Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1964 ( Certified Money Bill )— Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

It is convenient for me, and I am sure the Senators will forgive me, to take this Bill and deal with Deputies first. I want to go back to the time the State was first established. At that time Deputies were allowed a sum which was regarded as an expense allowance and there was no question of income tax being charged on it. They carried on with increases on two occasions until 1960. In 1960 it was decided that we should pay Deputies for their time as well as for their expenses. The allowance was then fixed at £1,000. That allowance was regarded as subject to income tax. Deputies were allowed expenses as arranged with the Revenue Commissioners and paid income tax on the remainder of the salary at that time. This £1,500 now put into the Bill will be subject to the same conditions. I should like to stress the point in regard to income tax because there is a belief among certain members of the community outside that Deputies do not pay income tax and neither do Ministers but we have learned it the hard way.

A Deputy, of course, is not precluded from engaging in other remunerative occupations. Part time at least, a Deputy may pursue another occupation. There is nothing illegal in it and there is no professional etiquette against it but there are limits to his freedom. If he has to be in the Dáil for the greater part of the year, for two or three days a week, it is not easy to find an employer who will give a man a job if he says he will work two days and he will be away three days. In practice, it is hard to get a job to do. That applies in particular to a man who is looking for employment with an employer. We know, of course, too, that professional men find it hard to pursue their profession fully if they are members of the Dáil or Seanad. Whether they are legal men or professional men they cannot expect, indeed, to be as successful as if they were all the time able to look after their business. The same applies to a businessman, or even to a farmer. If they are not there all the time their affairs are neglected.

As well as that, we must keep in mind the fact that the country requires the best possible material for both Houses. We should encourage men of ability to come into Parliament. The primary duty of a member is, of course, legislation and legislation is a very specialised job and requires a person not only of a fair education but a man of judgment as well to be a good legislator. We are all equal as far as that is concerned in both Houses. As I mentioned in the Dáil, a lot of people outside say that the ordinary Deputy or Senator does not count and that he is just a cipher in a party. They forget that in a democracy the Party develops and it is agreed that the Party system is a good one for the sake of getting things done. The Party member has an opportunity of making himself felt and he does. We all know that there are members who make themselves heard at party meetings and they seldom speak in the Seanad or the Dáil afterwards. It is there the man of ability and judgment is required.

As well as that, I pointed out in the Dáil that the duties of a Deputy and a Senator to legislate are increasing outside the House. That, of course, is due in great measure to the great number of Acts passed which provide certain benefits for people, whether they deal with houses, pensions or widows and orphans or whatever it may be. Sometimes they may concern schemes which are too complex and too difficult for the ordinary person to follow. The ordinary person must be satisfied that he understands things fully and that he is getting the benefits to be got from any particular scheme. That means that a great number of people come to the Deputy or the Senator for help so that they will get the benefits to which they may be entitled. It leads to a great deal of work because it means the member of either House must either visit or write the Department to get all the particulars. Then, if he gets a reply, either by calling or by letter he must write back to his client and explain all those matters. That means a great deal of correspondence and all these things are attended to. Some critics of this system felt we should try to abolish it. Suggestions were made but the suggestions have not been followed up and, for the present anyway, Deputies and Senators must continue to fill the void. I think we must admit that Senators and Deputies are kept very busy both in the House and outside it.

On this point it was suggested in the Dáil that there are some Deputies— and no doubt some Senators—who do more than they need to. They, as it were, attract work to themselves by spreading the word around, if you like: "If you come to me I will do things for you that no one else will do," and so on. That may be, but I think there are many Deputies and very many Senators who do not try to attract work but simply get it. My own experience, as a Minister, getting letters from Deputies and Senators, is that they all get a certain amount of work to do but some get a bit more than others.

There is a good deal of work to be done and we have come to the conclusion that a Deputy's job is a full-time job. It is at least full-time to the extent that he cannot get time to do any other job. In fixing his allowance, therefore, we had to do it on the basis that he is living on that income. He may have other income. If he has, of course, we say "Good luck to him," but, if he has not, we must provide for him and that means we have to fix the amount at a level that a person can live on and carry out his duties.

The last time allowances were fixed they were fixed at £1,000 for Deputies and £750 for Senators. Even at that time I think many people thought we had not fixed the allowances at a reasonable level and that they should have been higher. Since then there have been the eighth and ninth rounds in the Public Service with, in most cases, a status increase as well. There are certain people in the Public Service who have got more than 50 per cent— I do not say many—during those three or four years. A good many have got more than 40 per cent. We are not departing very far from what has taken place in the Public Service generally in fixing the allowances for Senators and Deputies. I also made inquiries from some European Parliaments. I got replies from about seven or eight. I found that the £1,500, which is being fixed now for Deputies, is the lowest allowance, except for Stormont, which is a bit lower.

Mr. Crowley

Not comparable.

Professor Hayes

It is not comparable.

Dr. Ryan

We are getting out of erring on the side of being too low and also on the side of being too high as compared with other countries. We always have to bear in mind—I am sure every Deputy and Senator does— that we have the power to fix our own remuneration and we fix it, of course, at the taxpayers' expense. We have, therefore, to be careful, but I think no one can accuse us of having been in any way extravagant in the past in looking after ourselves and I do not think we can be accused of being extravagant on this occasion either.

In the Dáil, when I had finished speaking about Deputies, I dealt with Senators. I think I might use the same words here. I said I thought that by fixing Senators at £1,000 as against £750 the proportion, now reduced to two-thirds, comes closer to a realistic appraisal of their respective duties. I thought that, taking the duties of the Senator both in attending the Seanad and outside, a proportion of two-thirds of the time Deputies gave would be a fair appraisal of the position. I trust Senators will agree with that.

As Senators are aware we have fixed an increase of 10 per cent for the Taoiseach, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of both Houses, and for the Attorney General. If one takes Ministers—the argument applies equally to all the other Parliamentary officers I have mentioned—the amount the Deputy is getting would apply also to a Minister and the 50 per cent increase on that amount will also apply. On the part of the salary, which is Ministerial, he gets 10 per cent. The average increase a Minister will get is, therefore, 23½ per cent. It is a bit lower in some cases, namely, in the case of Parliamentary Secretaries and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of both Houses.

The only other sum mentioned is the amount paid to Leaders of Opposition Parties for secretarial expenses. The increase there is 12 per cent. That appears to me to be the proper percentage because the money is used for secretarial assistance and, therefore, the general 12 per cent increase would apply.

Sections 4 and 5 deal with travelling expenses. The changes made there are to a great extent for administrative convenience. A great many anomalies developed over the years as a result of amendments, and so on, and I was anxious to get back to some simple scheme for calculating travelling expenses. We have achieved that, I think, by the few amendments we have put in. There is only one point at which there will be an increase on the Exchequer. Leinster House is now named as the focal point rather than Dublin. Dublin appears in the original Acts as the focal point. That meant that a person living in Dublin, no matter how far away he was from Leinster House, could not claim expenses because he was at the focal point. In future he will be able to claim expenses to the Dáil or Seanad. To that extent there will be a charge, a trivial charge, on the Exchequer. The full cost this year will be £92,000 because April and May do not come into calculation and the Exchequer, therefore, will escape. I recommend the Bill to the Seanad.

Professor Hayes

This Bill provides for increases in the remuneration of Ministers, Deputies and Senators. In view of the increasing cost it seems to me we might consider at this stage a number of general questions. We might ask ourselves whether our parliamentary machinery and our Civil Service machinery are the best, the most economical, or the most efficient. We are overhauling industry and endeavouring to modernise our agriculture, but the parliamentary machinery we are using today to do modern tasks is both old-fashioned and out of date. It is doing a job—it is called upon to do a variety of jobs—never thought of when the parliamentary rules were made and the machinery developed.

The procedure of the Oireachtas and the functions of Deputies and Senators need to be examined if the Oireachtas is to face the tasks which are now imposed upon it. We would need to do some hard thinking also— I realise this is a little irrelevant but it does concern Ministers and Deputies —about our Civil Service, about its higher grades, the method of recruitment and the qualifications. We have a good Parliament and a good Civil Service. We have every reason to be proud of the way in which this Parliament has developed when we contrast it with other Parliaments. It is interesting to note that it works in a democratic manner and that it has survived. It is, I think, the only one of the new Parliaments formed after the Great War of 1914-18 which has so survived. Ministers' salaries are not too high. I agree entirely with the Minister for Finance when he says there has been no extravagance with regard to Ministers' salaries. Ministers should certainly get an increase although I think there is a case for investigating whether the overall cost of Ministers is not too great.

