We will resume the debate on the main question of the Army Estimate.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES (ARMY).
We are now on the main question of the Army Estimate, and I desire to offer a few observations, not in the sense of any carping criticism of either the Minister himself, from whom I have personally received courtesies for which I am not ungrateful, or of the staff of the Department, which I fancy is very much overworked, but we are all, in a sense, beginners here, and it is desirable that we should start well. If there are mistakes in our early efforts anybody who believes that there are mistakes should point them out in order that, if possible, they may be corrected for future occasions. I desire with all diffidence to suggest that the form in which this Estimate is presented is unsatisfactory, from the point of view of Deputies whose duty it is to examine and criticise expenditure, and I think also that the Estimate does less than justice to the Ministry itself, as I shall endeavour to point out. We are told in a note that the Army is in a state of re-organisation and it is not possible to give details. Let it be understood that I do not suggest that details with regard to Army organisation should be given. I think at present it would be unreasonable to expect the Minister to give details of, say, the number of battalions or the battalion strength, or the number of Major-Generals or any other rank employed in the Army, because the Army at the moment is on a war footing and has been ever since the present Government took it over. I think they can scarcely be expected at present to have any clear opinion as to what would be a reasonable Army on a peace footing. I am not criticising that portion of the Estimate at all, but what I do say is that the civil establishment in what in other countries is known as the War Office, and what is here known as the Ministry of Defence, ought to be set out in the Estimate with considerably more detail than we have presented here. If you turn to the Estimate of any other Ministry you find that all the staffs from typists down to charwomen are set out. I suggest we ought to have information as to the civil establishment of the Ministry of Defence for this purpose, if for no other. In Great Britain, at the close of the war, what brought down the Government, as far as I can form an opinion, judging from the newspapers, was that those civil establishments, which had been enormously inflated in personnel during the war, were not reduced sufficiently fast or to a sufficient extent.
Now, we all hope and trust that the next Estimates presented to this Dáil will be presented in a time of peace. How will the Dáil be able to contrast the Civil Establishment of that day with the Civil Establishment of war time for the purpose of estimating whether a sufficient reduction in fact was made, unless we are told what the Civil Establishment in war time was? I feel great difficulty in suggesting that an already overworked department should have more labour put upon it for the purpose of compiling these statistics, but I do not think it would have been a great additional labour, and I do think that they might have been given. I said a moment ago that I thought the form of these Estimates did not do justice to the Ministry itself. The reason why I said that is, that I am convinced in my own mind, not knowing anything of the facts, but believing it, that what the Ministry has done is, it has been trying to carry on in war time with an establishment it considered sufficient in peace time. A great deal of the questions with which we are familiar, as to why dependants' allowances have not been paid and why claims have not been settled, are due to the fact that the Minister may tell us that all the money for which he is asking is money that is being spent on the war, that he has himself refused to inflate his civil staff to the extent to enable him to deal with these matters. I do not know if that is true or not, but I rather suspect it. If so, it was highly creditable to the Ministry, but surely a mere statement on the face of these Estimates would silence a great deal of the criticism that has been going on. If it should turn out that the staff set out in the Estimates was such a staff as we would consider adequate in peace time surely that would silence all the people who wanted to know why their claims were not dealt with, why their compensation had not been paid, and why it takes, as we have heard over and over again, a considerable time, in many cases, to get answers to inquiries. Now, as I have said, the last thing I desire to do is to pick holes in the Estimate for the sake of picking holes. I am not doing it, but I do venture, with all diffidence, to criticise the form in which this Estimate has been presented, on the grounds that I have said. It ought to have been quite possible to have given the number of the Civil Establishment, and notes could have been appended to them, as notes have been appended in other Estimates, presented by other Ministries, that there were so many temporary clerks lent to this Ministry if it were a case that temporary clerks were lent.
I do not move any reduction of the Estimate. I throw out these observations in the hope that the form adopted in the present Estimate will not be continued, even if it should be the ill-fortune of the country to find that the Estimate presented for the next Financial Year was in the unhappy circumstances that are prevailing to-day. I do not think that the state of war is a justification for omitting the information to which I feel the Dáil is justly entitled.
