operation in regard to Ministers' cars from 1927 should continue, that is, that instead of a Minister getting an over-all sum for travelling, he should continue to draw his transport from an official pool and be accompanied by an armed driver.
In 1938, however, the Government turned down the idea of Ministers' salaries being increased from £1,700 to £2,250 and they recommended to the Dáil and Seanad that they should continue to draw the £1,700 and that the Deputy's part of the allowance—or the Senator's part, if a Senator should be a Minister—should continue to be free from income-tax. That was accepted by the Dáil. It was accepted by the Seanad, with one dissentient. We will have to take it for granted that it has been accepted by the people, as otherwise if some people wished to raise it as a major issue, they could have got a majority Party in favour of some other scale, if the majority of the people approved.
Let us go back to this suggestion of making portion of a Minister's salary, that portion represented by the Dáil or Seanad allowance, subject to income-tax. Let us not forget that that system was tried before, between 1923 and 1925. The 1925 Act was introduced to the Oireachtas by the then Government because it was found that the evils which had been created outweighed the advantages. In 1925, not only was the old system abolished for the future—the payment of income-tax on the Deputy's or Senator's allowance contained in a Minister's salary— but retrospectively it was made law that whatever deductions had been made would be repaid. It was not for nothing that was done and I take it that it was not for nothing that the Seanad approved of it without a single dissentient.
The suggestion now is that we should go back to the system in operation prior to 1925. Senator Hayes says it would be clearer, fairer and more honest if we made the portion of the Minister's salary represented by his Dáil allowance subject to income-tax. I do not think anything could be more clear or more known to the country, since it has been the subject of a thousand and one speeches and a thousand and one editorials in various papers. It is well known to the country that that portion of a Minister's salary is income-tax free. Anyone in the country knows, if he becomes a T.D. and a Minister, what his salary will be, the portion of it which will be income-tax free and what other emoluments and facilities he will be entitled to as a Minister. No one has tried to conceal any of this at any time. These things have been the subject of speeches and editorials and of public reports by committees of inquiry. This particular document I have in my hand, the report of the inquiry into Ministerial and other salaries—generally known as the the Shanley Committee Report—was published in 1937 and has been adverted to publicly a million times since. Therefore, there is nothing secret about this business, and we are enough grown up politically to discuss it without diffidence or shyness.
It has been accepted generally that the scales in existence up to 1938 and to date were fair and equitable in relation to 1938 conditions. Owing to the recent increases in salaries all round, in the State service and outside it, something had to be done to enable the representatives of the people to give the same standard of service to their constituents and to the public generally as the 1938 level of salaries and allowances enabled them to give. It has not been proposed for Senators, for Deputies, for Ministers, for the Ceann Comhairle or the Cathaoirleach, or for any other officer of the Oireachtas, that they should be fully compensated for the increased cost of living or the decreased value of money since 1938. The additions proposed correspond to the supplements to the salaries that have been granted to other public servants and do not represent in full the increase in the expenses of members of the Oireachtas, the Oireachtas staff or members of the Government. We could re-introduce the system in regard to Ministers that the Deputy's allowance part of their salaries should be subject to income-tax. If we did that it would be open to Ministers to start a practice which has not been in operation since 1925 of claiming from the Revenue Commissioners freedom from income-tax on that portion of their total salaries that could be held by them to be wholly and inevitably portion of the expenses connected with their office either as Minister or as Dáil representative or as member of the Seanad. I suggest that if that were started it might be found, in certain cases at any rate, that the amount claimed for exemption would be more than the level of the allowance given to Deputies and Senators.
There are a thousand and one expenses that a Minister has that could quite properly be claimed—I do not know whether the Revenue Commissioners would agree with it all or not—as expenses wholly, necessarily and inevitably connected with his membership either of the Dáil or of the Government. I do not want to get into the position of having Ministers contest that with the Revenue Commissioners. Neither do I want Ministers, whose whole attention should be devoted to matters of public policy, concerned with the making and keeping of notes of expenses for the purpose of making a claim to the Revenue Commissioners for freedom from income-tax on portion of their salary. I think that the Minister's whole energy and concern should be with the public pounds rather than with the personal pence of claims to the Revenue Commissioners.
I want to emphasise again that this is nothing new and I want to emphasise that the other system proposed, or which Senator Sweetman has in mind, was tried by another Government and that after due consideration, after trying it out for a few years, after having experience of the difficulties between Ministers and the Revenue Commissioners in connection with expense sheets, they decided to recommend to the Oireachtas that the Ministers should be given the Dáil allowance free of income-tax and that that should be generally accepted as the limit of the claims of a Minister for expenses in connection with his office.
I think the Oireachtas would be very unwise to adopt the system which is now suggested of saying to Ministers, "We will not give you a certain stated allowance for expenses but we will increase your salaries by a further amount in compensation." I say that from the point of view of the public interest it would be much better for the Oireachtas to say to Ministers, "Your salaries will stay as they are but you will get the Dáil allowance free of income-tax." I think a Minister's energy should be devoted to his public work rather than to keeping personal accounts for the purpose of making a claim to the Revenue Commissioners at the end of the income-tax period. Every business man who knows what is involved in keeping accounts of that kind will appreciate that if his time and energy could be spent on his business, it would be more profitable for him to give a certain sum to the Revenue Commissioners than to go to all the trouble of keeping these accounts.
In the modern world a Minister's whole time, whether he is in the Dáil or in the Seanad or in his office, by and large goes either in carrying out public functions or in thinking about public problems. I do not think that any professional man would do the work that a Minister does, simply looking to the reward that a Minister gets in the way of salary. I do not think that the salary attached to the post would attract the service from an ordinary individual that Ministers give.