With regard to Deputies, the theory used to be that they were paid a tax free allowance to enable them to do part-time work in the Dáil. Now they are getting a salary subject to tax. There is no doubt that the work is becoming more and more arduous. The Minister has described it as part-time, but we have to make up our minds whether the job of being a Deputy in Dáil Éireann is a full or a part-time job. We also have to make up our minds as to whether the kind of work they do is parliamentary work and as to whether a good deal of it is worth doing at all.

Deputies, and to some extent Senators, are messengers and correspondents for their constituents. We should ask ourselves whether that is the right kind of work for them to be doing. The Minister said in the Dáil —he repeated here to-day—that the primary duty of a Deputy is legislation. I think a great number of Deputies do not try to do that at all, and neither do Senators, but I shall come to that in a moment.

I do not know whether the kind of work being done now by Deputies for constituents could not be abolished— at any rate in a great part—and whether we could not devise another scheme for enabling people to get their rights from Government Departments and from State bodies. The question at issue, when a Deputy or a Senator corresponds with a Department, is very often whether the person concerned is entitled to something. It is a very wearing and difficult occupation because everybody who puts up a case to a Deputy puts up the case from his own point of view. It is not so much that he tells lies as that he puts his own case, and the parts of the facts that concern his own case and omits the other part and the result is considerable work. I think we should get a scheme which would leave Deputies and Senators free to do the work which is properly theirs.

As far as the Seanad is concerned, it seems to me that so long as Seanad Éireann remains as it is at present, can get no more work to do than it is doing at present, there is no justification whatever for increasing the allowance. The truth is that Senators do not earn the money they get. The fault is not theirs. We have often asked here, I have often asked here myself, and I have been supported from the other side of the House, that the Seanad should be given more work to do. I am quite confident that it would be possible to arrange for that. I am confident, with regard to the Dáil programme, that with the co-operation of the present Opposition in the Dáil, or, indeed, of any Opposition, agreement could be got for a plan to give more work to the Seanad. If it could be given more work to do, the whole programme of the Oireachtas could be carried through with less pressure and with a great deal more efficiency.

I do not agree, whatever about the Dáil, that Senators should be full-time politicians. I do not think that constant work for a political Party from year's end to year's end should be done for the reward of a Seanad salary. Perhaps, I should put it the other way around and say that I do not agree that the Seanad salary should be used to hire a full-time organiser for a political Party.

If we consider the details of this matter, the theory as contrasted with the practice, the theory of parliament is that Parliament controls the Executive. Anybody who has been some time in the Oireachtas knows that that is not so. The functions of the State have immensely increased and the powers of Ministers and civil servants have immensely increased. The functions which Ministers, civil servants, Deputies and Senators have to carry out have increased in number and variety. The theory is that the Minister is a layman who gets expert advice, comes to certain conclusions and brings these conclusions to Parliament which discusses them. Another word for democratic parliament and Government is government by discussion.

For myself, I must say that I doubt whether there are Deputies or Senators or, if I might be allowed to say so, civil servants or Ministers who have any special skill to decide the kind of thing we have been asked to decide. Should we spend a considerable amount of money on making nitrogenous fertilisers? I can pronounce the word but I do not know anything about it beyond being able to pronounce it. If we are to spend the money, where should we site the factory? That is very difficult to decide. The same thing applies to copper mines, ship-building and to a great variety of examples which Senators can recall for themselves.

We should consider whether the Civil Service, in its method of recruitment and promotion, and so on, is capable of doing the difficult and complex duties that now devolve upon it. The Minister for Finance himself and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for example, and, above all, the Taoiseach in any particular Government, have multifarious and extremely pressing duties.

It is not always adverted to when people are talking about Ministers' salaries that they have to include administration in their office, legislation in the Oireachtas, and politics. There is no use saying that Ministers ought not to be in politics. A Minister would not be a Minister at all if he could not get into the Dáil and he must, therefore, give a certain amount of his time to politics.

No Government is good all over. I suppose no team of any kind is good all over, but the active Minister most certainly earns his salary and, I think, deserves more.

With regard to Deputies, the original payments were called allowances. I wonder if this Bill is completely Constitutional. I am not worrying much about the point but it is interesting that the word used in the Constitution of 1922 was "allowances" for Deputies and Senators. That word was carried on into the present Constitution. The word used about Ministers in Article 28 of the present Constitution is "remuneration". In Article 35 of the present Constitution there is talk of the remuneration of judges and the emoluments of judges. In the case of the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and their two deputies, the word used is "remuneration". I am not making a legal point. I am not qualified to do so. However, I wonder if there is a special meaning in the word "allowance". Is it possible to take income tax from allowances paid to Deputies and Senators?

The Minister talked about whether the Dáil was a part-time or a whole-time job. I agree entirely with him that it is difficult for a great many people to do any other kind of work except Dáil work. It is becoming more and more difficult. One should ask oneself what kind of a candidate is a good candidate.

Well-meaning people have often said to me that my own Party and other Parties should get better candidates. I always reply by saying: "Would you like to be a candidate?" The answer is always "No, I would hardly like to be a candidate." When a person gets into the Dáil what steps should he take to stay in it? I suppose we all know. Should he read the various Bills given to him in green paper, open the envelope every morning, listen to the discussion on the Bills, listen to debates, put down amendments and make speeches? He must do something more than that. He must meet his constituents and do what a great deal of Deputies are now doing in the Library, namely, write reams of letters, not always in accordance with his conscience. He must do whatever his constituents expect him to do. He must be a go-between, a messenger, whatever you like, between his constituents and the various Departments.

In strict theory, the best member of the Dáil and of the Seanad would be a person who has made a success of his profession. If one is to manage the nation's affairs, presumably he should have given proof that he can manage his own. The truth is that such a person has less chance of getting into the Dáil and still less chance of staying in it. We are entering now into the era of the professional politician—the person who takes up politics as a career, which neither the Minister nor myself did in our time. The Minister suggests a Deputy's pay should be higher and if it were higher still, it would attract a better type. I do not think that is so. I think we should reconsider that, and that the Minister and the Government should reconsider it. I do not think higher pay will attract a better type of Deputy, or give sounder legislation and better Government. Perhaps it should, but I doubt that it will.

I am perfectly certain that the Seanad should not consist of full-time politicians. I have no sympathy whatever, of course, with people who think the Seanad should consist entirely of people who protest they are not politicians. The Seanad does political work, and its members must have political views. In this House it is true that we have a fair number of members who are active political organisers and nothing else. Some years ago a committee dealt with the Seanad, and Senator Ó Maoláin and I were members of that committee. It contained a number of people with political experience, including Senator Ó Maoláin, myself and members of the Dáil.

That committee made a report, and nothing was ever heard of it. It was the report of a very big majority, I think, and it was signed by a great many people, including myself. It stated that the Seanad needed some improvement, and that any experiment that had any prospect of improving the Seanad should be put into operation. It recommended that in the case of the 43 members of the Seanad who are nominated by nominating bodies and elected by a purely political electorate—members of the Dáil, Seanad and local bodies—the system should be changed, that instead of having the whole 43 elected on a political basis, some of them—I think the number was 20; it may have been 21—should be appointed directly to the Seanad by the nominating bodies.

Objection was made that it would bring politics into the nominating bodies, but none of us is sufficiently innocent to believe there is not any politics in the nominating bodies now. I think there is. We in Fine Gael think that recommendation should be adopted. It could improve the position of the Seanad and, if it were adopted, it would, at any rate, bring a number of people into political life and show them what politics is like. It would do away once and for all with the theory that what we need now are experts and not politicians.

I do not want to appear too pessimistic. I think the progress made in the past 40 years from the point of view of parliamentary government here is something on which we may congratulate ourselves. I do not think that congratulation can all be put in the one place. The time has now arrived when we should consider our parliamentary machine. We will be having a Transport Bill before us next week, for example, and we have all heard arguments as to why members of the Dáil and Seanad cannot get information about a State body like CIE. That is one of the unsolved problems of modern Parliaments. I remember when the Electricity Supply Board was appointed a great many years ago. I asked how the Dáil would control it, and I said from the Chair in the Dáil that I did not know, but I did not think it could be adequately done. That has proved to be true.

We should reconsider our parliamentary machinery with a view to seeing where we can improve it to face new problems, new circumstances, and what someone here called new thinking. I also think the Government should take the Seanad more seriously and give the Seanad more work to do, otherwise I think the Seanad if it gets no more to do than it does now should be ashamed to take an increase in pay.

Professor Stanford

Like Senator Hayes, I feel bound to oppose the subsection in this Bill which increases the allowances for Senators from £750 to £1,000 per annum, an increase of 33? per cent. I do not believe that so large an increase is justified. In presenting the Bill to the Dáil, and to us, the Minister offered three main arguments for the increases proposed in the Bill: first, the need for sufficient compensation for the earnings lost through parliamentary duties; secondly, the need to attract people with the best possible qualities to be members of the Oireachtas, and Ministers; and thirdly, the general rise in salaries throughout the country.