I have refrained from speaking on the motion for the reduction of this Vote by £3,000,000, because I consider such a reduction would be out of all reason. I must confess that a good deal of the criticism which has been given on this Estimate has been by reason of the fact that no opportunities have been given to enable Deputies to judge whether these items are right, whether they are excessive, or whether they should be here at all. For example, under the heading of F we have "Medicine and Instruments for Veterinary Expenses, £22,000," and forage, which, I take it, is used for the horses, cost £40,000. It seems very extraordinary that it costs only £40,000 for food, and the cost of veterinary medicine is £22,000. It would lead one to imagine that we are feeding the horses on medicine. I daresay the Minister for Defence has a good explanation for that, but he should have set that out, and not make us believe that he was giving Beecham's Pills to the horses. A great deal of dissatisfaction exists in the country in connection with the Army contracts. It is contended that in certain areas, under the British regime, certain local people had the opportunity of tendering for supplies for the Army, and now nearly all those contracts are dealt with at Headquarters, with the result that the people in the country have certainly the grievance that they are not allowed, under their own Government, to tender by competition, and to get an opportunity of making a living out of the money spent in the country. That arises in several places, and in connection with the supply of meat in Dublin.
It is bought openly in the market, I am told, but at the same time it is delivered to Gormanstown by six men in a lorry. I do not believe that the cost of that delivery is placed against that meat, and, therefore, it is not a fair proposition to expect a man, say in Gormanstown, to deliver meat into Gormanstown Barracks at the same price as it is taken at the Dublin markets. That is only one instance of the dissatisfaction that exists over the way these contracts have been dealt with. These items were dealt with yesterday from A to Z. and I am going to attack double Z. We have here "Appropriation in Aid, £15,000." I expect that will be something like military stores. Perhaps the Minister for Defence will tell us what that is. All those remarks are due to the fact that we have no information that should have been given to us here, and while we regret that £10,664,000 is spent on the Army, still if we are satisfied that money is necessary I am not going to stand here and refuse it. At the same time I do not like to be asked to vote for money when I do not know what it is for, and that it is properly spent. Now, we have "Vessels, £249,500." These may be war vessels or submarines, I do not know what they are, but my friend, Deputy Gorey, says all these things are correct. As I pointed out, I do not know how he could say Vote F is correct, Medicines, £22,000 and then forage, £40,000. I cannot understand that Vote, and, perhaps, the Minister will explain it. We realise that the Army has put this country right, and we have nothing to say to the Army, but everything in its favour. We think that the Army Accounting Department is not acting fairly with the public, and we think they should see that their debts are paid promptly. I, myself, know several cases where men had been out of money for a year. I drew attention to this before on the Finance Bill. It is really giving the Government a bad name in the country, because of this want of accuracy or accounting, by reason of their not paying people who have given services, and are kept out of their money for a year. I certainly know one such case. I hope the Minister for Defence will speed up these payments, and though he referred me to the Minister for Finance, I really think, as he contracted the debts, it is his business to see that they should be paid.
Ba mhaith líom a iárraidh ar an Dáil céad punt do bhaint den mhéid airgid ag "A." An lá fé dheire do thug an t-Aire freagra dom ar cheist do chuireas chuige i dthaobh páighe na gCléireach ag obair san arm. Anois nílim sásta leis an bhfreagra agus níl na cléirigh sásta leis, ná leis an gcaoi atá ortha. Ar an abhar san táim ag iarraidh ar an Dáil an méid sin den mheastachain do laghadú.
