Most former administrations were prudent when spending State money
OUR STATE was fortunate in being ruled for its first half century by two sets of politicians who were not disposed to abuse their power for their own personal benefit.
The salaries of ministers in the governments of the 1920s were fixed at £1,500 a year – the purchasing power of which would today would be around €100,000. After coming to power in 1932, Éamon de Valera reduced this figure by one-third, to about €1,000 a year – about €70,000 in today’s money terms.
When I was appointed a minister in 1973 little had changed: At £6,900 the combination of my Dáil allowance and ministerial salary added up to just under €85,000 in today’s money.
As to travel expenses, after the civil war ministers travelled to and from their offices by tram. Ministerial cars were not introduced until after the murder of Kevin O’Higgins by three members of the IRA in 1927. At that point, the Defence Forces insisted that ministers travel in an Army car, followed by an armed escort. I have personal recollections of that arrangement up to the age of seven – at which point, just a year after the change of government, this protection was withdrawn from former Cumann na nGaedheal ministers.
(My next older brother and I met the possible threat that this created by preparing spears and bows and arrows with which to repel a future IRA attack, which, happily, we were spared.)
The attitude to ministerial expenses in the early years of independence is best illustrated by a story I believe to be true. During the early days of the civil war, the government had to shelter from republican attacks first in the City Hall and then in Government Buildings. They were accompanied by some senior civil servants, and also by the ministers’ wives – other than my republican mother, who remained at home looking after my three elder brothers in Marlborough Road.
The ministers could not leave Government Buildings because of republican sniping, and food was brought in from Mills restaurant in nearby Merrion Row. However, when things had settled down some months later, ministers received from the secretary of the department of finance, JJ McElligott, a bill accompanied by a note explaining that no authority existed for paying for ministerial food – even in a siege.
Nothing had changed when in 1974 it was decided to hold a day-long cabinet “think-in” at the Department of Foreign Affairs. When I sought to arrange a simple lunch for my ministerial colleagues, I was told the department could not pay for this, so I arranged to buy the food myself – and I recall it took me almost a year to get back the £10 due from each of the ministers. I also remember that by mid-March 1976, in the immediate aftermath of the first Irish presidency of the European Union, my department’s much reduced entertainment provision for the year was already virtually exhausted. Obviously when ministers from other states visit Ireland, we have to offer them and their officials some kind of hospitality, so this posed a problem. I could persuade minister for finance Richie Ryan to provide only an additional £5,000 for this purpose, which still left us short.
I found a somewhat unorthodox answer to this problem. Instead of offering a dinner in Iveagh House, with food brought in from a nearby hotel, I entertained the prime minister of Tasmania in a club of which I was a member. This reduced the cost enormously, and by expedients of this kind I got through the year without embarrassment
I also recall that early on in my period as minister for foreign affairs, I had noted that when I went abroad suites were reserved for me in hotels, and limousines were hired to transport me around a city. I instructed that a suite should not be hired unless I would be having a private meeting with a minister of another country in my room, (which was rare enough). Moreover, in any capital with an Irish Embassy, I said I would use the ambassador’s car rather than hiring a limousine. These seemed obvious ways of saving taxpayers’ money. No doubt there were other such cost-saving opportunities that I missed – such as avoiding five-star hotels – but there is a limit to the amount of time a minister can devote to such micro-management.
My wife Joan accompanied me on some of my trips. On official visits to other states where she was invited, and was expected by our hosts to attend, her journey was paid for by the department, but on other visits such as those to Brussels or the UN in New York, where spouses have no such role, I paid for her travel myself.
She had been advised by the wife of the French foreign minister to watch out for charter flights, on which her travel cost – and indeed also the department’s bill for my travel – might be reduced. When she told me this on a flight to Brussels, we immediately looked among the small advertisements at the back of the Irish Times, and by a happy chance found one for a joint Limerick football and Tipperary hurling charter to and from New York that precisely covered the fortnight of the UN Assembly. I recall that those were enjoyable and very sociable flights. It appears that since the 1970s some politicians’ attitudes to foreign travel at State expense seem to have changed – to the detriment of our public finances. Recent events should ensure much greater prudence in future.
I am less sure that the situation in relation to TDs’ expenses will be brought under control. Huge amounts are now spent on TDs’ constituency offices and their staffing, whereas 20 years ago they were entitled to receive only £3,500 to cover a small part of these costs.
Given that TDs’ salaries, (like those of ministers), have been increased 3½ times in the two intervening decades, and that this has doubled their purchasing power, it is hard to see how this greatly increased constituency office provision can be justified.Another effect of this development has been to increase the already excessive level of political clientelism – and thus to reduce even further the very limited attention most TDs give to their constitutional duties as legislators.
This week we have also seen further controversy about the reasonable proposal that politicians’ expenses be vouched for, with TDs and the Minister arguing with each other over the reasons for delays in introducing such a system. To restore confidence in our political system this matter needs to be promptly resolved.