I fully concede that there is an unanswerable case for all those three arguments for an increase in salaries for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. Further, I concede that a strong case can be made for members of the Dáil. They work a three-day week on average, and we are told they answer about 300 letters per week. We know they have heavy duties in their constituencies, but not one of those arguments, so far as I can see, holds for the Seanad.

I propose to base my brief remarks on my own case, which is average enough, perhaps, as a Senator. So far as I can see, the time spent on senatorial duties by me in the past year came to something like this: we had 23 meetings and I attended almost all —but not quite all—totalling, I reckon, about 105 hours of sitting. I reckon that letters, telephone calls, committee work and constituency work averaged for me, at any rate, about six hours per week for, say, 40 weeks in the year, so I reckon the total amount of hours spent on my parliamentary duties—and I may be remiss; perhaps I am average—would be about 345 hours a year.

All this may be refuted by members of the Seanad. I hope it will be. I hope to find people saying this is a ridiculously small amount of time to spend. I should like to hear people honestly say that. I am being perfectly honest. In my own case, if I receive a salary of £1,000 a year for 345 hours' work, I am being paid at the rate of well over £5,000 a year, which is too much for me. I am not worth it, so far as my parliamentary work is concerned.

Now I can see there are certain objections to this. Country Senators will say that is all very well for Senators who live in Dublin, but they have to travel 150 miles perhaps. That is very true but, on the other hand, country Senators do not have a constituency to look after. They have a plentiful supply of TDs in their constituencies to do their constituency work. They are on panels. They are appointed by an electoral college of about 1,000 scattered all through the country and unless I am mistaken— I would be very happy to be refuted in this—they certainly have not the intense constituency work that a member of either of the university constituencies may have. In fact, I think it is true to say that the only people in this House who have constituencies are members from the universities. I do not think that anyone can deny that.

Professor Hayes

The fact may be true but the conclusion is quite different.

Professor Stanford

The time spent in travelling by country Senators is to a certain extent compensated for by the constituency work that the constituency members of the House must do, but what about Senator Quinlan, who is both a university Senator and has to travel up from Cork? I think that university people can do a lot of very good work in the train—personally I find that one of the best places in which to do academic work is in the train—so I do not think that there is any special case to make about that.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Professor Stanford

Before the interval, I was considering the Minister's first main argument for increasing our salaries. That argument was that sufficient compensation should be given for earnings lost through parliamentary duties. I took my own case, probably a fairly average one, but I may be wrong, and I reckoned that in sitting times last year there were 105 hours approximately altogether and in general work like answering letters, telephoning, attending committee meetings and other political meetings, I personally spent about 240 hours or so in the year. That is six hours a week, which in my case would make approximately 345 hours altogether. At that rate I will be remunerated in the future, if I do receive it, at the rate of £5,000 a year as a Senator.

I want to make it clear that I am speaking of my own case. I may have said one or two provocative things about other people before the tea interval. I recognise that Party men must attend party meetings which may take up a good deal of time. I also recognise that all Senators, except university Senators, officially have no constituency. They may argue that the whole country is their constituency and I do understand that at election time it is a hard constituency to nurse. One must make that allowance, too, but can any Senator honestly say that he has to answer anything like 100 letters a week which is one third of the estimate for a member of the Dáil? He cannot say honestly, or dishonestly, because the facts are against it, that he attends anything like one-third of the Dáil sitting time either. Yet under this Bill Senators will receive salaries equal to two-thirds of a Dáil member. It is not a fair apportionment.

There is one other argument I should meet under the first heading, namely, that it is easy enough for people like myself who are receiving an annual salary as a professor or something like that. That is true enough. There are no deductions made from my salary for attending the Seanad. I may lose a certain amount of other profitable opportunities, but very few and it does not really count; whereas if a man is self-employed, on piece work so to speak, or is a farmer, he definitely does lose a considerable amount of annual revenue. But should he be compensated for that at the rate of £5,000 a year? That is what is happening. So I say that Senators are over-compensated for their time. If I can be refuted I would be very glad. But I do not really see that that can be done.

The second argument brought forward by the Minister to support him in these proposals—not just the Minister but the whole Dáil which supported him in this—was that we do want to attract a better quality of member to the Oireachtas. Can we do that to the Seanad under the present electoral law? Senator Hayes discussed this earlier on. He pointed out that we have had a commission on this. That commission made certain recommendations. We had a motion on this in the Seanad some years ago. I put it down. We had a full debate, but nothing has resulted. Undoubtedly, reform is needed. At the moment there is an iron grip on the Seanad by the Parties, except in the case of a few Senators. Here is where the taxpayers feel they have a particular grievance. They can directly control the quality in the other House by their votes which directly affect the candidates, but they cannot do that in the Seanad. They feel there is a grille or a cage between them and the Seanad which they cannot break through. They resent that. That is why they particularly resent this increase. In fact, this increase would be justified if there were a free and open career for talents so that any eminent candidate would have a fair chance of getting into the Seanad on his merits.

If that were so, of course the increase would be desirable. But it is not so at the present. No one can argue it is so, so the taxpayers have a particular grievance against Senators' salaries which they have not got in the case of the Dáil.

The third argument the Minister and his supporters in the Dáil brought forward was that there has been an increase in the cost of living and a general rise in salaries throughout the country. Our salaries, or our allowances to use the Constitutional word, were £468 a year tax free up to 1960. From 1960 on they have been £750 a year subject to income tax. Now it is proposed they should be £1,000 a year subject to income tax. Those are increases within four years of 36 per cent and 33? per cent approximately. Those cannot be justified, I think, by the general rise in salaries and the cost of living, so I do not see the Minister's third argument is valid for us at all.

What I have said is based mainly, as it should be, on my own case. Perhaps I am an unusually under-worked Senator. I am prepared to accept proof of that. If that is so, let others make a stronger case on the evidence as known to them.

I will give one comparison, not a perfect one. The Minister has examined statistics from other Parliaments and says that he found, on the whole, our parliamentarians are at a disadvantage. I should have liked him to give the figures of both the salaries and the approximate working hours. I question whether if we saw both we as Senators would appear to be at a disadvantage. I take one case, the only one easily accessible to me, the case of the House of Lords in England. Perhaps you will think they are all rich landlords and noblemen. They are not. Many are now school teachers, business people, and so on, who have been raised to the House of Lords for political reasons. The House of Lords in Britain is not paid at all. A member gets travelling expenses and gets three guineas for each sitting, if he is present. Contrast that with our emoluments, and the contrast is very striking.

If the case I have made is not refuted here this evening I must oppose subsection (2) of section 3. I imagine now one question remains in the minds of Senators as well as in my own: in that case, suppose the Bill is passed, what am I going to do with the increase? There is a good deal of room for casuistry here. Should one return it to the Government? What should one do with it? I simply say that I propose, since I think it is an unjustifiable increase, to give 21½ per cent to public charities, provided that the increase in the cost of living does not get worse. I may have to reduce the percentage should that happen. I feel this is the only way in which I can satisfy my conscience in this matter.

In view of the paltry increases mentioned here so often—and we must continue to mention them—which we have voted for old age pensioners, can we honestly feel happy about what we are doing this evening? With that in mind I propose to give a share of that 21½ per cent to charities which help the aged and infirm. I do not regard this decision as at all meritorious in my case. I hope the Seanad does not think I have that in mind. I believe that it is a matter of simple justice to the taxpayers. I do not think that I and my family—they may be a little indignant about my speech this evening, not having been consulted—are entitled to enjoy an excessive salary at the expense of the taxpayers, and that is what this amounts to, as I see it.

There is one way in which we could justify ourselves. Senator Hayes has already suggested it. If we did a real job of work in this House, if the Government gave us more to do, and if we did it better, then this kind of salary would be fully justified; but until then, I really do not believe it is defensible, though I should be very happy to hear some other Senator make a really convincing defence of this remarkably large increase.

Mr. McAuliffe

I certainly did not intend to speak on this Bill. Before I came into the Seanad I had the impression that the Bill would go through in about five minutes. The Minister would make his statement. The Leader of the Chief Opposition Party would make a short statement. It would be a free-for-all with regard to those who can genuinely call themselves Independents. I have no grievance whatsoever in relation to what Senator Stanford has said. He is in a very, very independent position here. I can quite understand that he would object to getting a couple of hundred a year if he takes the number of hours we work and divides them into the wages we get.