I desire to move the reduction of the amount of this Estimate under Head A by £100, in order to call attention to some matters in connection with payments. A few days ago the Minister gave me a certain answer with regard to the wages of certain of the clerical staffs employed under the Army. Now, in spite of the replies that he gave on that occasion, there is a good deal of dissatisfaction amongst certain clerks employed in various Departments under the Army. I am not going to suggest that any difficulties there may be in the administration of certain Departments are altogether due to this discontent, but I would remind the Minister that if he has got a contented staff he will get much better service in the long run from that staff than he would get from one discontented. I want to draw his attention also to a grieveance from another quarter. I refer to certain Military Policemen. I an informed that the rate of pay in this service at the beginning was £3 15s. 0d. per week, with maintenance. It is suggested that recently a number of soldiers have been transferred from ordinary military service to military police service, and they are only getting £1 18s. 6d. per week, and though they are getting maintenance allowance they are getting no dependents allowance. I have no personal knowledge of this particular thing, but numbers of these people have come to me with complaints. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some explanation of this. With reference to the clerks, to whom I referred, I find that they belong to two or three departments. I also find that there are complaints even amongst the attested clerks in the Railway Protection Corps in the Griffith Barracks. They complain that they have not been paid the efficiency pay which the Minister mentioned. I think it amounts to 2s. or 3s. per day according to duties. They claim that they are entitled to this pay under what they call a financial instruction, that the money has been due, to some of them at all events, for a considerable time past, and that it is still outstanding.
A rather more serious question arises when I come to the position of other clerks. I have in my hand here a document which was drawn up on behalf of a number of attested clerks under a certain department in the Army administration. It is a complaint and a request for better treatment in respect to payments. I suppose the ordinary, normal way would have been for this document to pass through the hands of whatever officer was incharge of these particular clerks, and through that way to the officer concerned at the head. But the officer concerned, I understand, refused to send the document forward, and the ground of his refusal, it is suggested, is that the language is a bit strong and vehement. As a matter of fact it is not. There is not what you might even call a cross word in the whole document. There is certainly nothing that might not ordinarily be passed through. It was quite a legitimate grievance that these men wished to get remedied in what, I think, was quite a legitimate way. If that is not the way they are to get grievances remedied perhaps the Minister will inform us what is the legitimate way. If these people had got their grievance remedied privately, and had had their document forwarded there would have been no occasion for them to come to public representatives, and for these representatives to go a little bit out of their way to call attention to these things in public. But if no other method can be adopted for doing these things, then the sooner they are brought up in public and threshed out and finished with the better. The grievance of these men is that some time ago there was withdrawn from them an outdoor allowance of 28s. a week. They say that on entering the service many members were not asked to attest at the beginning. They were in receipt of a flat rate of £3 per week minimum, together with dinner and tea inside the barracks. Last January these meals in barracks were discontinued. Most of the staff were then called upon to attest. They did attest, and they were placed on the ordinary rate of soldier's pay, namely, £2 12s. 6d. weekly, living outdoor.
I do not doubt that, from the Army point of view, it was a wise thing for the Army to call upon certain civilian employees to attest, because the state of affairs, I think, was such at certain periods that it was up to the Army to see that they had pretty well military control over those who were working for them, and that they could deal with them in the proper way. But if there was not exactly ordinary compulsion, there was a kind of economic compulsion about this attesting. These men, as they say, were docked in the wages they had been originally getting when they attested. In February proficiency pay was granted of 2s. per day, and this brought their wages up to £3 6s. 6d. per week. They claim, legitimately enough I think, that that wage was not at all an extravagant wage for fairly responsible work. There probably are Deputies who will think that it is an extravagant wage, that as a matter of fact anything is good enough for a clerk or a workman, anything running from 25s. to 35s. a week. That is not the general opinion, I am glad to say, of the people throughout Ireland, and I do not think it is the general opinion of the Dáil. Without any demur at all, when times were hard, when there was big pressure, these men willingly—many of them, perhaps, with a certain amount of enthusiasm—worked much longer hours than the normal working day. They did not make any particular grievance of that. I do not think they make any particular grievance of it now, although they were assured at the time that their services in that connection would not be forgotten. These services, however, do seem to have been forgotten, because their grievances in other respects are not now being attended to. They point out, and I think they point out with a great deal of justice and truth, "that the present efficiency of the branch is due in no small measure to the unselfish loyalty and cooperation of the staff in difficult times. The relations between the staff and officers here up to the present have been of the most harmonious nature. It is our earnest desire that this state of harmony may long continue, but, on the other hand, we claim that the conditions should be made at least tolerable." There was nothing provocative in that statement, and that is one of the main statements in the document which they say this officer refused to send to Headquarters. They claim that their claim is justified by the Army Regulations themselves; that they are entitled to the pay of their rank, to proficiency pay, where the same is certified by the officer in command, to dependants' allowance where dependence is established, and in addition they claim to be entitled either to clothes and decent accommodation and maintenance in barracks or some equivalent.