During the election for the Seanad, I met people who travelled all over the country and who got nominations from the nominating bodies. They did not get them from the Oireachtas Parties. I met these people in my house and in the houses of other county councillors. They said they would be quite prepared to take a seat in the Seanad and do the work for nothing. I should like to ask the Minister now if at any time he has received back a cheque for £750 from anyone who came into this House.

I have great sympathy with the Minister because he has been pressed for quite a long period now to give these increases to Senators and Deputies. No one in this House will agree that Deputies were paid a reasonable allowance. I have advocated an increase for Deputies all the time. I have never spoken about our own position. I agree with Senator Hayes that we could, perhaps, get a good deal more work to do and, if we get more work, we are quite prepared to do it.

With regard to the increases to Ministers, and so on, I think commendable discretion has been shown. They have acted in a most creditable manner. They are taking an absolute minimum. The Minister for Finance would not be here this evening piloting this measure through the Seanad were it not for the fact that all the major parties agreed on the measure before ever it was introduced. The Fianna Fáil Party introduced this measure only because the Fine Gael and Labour Parties agreed there should be an increase in the remuneration of Senators, Deputies, Ministers, and so on. Had Fine Gael refused to sanction the increase the Minister would not now be occupying the chair he does in the Seanad.

We can see now from what has happened here this evening that there are people who were not unanimous about this increase. I am not a bit ashamed to stand up here and say that the people in the Labour Party were unanimous. I am quite certain that the people in the Fianna Fáil Party were quite satisfied and that there was no dissension in that party as to whether or not there should be an increase. If I am a member of a political party, and I am nominated by the Oireachtas Party for the Seanad, that means that if a majority decision is made by that party, then I am supposed to come in here and support what the party agreed on, irrespective of whether or not I agree with the decision. When it is a majority decision of a party, then I hold no one has a right, when he belongs to that party, to come in here and object to that decision.

An Independent who is not tied in to any party can make the case Senator Stanford made this evening and no one can take exception to that. The only exception I take is that, if we were to confine membership of the Seanad to people in the £5,000 a year bracket, then working-class people would never have the right to come in here and have their say in the Seanad. I hold that working-class people have a perfect right to come in here and make their voices heard.

This question of expenses came up recently in county councils, in vocational committees and agricultural committees. I was at a vocational course in Clonmel and quite a number of people in high places passed a motion that a man should not be compensated for loss of time on these committees. I said that the very people they were trying to keep out of the vocational committees were the people who had qualified through their own schools. No man could afford to lose half a day's wages to act on a vocational committee. A half day's wages for a tradesman might mean anything from £2 to £2 10s. or £3, depending on whether the job is done by contract, by the hour, or by the day. These people could not afford to throw away £2 10s. Yet, these are the people who do such very good work for the country and who can give the best advice where technical students are concerned because they can point out the mistakes that were made in their time and have these mistakes rectified. If expenses are ruled out, then we will not have these people on the various committees and the loss would be ours.

Senator Stanford said he would defy anyone to make the case here that he uses even one-third of the free postage provided — in other words, that he did not write 100 letters per week.

Professor Stanford

As a Senator.

Mr. McAuliffe

As a Senator, I am a member of a county council and of a vocational committee. Tomorrow morning I shall have at least 30 letters to answer. It is quite a common thing to get 40 letters. There is a record kept of every letter we post. I invite Senator Stanford to examine that record and he will find that I go into 150 to 160 letters per week. Not only that, when you come into Seanad Éireann, your job does not end up in Seanad Éireann. People come to you not only in the morning or at 3 o'clock in the afternoon but they knock at your door in the middle of the night and expect you to get up and you do get up. When it comes to county council business, if there is a question of the appointment of a rate collector or anything else like that, you could be called up at 3 o'clock in the morning.

Senator Hayes said we should have the sort of legislation in this country where everyone would get his rights. We are all trying to give people their rights. There are certain people who, not through their own fault, cannot get their rights because they cannot state their case. Their public representative will state it for them and succeed.

I am very proud that any time I ever had to write to a Department, and so on, I was able to help some such person. There are difficulties every day about grants, social welfare, benefits under the Health Act, and so on, and, every day of the week, we get letters and people cycle up to 20 miles to see us. It is not that the Departments have refused them their rights but there are people who are not capable of presenting their case as it should be presented. It is a wonderful thing if they have public representatives who are capable of presenting their case.

I am prepared to abide by the decision of the Labour Party that an increase in the allowances of TDs, Senators and Ministers is warranted. I have no time for anybody who belongs to a party and who comes in here and talks at the other side of his mouth. The place to stop it was within their party and the Minister would not then be here this evening.

Professor Quinlan

I rise to welcome this Bill. I believe it is a step, although a very small one, in the right direction.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Good man.

Professor Quinlan

We all know that the Dáil has become very much a fulltime job and that even the new level of allowance at £1,500 a year—of which probably half will be allowed for expenses—is totally inadequate. We know that the Revenue Commissioners will not allow £750 for expenses unless they feel reasonably certain that a Deputy has to incur up to that amount. That leaves a net £750, which is totally inadequate and, by European standards, is all wrong.

If we are to build a modern Parliament and a Parliament that will be representative of a cross-section of the nation, we must ensure that all our citizens from all ranks are able to serve in that Parliament. I think the best model we can take is that of Holland. Five years ago—probably it has increased considerably since then—the personal allowance of each Deputy was £1,500 and all other expenses were provided free so that that was his personal living allowance.

It was recognised at that time in Holland that £1,500 was a relatively modest salary. They wanted to attract many persons in other walks of life who were capable of earning considerably more than that. Consequently, it had grown up there that any of those engaged in public service, even from the Civil Service itself, were free to run for Parliament and if elected had to get leave of absence from the post while they served in Parliament. In addition, if there were any difference between their salary as a civil servant or as a local authority employee, that difference was made good by that body. Therefore, the principle was established that no person there, whatever his position, lost by getting into public service. Neither did he make money by it. At least, however, the principle was established that he did not lose by being in public service. That was a most valuable principle.

In our country, where so many of our people are in public employment of one sort or another and are virtually precluded from serving in Parliament, our Parliament becomes lopsided. On the one hand, you may have some professional people close to Dublin—lawyers or some others—who can combine service in our Parliament with keeping on their office. On the other hand, you have self-employed people—farmers, publicans, shop-keepers—who can combine the two. But we have got none of the vast middle professional class represented in our Parliament and that class has a very big contribution to make to our public life.

We have spent more on the education of that class than on any other section of our community. Consequently, they should be expected to contribute, at least proportionate to their numbers, to the public life of the country. As we set our allowance at present, that is impossible. I hope the Minister or the Government will try to evolve some scheme in the future that may make it possible for such a class to serve. I do not know how it can be brought about. Perhaps the Dutch model is about the best we can get. Maybe something along those lines could be evolved.

I feel certain that the Parliamentary life in this country cannot prosper so long as the vast proportion of our people—engineers, doctors, local authority employees, and so on—are precluded from service. I appeal to the Minister to find some way of introducing this improvement.

The second class I might deal with here are Ministers. It is a shocking thing to propose an increase of 10 per cent. Is it to be said that a Minister is entitled to about only half the salary of the senior Secretary in his Department? I do not think you would find a country in the world where such a principle is accepted. It is false modesty in the worst sense of the term. It can result only in lowering the calibre of men who will take Cabinet posts.

At the very minimum, the principle should be accepted that a Minister should have a salary as high as the Secretary of his Department. Certainly, the salary of a Parliamentary Secretary should be equated at least to that of an Assistant Secretary in the Department. I think that that comparison should be established once and for all. We should not have the embarrassing position thrust upon us here that the Minister for Finance has to introduce a Bill the purpose of which seems to be to increase his own salary. That should go hand in hand with the Civil Service salaries and perhaps the Minister may see his way to do that and to do it as soon as possible. It should not be mixed up with a wage round. It should be remedied as soon as possible. It is necessary to remedy it before we contemplate this big step of joining the EEC.

Of course, I do say that there is not room for savings. The travel allowance that is occasioned at the moment at something like £3,300 seems to be altogether excessive. I think there is room for some saving in that respect. It need no longer be necessary to assign a driver and a car to each Minister. There should be a small pool available and, just like Bishops and Archbishops, at the moment, Ministers should be able to drive their own cars for quite a bit of the time and get the necessary expenses for it. There is room for much cutting down there which could offset in some way the expense of giving to Ministers the salaries to which they are entitled.

In regard to our own position here, the fact is that on paper we could be shown to have a rather poor record of sittings per year. The Seanad has a vast potential, and it is an essential part of the legislative machinery. The fault lies not with us, but with the Government, and with successive Governments, for not using the House to 10 per cent of its capacity or capabilities. I hope that in the future the Government will find ways and means of doing that.

I differ from Senator Stanford in his tot of hours. After all, it depends on what we put into the work we do here. We have to read and study Bills and voluminous reports. The report of Córas Tráchtála came out today, and it would take a week to study it. We have also the statistical abstracts and statistics issued prior to the Budget. We could spend almost a year studying them, and then use the facts in them profitably in some debates afterwards. I think we need not be worried about the return we personally make, provided our own consciences are clear. We put in a reasonable time in the Seanad and its associated activities which range over all facets of our public life, and provided we do that our consciences are clear. That does not preclude us from advocating a much more effective use of our time.

We seem to have reached the cross-roads in our relationship with semi-State bodies, and independent bodies in which the State has made a big investment such as Verolme Dockyard. There is clearly a need for some type of effective committee action which would answer most of the queries with respect to those companies, and answer them in committees across the table rather than having to put queries very often in an exaggerated way from the floor of the House in the hope of getting some information. We must modernise our system, and when we do, the Government should be able to draw very heavily on the Seanad for the personnel to man those committees.

I would feel very happy to contribute in any way on those committees, and I am sure my fellow Senators would be equally happy to make a contribution. We all have something to give. All of us have tremendous experience of political institutions, and we know what works and what does not work. Other Senators may be experts in economics, or mathematics, or law. Everyone here has some talent to give, and to be effective in a committee of the House. Now that we are at the cross-roads and trying to plan for the future, we will have to make more use of the Seanad than using it merely to sound off on Second Stage of a Bill, and perhaps to be ten per cent effective on Committee Stage by getting some minor modification made in some provision of a Bill. There is far greater work for us to do than that, and I hope the Government will give us an opportunity of doing it.

We in the university constituencies are rather fortunate in that we do not have to do constituency work in regard to letters or queries and so on, which other members of the House have to do. I believe it should be possible to rescue members of the Dáil and Seanad from a great deal of this unnecessary work at constituency level. Perhaps it could be provided that while a Deputy would make representations to a Department, the answer would go directly from the Department to the individual concerned. An educational campaign could be launched by the Government on television to inform people on their rights, and to disabuse them of the idea that they will not get their rights unless a public representative intervenes on their behalf. By that means it should be possible to free Deputies and Senators from a lot of work that is of little value, and merely takes their time and energies from work they would prefer to do, which would be more valuable for the country. Television is a powerful medium. It goes right into the home. It could show how the Civil Service works, and how it deals with queries, and so on. In that way the people could be gradually educated to look for their rights rather than depend on someone else to get them.

I have pleasure in welcoming this Bill. I am in agreement with Senator Hayes in his appeal to the Minister to modernise our Parliamentary system and make it into an effective instrument, especially within the framework of the Common Market. Ministers must abandon this false modesty, and accept the fact that they must be paid at least as much as senior officials in the Civil Service. The level of salary in the Dáil must be such as to allow all classes in the community to be represented equally so that we will have a much greater quota of professional and salaried people in the Dáil than we have at present. I believe the Seanad will continue as a part-time body. We must develop the Committee system.

Perhaps now is the time to look at the recommendations of the Seanad Commission to see whether the Government should implement these recommendations, in an effort to bring a new stream of thought into this assembly, and bring in a new group that would be completely free of the vocational organisations concerned. By all means let them have party lines. That is how our system works. They would primarily have come for their excellence in the vocational organisations and the second stream, the other 20, would come as they do now from the political life of the country with qualifications for the vocational panels. If we can achieve that we can get a blend of Irish life and Irish brains and effort into the Seanad that would make it a very effective instrument in the future, not so much an instrument that the Government need worry about whether it will delay Bills but an instrument that could be used by the Government to carry out many of those different tasks like the control of semi-State bodies and set up effective committees in between the Minister and various other organisations. If that can be done the decision to revive the Seanad in 1939 will be fully justified and we can face the future with confidence in our legislature as a bicameral assembly.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Having regard to the increased demands on the time of members of the Oireachtas, to the decrease in the value of money and the incomes of a cross-section of the Irish people who might be expected to serve in the Oireachtas, I think the increases proposed by this Bill are justified, and I approve of them. This Party think that they are justified and approve of them. Having regard to what Senator McAuliffe said, I wish to say that the decision to increase the salaries of the members of the Oireachtas is a Government decision and that the figures of the proposed increases contained in the Bill are the Government's figures. Again, I say I approve of them and this Party approve of them, but that does not mean that we would approve of any proposals brought by the Government before the Oireachtas. We consider these proposals reasonable and for that reason we approve of them.

The debate this evening has more or less turned on this House and the question has in effect been asked whether the members of this House are entitled to the proposed increases. In the first place, I think Seanad Éireann is an essential part of the Oireachtas. Down through the years, it has fully justified itself. In the 1930s, the present Government Party came to the conclusion that the Seanad should be abolished and they abolished it. After a short time, they had second thoughts and the Seanad was reconstituted, and with a very short interruption since the foundation of this State, we have had two Houses of the Oireachtas and, I think, quite rightly so.

Under the new Constitution, this House was called upon on one occasion to defend the Constitution and notwithstanding the method of election and the composition of the House itself, Seanad Éireann defended the Constitution and opposed the proposal of the Government to abolish proportional representation. That measure and that action by this House must justify the House in the eyes of the country. I do not want to delay too long on this, but I can say without fear of contradiction that were it not for the ventilation that the Referendum Bill got in this House and were it not for the fact that it was defeated and held up in this House for three months the people would not have realised what an outrageous proposal it was to abolish proportional representation and it might well have been carried. That is something that this House can still be proud of.

I do not think that it is reasonable, as Senator Stanford has done, to measure the value of Seanad Éireann by its working hours. We had a Bill here a short time ago to increase the salaries of the judiciary and a Senator asked had there been an increase in judicial output, so to speak, to justify the increase. The Minister for Justice rightly pointed out that you could not estimate the value of the members of the judiciary by the volume of work that passed through the courts. He agreed that, on the contrary, it might be an indication that the courts were working more efficiently if there was a smaller volume of business done.

I should like a ruling on my point of order.

A new generation has arisen, a generation based on practical realities and the facts of life and they see that the world goes on, that business progresses, that there are great opportunities in industry and commerce and that money can be made, and they have not got the same outlook, unfortunately, as the generations that ruled this country for the last 40 years. They regard everything from a practical, business point of view and if we are to have a free Parliament with men of talent and ability who can make a success of life and contribute to the Parliamentary institutions, then in the future it must be made worth their while to come in and spend their time and devote their talents and give assistance to the upbuilding of the country.

The sooner everybody accepts that without equivocation the better and the sooner the people realise that the labourer is worthy of his hire the better. If those who constitute the Dáil and Seanad are to give of their best they must be in a position to devote their time to the service they give to the community. As Senator McAuliffe quite properly said, it must be made possible in the future for any man, no matter how low his income may be in ordinary life, to come into the Dáil or the Seanad and devote his talents to the service of his country without being in the position of driving his wife and children to starvation if he leaves the House.

With regard to what Senator Stanford said, I am afraid in his reference to his constituency he is in complete isolation from the rest of the members of the Seanad, particularly those from the country. Senator Stanford's constituency I am afraid is a small intellectual group. It has far wide flung ramifications, I agree, and his constituents spread practically around the globe. I do not think they can be representative of the type of constituency which constitutes the rest of Ireland and for which all Senators are responsible. There are country Senators here, as Senator McAuliffe said, who from the time they go home do not get ease or peace until the time they leave again for the Seanad.

I know what being a Senator means particularly in the country. People think you are in a position to advise them on everything from China to Peru. You may not know the answers and if you do not they think you can get them. They come to you and expect you to make telephone calls, write letters and call on Ministers. It is all right saying we have no constituency but our constituency boundaries are the whole Twenty-Six Counties. It is useless to talk like Senator Stanford of the number of hours, the number of minutes and the amount of work done. You may still compare them with the surgeon who does a job in five or ten seconds and on occasion he may get £1,000 for it. He has done a tremendous job. He has saved a life.

I consider the members of the Seanad and the Dáil as being in the same category as a surgeon. They may not have to devote the same amount of time to their work as a man may have to devote to other occupations, but the responsibility and the work which they have to do and the amount of time, as Senator Quinlan quite rightly pointed out, used in the study of Bills and the reading of documents more than justifies the fact that the Seanad and the Dáil are doing their job and are good and worthy upholders of tradition and democracy in this country.

Senator Stanford in referring to the increase in salary which he was going to give to charity made me feel that if he was so unworthy of receiving this increase, and if he felt that we meet only so many days and so many hours in the year, then he is not worthy of the £750 he has got up to now. I have not heard he has given any back or that he has volunteered to give any to charity. We should be honest in this. If Senator Stanford or any other Senator thinks he is not worth the money, he should give it back or give it to charity.