I understand they are not working in uniform, and that they have to purchase their own clothes. They get no equivalent for doing so, whereas if they were ordinary serving soldiers they certainly would not be mulcted in the matter of clothes. Single and married men with dependants, they say, are only entitled to £1 18s. 6d. under the new scale, plus dependants' allowance. Some of the single men have dependants in the country. They themselves have to live in the City of Dublin, outside barracks, on £1 18s. 6d. per week. I suggest that some of the Deputies should try to do that at the present moment in Dublin, and see how comfortable they would be and at the same time send something along home to whoever is dependent on them. Some of the single men are getting only partial allowance, 7s., 14s., or 21s. per week, while the full allowance of 28s. is deducted. Clothes, boots and underclothing have to be provided at the expense of these men themselves. Single men with dependants are granted outdoor allowances under the new scale of 14s., but they say that they would not like to offer their landladies outside 14s. weekly for their keep, and I do not think they would. Certainly the language of the landladies would be much more lurid than any of the language complained of in this petition if such an offer was made. These men say that, compared with the ordinary soldier, they are anything but well off. He gets his 24s. 6d., his clothes, accommodation and maintenance in barracks, and in addition dependants' allowance. On the other hand, these men have to buy all these things. If they live some distance away from the barracks in which they work they will have to pay at least two or three shillings a week in tram fares and things like that. If all this is deducted from the little they get you will find that they have not got very much money at the end of the week. In addition they complain of their meal hours. They used to get one and a half hours for dinner, but the time is now cut down to one hour. As some of them live or lodge on the North side of the city, they find one hour gives them very little time within which to get to their lodgings and back again to the barrack. On the amount of money they are getting they cannot very well drop into a restaurant in the city, because restaurant prices would very soon eat up the little money they have left. I do not think I need say any more on that, as I have pointed out pretty well the complaints of these men and the complaints of the men in Griffith Barracks on the Railway Maintenance Corps.
I hope the Minister will give attention to these grievances, and that he will lay down fairly the mode of procedure under which these men, or men similarly circumstanced in the Army, should proceed in order to remedy their grievances. If one were anxious to make a party affair out of this matter I would say that it would be much better from the point of view of those on these Benches that these grievances should continue without being remedied. An amount of discontent in the Forces at the present moment would perhaps be acceptable to certain elements up and down the country. We do not desire that. We desire that men who are doing a fair day's work should get a fair day's pay, and that their grievances should be remedied. There should be no standing on the part of an officer on his rather higher dignity, so that those under him could respectfully and without any abusive language approach him to have their grievances remedied, and he should facilitate them in the legitimate remedying of their grievances. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote under sub-head "A" by £100.
I should like to ask a few questions, and before doing so I should like to associate myself with those who had something complimentary to say with regard to the conduct of the Army. My experience is not very great, but I must say that in anything I had to do with the Army they have been extremely civil and courteous. I have been searched and my motor car has been searched on various occasions, and I must say that it has always been done in a most courteous manner. I agree and endorse what Deputy Johnson said last evening, that the Army must not think itself above criticism, and that it must recognise this Assembly is at its head. Deputy Johnson got very warm on this subject, and I am quite sure that the Commander-in-Chief would be the very last person in this Assembly to say that the Army was either above criticism or thought itself superior to this Assembly. So much for that point. I have also a little grumble to make with regard to the meagre character of the particulars in this Estimate. Coming to item E, which more or less interests me——
What is before us exactly now is a motion for a reduction of £100 under sub-head "A," and we shall have to discuss only matters raised under that head.
I was not quite sure, and that was why I hesitated at first, as to what part we were discussing.
Nothing is relevant here except what comes under item "A."
Shall I be able to raise the matters I am interested in later under their proper head?
Yes.
I think perhaps it may be advantageous to follow Deputy O'Shannon's complaint in regard to the clerical staffs by adding something to the testimony he has given of the method of dealing with the pay of attested men. Deputy O'Shannon has not touched upon it, but it is important, and even of the greatest importance, that we should know exactly where we stand, and that the men in the Army should know where they stand, in regard to pay. They were attested, and certain rates of pay were announced at the time. I think I am right in saying that they were even set out upon the form of attestation. That, one would naturally think, would be equivalent to a contract. It may not be so in law, and it may not be the intention of the Ministry here to follow the practice of the British Government and its Army. But it does add to the strength of the criticism when we can quote from the Manual of the British Military Law a sentence like this, which is used by so great an authority as Professor Dicey when dealing with Constitutional Law:
"The enlistment of the soldier is a species of contract between the State and the soldier, and in the ordinary principle of law cannot be altered without the consent of both parties. The result is that the conditions laid down in the Act under which a man was enlisted cannot be varied without his consent."
Deputy O'Shannon pointed out that in the case of the clerical staff members were attested on a certain rate of pay: 24s. 6d. ordinary private's pay; 28s., or 4s. per day, in lieu of board when living out, and certain proficiency pay to be added. The information adduced to the Dáil shows that, without notice or without any question of assent or consent, part of this pay was reduced. Now, the point is, that is only one instance of several instances of a similar kind. I have, for instance, information from Claremorris that men who joined the Works Company of the Army attested at the rate of 3s. 6d. per day and 3s. per day grade pay. They were skilled painters. They were reduced 1s. per day, apparently without any question; it was simply a matter for the officer in command to say "This week we shall only pay you so and so," quite irrespective of the contract which they entered into. Skilled tradesmen at Islandbridge Armoury Department were in receipt of living-out allowance, which was reduced by 50 per cent. without notice, without any question of consent, and when they made representation with a view to appealing to a higher authority they were all treated as though they were mutineers for protesting against this breach of contract and for endeavouring to get that breach remedied. That question came to my notice, and I asked the Minister for Defence a question in Parliament upon the matter, and I received an answer, and the men were paraded to find out who was responsible for conveying the information to me. Now, that is not very satisfactory—very much the contrary—and I think some assurance should be given to the Dáil that at least men have the right to make representation to someone, especially when they go through the usual process, as those did who were quoted by Deputy O'Shannon, in endeavouring to approach their superior officers—the officers in charge of the Department. The question I would like to have answered more particularly is as to who is the authority for varying the rates of pay. Can they be varied on the motion of any officer in command of a district, or even the Army Council, without reference to the Government or to the Dáil? I take it that we are responsible for the treatment of soldiers and for the treatment of men who joined the Army in one capacity or another, and for at least honouring the promises that were made in the name of the country.