This Bill is long overdue and I feel that the Dáil Ministers particularly are well worthy of the increase they have got. I hold that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are not getting enough. I even wonder whether the Dáil salaries are enough. However, this is a move in the right direction.

With regard to the Seanad, the Constitution lays down that we have a second House. If we are to have a second House, then the second House must be put in such a position of status as to make it appeal to people of talent in the country. Therefore, the members of the second House must be paid. If slurs are cast on them, if it is suggested that we are not worthy of these salaries and that we do not perform a useful function, by all means get rid of us. So long as it is in the Constitution, we have to make provision that it will be fully and adequately filled by people of the best talent we can find. If it involves the expenditure of public money, there is a good case for it as a matter of policy in the cause of democracy in this country.

Professor Hayes

Perhaps I will be allowed to restore Senator Ó Maoláin to health by quoting a recommendation from the Seanad Electoral Law Commission Report of 1959, of which Senator Ó Maoláin was a signatory. Recommendation No. 33 on page 17 says:

We concluded that the best way of ensuring the election of a higher proportion of vocational representatives of the eminence and breadth of experience we have described would be to give to nominating bodies themselves the right of forming electoral colleges for the election of candidates.

In common with Senator Ó Maoláin, I signed that.

Mr. Yeats

I should like to say a few non-political words on this subject.

Professor Stanford

Are non-political statements in order in this House?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are talking about increases in salaries.

Professor Stanford

Surely such statements are irrelevant in this House?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Not in relation to an increase in salaries.

Mr. Yeats

I should like to say a few words on the ministerial salaries, which seem to be the most important part of the Bill. I regret the Government have not seen fit to give a bigger rise in salary to Ministers. We should not count the extra £500 allowance we give to Deputies in estimating the amount of ministerial salaries. The Minister for Finance in introducing the Bill pointed out that the total increase was 33 per cent. I do not think the two should be related at all. Ministers, as we know, have the duties of a Deputy to perform and there is no reason why they should not get the Deputy's allowance along with other Deputies. I cannot see why it should be reckoned in relation to the ministerial salary. They should get the salary of Deputies and the salary of Ministers. The two are entirely different. Taking the salary of Ministers by itself, they have given themselves an increase of ten per cent, from £2,000 to £2,200. That seems to me to be entirely inadequate.

I am in agreement with Senator Quinlan that the present level of ministerial salary is entirely too low. In giving themselves this increase they did not even get to the 12 per cent ninth round. It is only a measly ten per cent. The result of this increase and those previously given through the years is that the present level of Ministerial salaries has been degraded to a level far below that of comparable occupations throughout the country. I have been doing a bit of research with regard to the general level of Civil Service salaries. We must remember that a Minister like, say, the Minister for Finance is in charge of a big Department. The Minister for Finance has the sole responsibility for taking decisions which may have fundamental importance for the entire economic and financial climate of the country. He has to control a big Department with various branches, such as the Board of Works which are, indirectly, his responsibility. He has a responsibility in all these matters.

I should, perhaps, make it clear straight away, in case there is any doubt in the matter, that I am not suggesting that civil servants are paid too much. I am quite certain many civil servants are not paid enough. The only point I am making is that the differential that does exist between the salary of a Minister and the salary of a civil servant is entirely wrong. The Minister for Finance has very big offices to control. If my calculations are correct, there are 211 public servants under him who earn more than he does, even allowing for the increase that will come under this Bill. That seems to me a very strange state of affairs.

If one takes the Civil Service as a whole—my figures may not be absolutely accurate, but they are sufficiently accurate for the point I am making —there are over 700 public servants who earn more than £2,300, which is what we propose for Ministers of State under this Bill. I took a few examples at random—I could have taken many more—out of the Book of Estimates of the classes of public officials who earn more money than Ministers of State. I am not acquainted with Civil Service grades. I am sure these are important officials, but I do not think they equate in importance with Ministers of State: Assistant Principals, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Assistant Solicitor, Inspector, Assistant Principal Architect, Assistant Chief Engineer, Engineer Grade I, and many more.

We have now reached the position in which many civil servants—no doubt they are important in the Civil Service—have salaries equivalent to that of a Minister for State even though their duties are largely routine. Clearly many of them have little to do with the making of policy. Many of them have little real responsibility. It is quite clear they deserve the salaries they get. They earn them and there is no reason why they should not get them, but it is fantastic to have a Minister of State in the position of having large numbers under him, doing routine jobs, but getting more money than he does. I might mention, too, if my calculations are right, that there are six public servants who earn more than the Taoiseach does, or will under this legislation.

On one of the sections of the Finance Bill earlier today Senator McGuire made a point with regard to taxing people who work in manufacturing industry. If I understand him correctly, he said that nowadays a senior executive in industry is paid £3,000 as a matter of course. I take it that is a minimum. Many will be paid very much more. If a senior executive in a relatively small industry is paid £3,000, surely Ministers of State should at least have an equivalent sum.

I think the Government are adopting a very dangerous policy because it could happen in the future that we would find ourselves deprived of the kind of material we need in Government. Nobody goes into politics for what he can get out of them. Nobody becomes a Minister because he thinks it is a profitable job. There could come a time when a man, because of family commitments and liabilities, would decide that he could not afford to become a Minister and work for the salary of a relatively minor civil servant. We have not reached that stage yet but we are getting near it.

I regret the Government have not seen fit to give Ministers decent salaries. I know that stupid, irresponsible people will say: "Oh, of course they give themselves so much a year extra". That is a risk that must be taken because otherwise we may find ourselves in the future in the position of not being able to get the best people for the various ministerial posts.

Mr. McGuire

I welcome this Bill. I think it is a courageous and an honest Bill, inasmuch as it has been brought in in the face of quite a good deal of public misunderstanding and prejudice, as Senator Hayes has pointed out. The State is the largest business operated in the community. It is the community itself. I look on the members of the Dáil and Seanad as the directors of the State company and the Ministers are the executive directors of that company. If we compare the rewards paid under this Bill with those prevailing in private enterprise they will be found to be very inadequate indeed. As has been said, people do not go into politics, certainly not at the top level, for the money they get. Up to now they have gone in because of patriotism, or for one reason, or another.

It is time we got round to looking at the running of the State as a business proposition. The State is taking more and more of the affairs of our lives under its control. If the State is in that position surely we must have the right kind of men to run this operation. We will not get good men for bad money. They will go into industry where they will get not only what is being given here but far greater rewards, and with far fewer brickbats being thrown at them. The minimum paid to any director in modern circumstances is £1,000 per year. If he is not worth £1,000 he should not be a director at all. In fact, that is small money nowadays for a director.

Dáil and Seanad Éireann should not be places for rich men only or people who have time to spare. It is all very well to talk about being independent but it is only people with plenty of money and time to spare who can afford to be really independent. If that is the criterion, then we shall rule out a very large section of the population.

I agree with Senator McAuliffe when he says that Deputies and Senators, if they do their job properly, are always on duty. One cannot just work out the hours that Senator Stanford did and say that some are paid at about £20,000 per year. Those of us who are closely associated with what is happening in the two Chambers are never off duty. I am not very prominent in the purely political machine but I get numerous letters asking me to recommend, to talk, to advise, and so on. I have a secretary who works very hard. She does a great deal of work in which I would not be involved if I were not in the Seanad. If that is true of me then it is even truer of those members from the country who act as local advisers to everybody and who spend a great deal of time visiting Departments on behalf of various people, and so on.

Senators and Deputies are always on duty. Judging by the figures produced they are very inadequately paid indeed. Senator Stanford was, of course, very honest when he stated his own hours of duty and his contribution to the Seanad. It must be remembered, however, that Independent members here have a much easier job than have those of us who are associated with Parties. Take even the holding of a House here at night. If you are on the front bench in our Party, or in the Government Party, you must be here from 3 p.m. until 10 p.m., or later. If the House is sitting late, we have to be here. We have our meetings beforehand and decide who will speak on every Bill and we take an intelligent interest in the Bills. You cannot work out in hours what contribution is made by a man who is really doing his job in a conscientious way.

It is time, after 40 years, for us to settle down in this country to working our governmental institutions and machinery. It is very bad that these institutions should be denigrated from inside; it is bad enough that it should be done from outside by people who do not know very much or who do not think very much about what is happening.

There are people who still say there are too many members in the Dáil and that the Seanad should be abolished or halved. It was abolished and, to give him his due, it was abolished by a man who thought there was no need for it and at a time when it was thought there was no need for it. Experience has shown that it is necessary. It has been embodied in our Constitution. We should not fool about and talk about abolishing our State institutions which have been built up so carefully, slowly and laboriously over the past 40 years. It is very irresponsible talk.