I do not want to argue the case of men in the Army, the attested men, as though they were in exactly the same relationship to the State as a workman is to an employer who is engaged in the ordinary commercial industries. I do not think the relationship is the same, but it is all the more incumbent upon the employer, in this instance the State, to act honourably and fairly with those whom it has taken into its service, and those whom it has called upon to sink their individuality and to sink their personal aims and desires even to the point of losing their lives at the call of the State. If there was need for a revision, that surely was a matter that should have been discussed, and such a revision and docking of pay ought not to have taken place without the consent of the Dáil, acting for the State in this matter, and certainly not without a proper understanding between the men concerned, who should be demobilised and relieved from their attestation oath or promise before any change in the relationship took place. I was tempted, before Deputy O'Shannon raised the matter, to read for the benefit of the Dáil the full memorial which was the cause of so much dissatisfaction and discontent in the Pay Department. I have had a copy of it, and it is as respectful and decently-worded a statement as could possibly come from any body of men. I challenge anybody to read it and say that it calls for a rebuke of any kind whatever. Apart from the immediate claims of the men for a pay which will ensure them a livelihood, as Deputy O'Shannon has pointed out, in the case of the clerical staffs they cannot live out decently and do the work that is required, and they ought not to be asked to leave themselves wholly at the service of the Army on the pay of 38s. 6d. per week living out; but, apart from the merits of the case and of the amount of pay, I want the Minister to tell the Dáil what, in his view, is the position of the Army authorities in respect of the men under them when they consider it necessary to make some change in the rate of pay, and whether the fact of attestation relieves the authorities from any responsibility in regard to the maintenance of the rate of pay under which the men were enlisted. I would ask the Minister to give us some assurances that will be satisfactory, so that this position should be made clear, and that the grievances the men complain of shall be remedied.
On the general question as to the Army authorities making changes in the rates of pay in respect of men already attested on certain rates, the Army authorities did not make in any way any changes affecting such men. On the whole question of the civil staffs, the civil staffs employed at any time during the period of the life of the Army have been of about four different classes. In the first place, you have had some purely civil clerks paid a certain flat rate of wages. In the case of different clerks the rate of wages might have differed. You have also had soldiers who were taken in in the early days as clerks, and who were paid flat wages rates. These men would be entitled, in addition to their flat wages rates, to their clothing and general keep and accommodation in the barracks. You have also had those, and they cover the greater number of soldier-clerks now soldiers, who receive their ordinary rank pay, but who get in addition, provided they are skilled clerical workers up to a certain proficiency, an allowance of 2s. per day. These men are entitled also to get clothing, food and accommodation in the barracks where it is available. The fourth class are those men who belong to the third class, but in respect of whom it is not possible, because of limited accommodation in our barracks here, to provide accommodation in barracks. Where the ordinary attested man of that class is not provided with food and accommodation in barracks, he receives a lodging allowance at the rate of 2s. per day, and where he is not provided with food in barracks he receives a ration allowance at the rate of 2s. per day. In the case of the complaints that certain men were reduced from 28s. to an allowance of 14s., there was a certain amount of abuse in certain cases in which men who, while receiving both lodging allowances and ration allowances, were also getting their meals in the barracks. Ration allowances amounting to 2s. per day were generally stopped in respect of certain sections of clerks. Where the food in the case of any particular man is not being provided in barracks, steps have already been taken to restore these allowances in the case of such men.
In the case of the complaint raised with regard to the Griffith Barracks, there is possibly in connection with the Griffith Barracks a number of attested men of the second class, who are paid a flat clerical rate. Where men are paid a flat clerical rate they are not entitled to dependants' allowance. The flat rate is supposed to cover their ordinary pay and what would be their dependants' allowance. Generally there is no such thing as the Army authorities taking any particular rate and saying "We shall now cut down this rate from such a figure to such a figure." In the case of tradesmen such as have been taken on in the Claremorris Command, in addition to the ordinary rank pay, men who are attested as soldiers and who are employed as skilled tradesmen get an additional allowance of 3s. per day as skilled tradesmen, and 2s. per day is paid in respect of semi-skilled tradesmen. It is the responsibility of the officer who is in charge of the Command to state whether, in the case of any particular man, he is to be paid the 3s. rate or the 2s. rate. This is his responsibility in the matter, but he makes use of the best advice that is available as to what particular rate he shall recommend for any particular man.
Would their past efficiency count in such a matter as against the opinion of a non-technical man? If these were skilled men, working for employers in Dublin as skilled men and paid at the rate of skilled men, would the views of the Commanding Officer and his advisers, non-technical men, prevail against that?
If any man who is taken on as a skilled tradesman and who is paid the semi-skilled rate has any representations to make as to why he should not be paid 3s. instead of 2s. daily allowance he can make representations in the matter, and any reasonable recommendations that would show his qualifications would not certainly be turned down. With regard to the point as to the submission of memorials, if any soldier or any class of soldiers have any representations to make with regard to any grievances to which they want to draw attention as to the matters of their employment, the way for them to do it is to make individual representations with regard to their particular cases. The nature of an Army and of Army discipline is such that it is not correct that a number of soldiers should come together and as a group of soldiers make representations. If representations require to be made, they can come from the individual soldier himself, and if there is a second man who has representations he can make those representations for himself.
Amendment put and negatived.
I beg to move a reduction of £100 in the Estimate under sub-head (E), Pay of Medical Practitioners, Nurses, etc.
Before the Deputy proceeds I have to warn other Deputies that if this amendment is now moved no amendment can be moved under (B), (C) or (D).
Can the Deputies speak on any of the others?
Yes you can when all the amendments have been disposed of. It would be better have them in their order.
I would like to say a few words on item (B) Dependants' Allowances. Everybody knows that there has been a lot of dissatisfaction with the way in which dependants' allowances have been paid. I personally have been asked to look after numbers of cases and I must say that when I visited Portobello Barracks in person and saw the officers in charge of either single or married men's dependants' allowance I got very prompt attention and in most cases entire satisfaction. I would like to call the Minister's attention to one particular case. There is a woman named Mrs. Sheehan, living in Kanturk. She has two sons in the Army for the past six or eight months. She made application for dependants' allowance in the usual way, but the dependants' allowance was not granted. It appears that under a report of Mr. R. Sheehan, Customs and Excise Officer, who investigated the case and visited the woman to make enquiries, there were no allowances granted. This woman's husband died last February. For two years before his death he was an invalid and was confined to his bed. At the present time she has a third son who is living at home.
I will try to give you an idea of what form of report Mr. Sheehan, the Customs and Excise Officer, sent in. He stated in his report that, after investigation, he ascertained that the son at home, John Sheehan, was receiving a pension of 8s. per week from the British Army, and that he was not employed at any occupation. That 8s. a week he spent upon himself, and contributed nothing to the support of his mother. He also stated that he made inquiries about the alleged employer of one of the sons in the Army regarding the statement that he had been paying £2 a week to one of the Army men prior to his enlistment. In the opinion of the Customs and Excise officer, no such sum of money had been paid at all, and his report in the case of both men stated that, in his opinion, these sons never contributed anything to the support of their mother prior to joining the Army, and he would not recommend that any dependants' allowance should be given. This is rather a peculiar thing, and it struck me that this man must have been very biassed when he made a report such as that. It is peculiar that in a family where there were three sons, none of whom contributed anything, and where the father was a cripple prior to his death, the whole of the five could manage to rub along somehow. I think that case requires re-investigation. A woman who is a widow, and who has a son at home is, on the report of the Customs and Excise Officer, not given anything in respect of the two sons she has in the Army. She ought at least be entitled to some allowance in respect of those sons. I think also that the statement of the Customs and Excise Officer who delared that, in his opinion, the alleged employer of one of the sons in the Army did not pay the £2 a week that was claimed, ought to be taken with a great deal of doubt and with a very large grain of salt. I would ask the Minister for Defence to have this case reconsidered, with a view to giving this woman some small amount in order that she will be able to live. In this case it appears that it is the Customs and Excise Officer into whose hands the investigation of the case was put. It is his fault that there was no allowance granted.
Speaking on the question generally, I must say that in many cases that I have investigated I have received nothing but courtesy from the officers in charge, and even if some allowances had been months in arrear, within a week of my approaching the cases and bringing them under the notice of the authorities, they were settled.
I quite agree with Deputy Nagle that from my very limited experience, or the limited number of visits I paid to Portobello, there was nothing but satisfaction given to me in dealing with the people who are directly concerned with the assessment of separation allowances. I contend it is not a fair thing to expect the Deputies, who in the ordinary course might have more responsible work to do, should have cast upon them the work of going to Portobello in order to see that these allowances are properly dealt with. Many cases have come to my notice, and unfortunately for many reasons I have not been able to go to Portobello. I quite agree, if one had time to go there, there is nothing but pleasure to be gained in dealing with the officers directly concerned.