Take the numbers in the Dáil. They could not be cut down and it is irresponsible to talk about how much would be saved by getting rid of, say, 20 Deputies. Anybody who knows the working of governmental machinery knows that there is only sufficient in the Dáil to give a Government and an alternative Government. That is our system of government — a Government and an Opposition which can provide an alternative Government. By the time we have our Ministers, our junior Ministers and the essential elements of a Party, there is very little to choose from or left even to act as backbencher Deputies.

I believe we are at a minimum in the Dáil for a properly operated governmental machine in this country. I believe all the Deputies, whether they be Ministers or simply backbenchers, have a wholetime job on their hands dealing with their constituents and with making legislation. The only thing wrong at present is that I think we are not paying people enough. If and when we do pay people enough — and this Bill is a step in the right direction—we should demand good service and we should select the right type of man for public life, somebody who will do his duty conscientiously. There will always be a certain element of Independents, who can sit on the fence, if you like. But they have a function to carry out in that they can look at things objectively.

The system we have built up here is a political system composed of political parties. I think everybody should belong to a political Party and should play his part at some level, from the lowest to the highest operation in the political system. In England, they have an admirable Parliamentary system. Nobody boasts over there: "I am not a politician or in politics." Everybody is. One person is a Tory and goes to his local branch. He attends conventions and his wife helps to get money for the party. It is the same in the Labour Party. Nobody over there says: "I will not tell you what I am." We all know what politics each one professes. We have all seen them at work. It is one good thing we ought to copy from England and English political life.

We should get rid of this idea that one should not support a political Party. This should not mean that one should go as far as showing active dislike of people in the other Party, but one must take a line somewhere and stand for some philosophy. Let us get the right people into Parliament and pay them properly. Then this Bill will be justified.

My only fault with the Bill is that I still do not think Ministers are paid enough. I do not think £1,500 a year is enough for a TD if he is doing his work properly. Because the Seanad is not being properly used I think £1,000 a year is about fair: it is certainly not too much. I would hope that, in time, all Governments would make more use of the Seanad and get rid of this idea that the Seanad is useless and should be done away with. It should not be done away with. It should be improved and used. I think that the amount paid, even at present, to Deputies and Senators is quite inadequate and it is about time this Bill was brought in. I give it my full support.

Mr. Ross

I support much of this Bill. I certainly support the increase to Dáil Deputies. I entirely agree with what Senator Yeats said about the Taoiseach and the Ministers, though in comparing their salaries with those of public servants, he has possibly overlooked the allowances which the Taoiseach and all Ministers get. I do not know what these allowances are but I think that, if they were equated with salaries, they would be fairly considerable. Perhaps the Minister in his reply might tell us something about these allowances—not necessarily individually but in bulk — because in terms of motor cars and other factors they represent considerable salaries. Nevertheless, the amounts which we pay in salaries to the Taoiseach and our Ministers are, to my mind, totally inadequate in modern conditions.

I support, too, section 11 about which very few people, if anybody, spoke this evening — the proposal to pay a salary to the leading members of the Opposition Parties. This is a step in the right direction. For the Opposition to do their job properly, their Leaders must spend considerable time, make considerable researches and employ essential secretarial help, and so on. They obviously need these additional allowances and I welcome this provision.

I should like to go back, of course, to the point which Senator Stanford made in particular and which Senator Hayes made in part, in regard to Seanad salaries. I feel that my colleague, Senator Stanford, rather overstated the case in comparing our constituency with other constituencies and on the question of the amount of hours spent on Seanad work as a measurement for the amount of salary.

I am perfectly satisfied that, although we have many constituents in many parts of the world, we are not, on the whole, plagued by them as are many of our colleagues here in the House, particularly those in the country who are plagued by people who may not directly be their constituents but who live in their areas. I do not think it is perhaps fair either to measure the hours we spend as a measure of the work we do, although it may be a rough and ready rule.

Senator Ó Maoláin attacked Senator Stanford for using hours as a measurement of work but Senator Ó Maoláin was being a little unfair to Senator Stanford because this was the Minister's own measure or one of the Minister's measures for supporting increases, in his opening statement. The Minister mentioned the two or three days per week a Deputy has to spend in the Dáil. He mentioned the number of letters he has to write, the number of meetings he has to attend, and proceeded in his argument to say that the position of Senators is somewhat similar. I think, here, that Senator Stanford was right to take up the point of hours.

There is absolutely no comparison between the number of hours that any of us spend on our duties (whether we are Party members or Independent members) and the time spent on their duties by members of the Dáil. We do not sit anything like the same number of days. Very few of us write anything like the same number of letters and very few of us have anything like the amount of lobbying of one kind or another from constituents or other people who ask us to do things for them. It may be that the position of most members of the House is not the same as the position of Senator Stanford and myself, or the position of members for the National University, but it is still true that the duties of Party members here are nothing like as arduous as the duties of Party members in the Dáil.

Senator McAuliffe said working class people were entitled to come to the Seanad and should be paid. We are all entirely in agreement with that statement. I do not think anyone has suggested to the House — I certainly would not suggest for one moment — that they were not entitled to come here, or that they were not welcome here. Senator McAuliffe contrasted them with the £5,000 a year man. The Seanad is not composed of £5,000 a year men, nor is it composed of working class people. It is composed of a number of representatives put up for the most part by vocational panels, and elected here on those panels. There was no idea at any time that the Seanad should consist of any particular section or class.

I oppose the increase for Senators on the basis of measurement put up by Senator Ó Maoláin that "the working man is worthy of his hire". I do not honestly think that as this House is used at present, and in relation to the amount of work we do, we are worthy of the increased hire which it is proposed to give us. We would be worthy of it if we did more in this House, and we would be worthy of it if we were allowed to do more. I can give two examples. I remember a year or two ago when we were considering the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. So far as I remember 50 or 60 amendments were put down to that Bill. Because it was urgent — it being, of course, the end of July — that the Bill should pass, none of those amendments was accepted. Some were debated, but none was accepted.

I can think of an example last week in which the Patents Bill, which is a Bill of great complexity, was passed through this House in all stages in a single evening. The reason why that Bill was passed in all stages in a single evening, was that the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Fine Gael Party in the House, agreed to have all stages passed. I do not think that is using this House properly. The Patents Bill was the type of Bill which should have been debated in two stages, and certainly on two separate days. I cannot believe the Seanad could not have contributed something of merit to that important Bill. Nevertheless, it was taken through all stages, and I do not think any good was done in the four or five hours we spent on it, because the Bill was rushed through and the House was not used properly.

I have stated that we are not worthy of our hire. I quite appreciate that in saying this I am open to the charge: "You are all right. You have got another job. It does not make all that difference to you if you do not get another £250 a year." In regard to that argument, are we not all one way or another in just the same position, or are not the vast majority of us? Are not nearly all of us doing another job of work? Are not some of us in receipt of some pension for having done another job of work? If we are not, I suggest we should not be here, because we are here on our vocational panels, or other representative positions, because of what we can contribute of our experience gained outside the House.

It may be that some people are here because of being State pensioners. Their duty to the State has been done in the past, and they are in the Seanad as a reward for that. For such a case I feel we should have a civil list. In general principle the Seanad should be composed of people who are part-time employed (and very much more part-time employed than members of the Dáil) but in such part-time employment they will almost always be in receipt of some other moneys, some other earnings, or some other pension. As such, therefore, the addition which they receive as Senators should be an addition commensurate with the work they are called upon to do. That is not what will happen under this Bill, because under this Bill I think, quite frankly, that we are being very much overpaid.

Senator Ó Maoláin said he hoped the Bill would put the Seanad and Senators in a position of status, and that they must be paid to be put in a position of status. I do not agree with that. If you want to put Senators in a position of status, you should put them in a position in which they can do the job which it was intended they would do. It is not a question of payment. It is certainly not a question of payment alone. Status is measured by what we can contribute, and what we can really do to help in the enactment of Bills. At the moment we are not being allowed to do what we should be doing to help in the enactment of Bills.

Here I want to say that I agree with Senator Ó Maoláin that a vocational Seanad is not going to be a solution. We must accept that this is a political body and will only work as a political body although composed of vocational members with political allegiances. Nevertheless we could do a far better and more effective job if we were allowed to do it. Until we are allowed to do it I cannot accept that part of the Bill which gives us an increase in salaries.

Dr. Ryan

We have had an interesting discussion on this Bill. Senator Hayes in starting off gave a sort of review of the State for the last 40 years and the way in which it developed. It is only natural to look back at a time like this. He was right in saying that we have settled into a successful democracy whatever rules we may have followed in recent times. We are, therefore, not compelled to do anything that would be necessary to improve things as far as that particular point is concerned. He may be right — I certainly cannot recollect any case to contradict him — that this is the only State set up since 1920 that still survives.

Professor Hayes

The only Parliament working like this.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I think that is probably correct. Many Senators made the point that it is a pity that the Seanad does not get more to do. There is quite a lot in that point. I must say that I have given attention to it more than once, and so have the Government, but somehow or other we never came down to the point of doing something about it. Maybe we could raise the matter again. In that connection Senator Quinlan made a very good point that Senators, if they were to read all the publications that come to them, would spend quite a lot of time doing their work. If they would all read as assiduously as Senator Quinlan and make the same use of it the Seanad would have plenty to do and there would not be any shortage of business.

The discussion also turned to a great extent to the best way of selecting good Senators and good Dáil members. Senator Hayes started that by saying that he thought the man who was successful in his own profession was almost certain to be the best Senator. I was thinking over that point and I must say that taking the farming position I knew three farmers in County Wicklow, the best men I ever met to discuss farming, but they were entirely unsuccessful on their own farms. You will find the same in the professions and business. The man with perfect ideas, good in debate and making a great contribution, very often when it comes to the practical point of view is not a success.

Professor Hayes

Not a success at practical politics.

Dr. Ryan

Senator Quinlan then deplored the absence of professional men. I do not know whether we would be better or not if we had more. The Senator said that the Seanad is not open to the best type of candidate, but I think it is. Nobody here can say that we have not got the best type of candidate in the Seanad, because you do not know how much better anybody else can be until he is in and if you had others they might not be as good as the men we have. We do not know if we have the best.

Professor Hayes

That is a backhanded one. That is the experienced politician.

Dr. Ryan

Proportional representation was mentioned. I do not want to go into the merits of this question, or rather I do not want to go deeply into past history. I have always thought myself that in selecting a Dáil candidate without proportional representation you will certainly get a better candidate. Each individual will have to stand on his own. We know that in the parties there is a tendency that if there are one or two good candidates in the constituency the party supporters will say: "They can carry this fellow in even though he may not be too good." That would not occur if you had a single member constituency and a selection of a candidate in that way.

It is ridiculous to talk about proportional representation having saved democracy, because the two greatest democracies in the world, Great Britain and America, have never touched proportional representation and do not intend to touch it. They have got on quite well without it and I am sure will carry on without it. The whole thing is how can we get the best candidate, and in a democracy as far as I know what is done outside they do it in much the same way as we do it ourselves. In other words, the party one way or another think who should be selected. They have various ways of holding those conventions such as we hold here. In some of them headquarters select men and send a direction down, and some come up from a convention, but there is not much difference in the way they are chosen. We have carried on very much in the same way. In spite of all the suggestions that were made, I am afraid we have not got any light on the subject that would enable us to proceed to a better position.

Senator McAuliffe said that his Party had taken a decision and that he came in here to support that decision. He was perfectly right. This point I mentioned in my opening remarks, that we have the party system and that sometimes party members do not speak too vocally in the Dáil or Seanad meeting but they are very vocal at a party meeting, and argue their points there, but when a decision is taken they follow that decision. There is only one way out of that, and that is that if it is a matter of very grave principle a party member can resign, as they do sometimes, though not very often. Of course, the question of whether you give £1,000 or £800 to a Senator is not a matter of principle. It is only a matter of detail so that there is no necessity for any man to resign over it.

Senator Yeats went on to compare Ministers' salaries with those of people outside. I am afraid that Senator Yeats did not take a fair figure because it is not fair to say that a Minister's salary is £2,200 as it is laid down in the Bill. You must add what the Minister receives also as a Deputy. It is all practically the same job. It may entail long hours at times but at any rate it is one job and, therefore, under this Bill the salary must be taken as £3,700. I have gone to a great deal of trouble, naturally, getting out examples before bringing in this Bill as to how we stand with regard to public servants and so on.

I would also like to refer to one very important point, that the Minister has free transport. I am not going to estimate what that free transport is costing the State. That would be unfair to the Minister, but if the Minister had to supply his own transport we should take that figure into account and I suppose every Senator knows what transport costs. We would have to put it at £600 or £700 a year taking everything into account, including renewal of motors and so on, and that would be a modest figure. Even taking £600 or £700 and adding it to £3,700 then you have a fair comparison and on that comparison a Minister's salary which will run up to £4,300 or £4,400 which is fair enough and comparable enough with other salaries that are going. Taken on the whole a Minister's salary is now on a fair basis. Up to this it was not, but it will be under this Bill. It follows, of course, that Parliamentary Secretaries will be fairly well treated too.

Talking about this question as it did arise, a couple of Senators said that Ministers were too well paid and that the cost of keeping Ministers was too high. They talked about transport. That has given me a great deal of trouble and worry. I did get an investigation carried out about two years ago. It was a very thorough investigation, not in public, and I got a report which I studied and I could not see any suggestion of how any change could be made from the present system. I think it is a very bad system personally but I cannot see any good alternative. There is no doubt that it would be a very onerous matter if a Minister had to do his own driving because, taking the past six or seven or eight weeks, I have left home shortly after nine o'clock in the morning and have not come out till about 11.30 p.m. about three nights a week.

That is rather hard going and I really think that the Road Traffic Act should not allow a person who has been working fairly hard all day, whether in his own office or in the Seanad or Dáil, to drive after such a long day's work. Personally I would not be inclined to take the risk of driving home at night after a long day's work. Then what do you do? You might say that the Minister should get an allowance and an allowance for the driver but no driver will work 16 hours a day for six days. You come up against terrible difficulties. I cannot see any solution. I hope somebody will.

I agree with Senator McGuire that people do not come in here for money. I said that in the Dáil, that surely nobody would come in in order to make money, and I also said that it is almost 40 years since I came into the Dáil and, of course, I have known a lot of people come in and go out and I cannot remember any single person who made money. They all went out worse off than when they came in and a lot of them went out very badly off. There is no doubt about it, there is no money to be made out of this job. I quite agree also with Senator McGuire that it is not easy to work out the number of hours a Senator has to work. He may easily work out the number of hours the Seanad meets, but to work out the number of hours necessary if a person is interested in a Bill, to prepare material and look up matter and to keep in touch, as Senator Quinlan said, with these publications that are sent to us by various organisations, and which are very useful to a public man if he reads all of them, is very difficult. Beyond that, he is accosted by people occasionally to know if he could help them in getting what they thought they were entitled to from some Department or other and all this makes it very difficult to know what the number of hours would be.

On the whole, I think Senators are entitled to an increase. It could be said I suppose that a Senator does not work very hard if he never speaks or does not ask questions. Then, perhaps, he is overpaid for his time but the Senator who takes an interest in his work and gives a fair amount of his time to preparing material is not and, therefore, I have no hesitation in asking the Seanad to agree to this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Professor Stanford

Professor Stanford

Níl.

Mr. Ross

Níl.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senators are dissenting? They will be recorded as dissenting.

Section 3 agreed to, Senators Stanford and Ross dissenting.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Quinlan

Arising out of the Minister's reply, I am not satisfied with the Minister's arithmetic where he added up the actual salary of a Minister to say it reached £4,300. First of all, I do not think it is fair that the Minister should add in the Deputy's salary. Certainly, the most he should add in is one half the Deputy's salary which the income tax holds as actual salary liable for taxation. Travelling done by the Minister is surely travelling done on official business and the classes he is compared with do not have the corresponding travel. It would be hard to discover free travel for the Minister in his off hours. I think at most a modest estimate of £150 or £200 a year would be adequate for that. By any system of reckoning I do not think we could hold that the Minister has more than £3,000 a year.

Secondly, he is still in a very unfair position as compared with salaries prevailing outside. I think the Minister should check the arithmetic again when he would find that the Minister's salary is too low. I think if the Minister's salary were related directly to the salary of the Secretary of his Department that also would ensure that Ministers in the major Departments—Finance, Agriculture or Industry and Commerce — would have a slight differential over Ministers in other Departments, such as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and others. I would appeal to the Minister to get away from this salary business altogether and establish once for all some parity between civil service grades and ministerial salary.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Stanford

I think in all justice I must say, with due deference to the Chair, that the fair thing to do here would be to increase this salary by 12 per cent. I think the same argument applies in this case unless it can be shown that there is increased work involved. I think common justice would demand the same, namely, 12 per cent. I should like to be recorded as dissenting from this.

Question put and agreed to, Senator Stanford dissenting.

Section 11 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 24 Jun 1964