There is one case—I will not give any name—that I would like to submit to the Minister for consideration. Although it may be only one case so far as I am concerned, there may be many other such cases of a similar nature hinging upon the decision of the Minister or the responsible authorities. It is the case of a woman who has three sons in the Army, two of whom are married and from whom she can receive no direct allowance. In the other case the son was unemployed for a very long period prior to joining up, and as a result of not being able to give any money to his mother for some time previous to his enlistment she has been prevented from getting any dependant's allowance. This is a very unfortunate thing, and it is something over which this individual had not any direct control, because he was unable to secure employment, and in consequence he was not in a position to give his mother anything prior to joining up. The unfortunate thing about this case is that, since representations were made to the authorities at Portobello, the unfortunate young man was killed in an ambush in Co. Kilkenny. I do not know from the terms of the Bill which the Minister asked leave to introduce the other day what exactly is the amount which the widowed mother is to receive. I put it to the Minister that in a case such as that, especially as the man was unemployed because work was not available, and he was consequently unable to contribute to his mother's support, something should be done. It is an exceptional case to the extent that the unfortunate man has been since killed. I would ask the Minister to mention if there is any ruling in a matter of that kind. There may be other cases upon which the Minister would be asked to rule in the same way. Perhaps he could tell us if anything could be done in the way of an allowance for the widowed mother for the time this son served in the Army prior to being killed.
On the general question yesterday evening I referred to one or two things which the Minister did not deal with in his reply. The first is, what is the future policy of the Army Council or the Executive concerning the future of the Railway Protection and Maintenance Corps? I would like to know if the Army authorities have received any assurance from the Railway Companies, from whom that particular Corps has been principally recruited, regarding the reinstatement to their former positions of the particular men, and whether or not their service in the Army will count for promotion and other conditions of service when they re-join their former employment. I also ask him to give some answer regarding the question of vessels——
We were endeavouring to dispose of these things seriatim. The Deputy will have an opportunity of discussing those other things later. If we could dispose of those things one by one we would get some kind of continuity, and that would be a better arrangement.
But this is a question outstanding as the result of yesterday's debates.
There are one or two questions on the main issue which I have to raise, and I was looking for some opportunity to see whether they came under the letters A to Z. When we are finished with the letters A to Z, can general questions be raised?
I think so.
I would like to know if there is a right of appeal against reports sent in by the Customs and Excise Officers in respect of dependants' allowances. I would like to bear out what has been said by some of my colleagues respecting this Department, which is one of the most satisfactory Departments attached to Portobello. We find that there is general dissatisfaction with reports sent in by Inspectors down the country. I suggest, in some cases, Inspectors do not go to much pains to get the facts, and they act on their own opinions as to what is the case and what is not. I would like to know if people whose claims are rejected have the right to appeal?
I would like to say something in that connection. Some time ago I asked the Minister a question in connection with this matter, and I pointed out that during the European war the Pensions Committees in various areas were allowed to adjudicate on those claims after they were investigated by the Pension Officer, and in that way the people's interests were better looked after. The Minister denied that such a thing happened, but I think he will find, on investigation, that that was the case. I would like to add my tribute to the Dependants' Claims Department at Portobello. To my mind too long a period elapses between the date the assessment is made and the time when the cheque is issued. There is some fault there. Any time I had occasion to go to Portobello Barracks, I found that the assessments had been made, but the cheques had not been issued, although the intervening period was about five or six weeks. I will ask the Minister for Defence again to go into the question.
As pointed out yesterday evening, out of an Army of approximately 50,000 there were 39,204 claims made in respect of dependants' allowances, some married, some single. In all 31,294 claims are being paid. 2,563 claims are under investigation, only approximately 600 being more than of a month's standing. A total of 5,347 claims were rejected. In the case of married men there is not any difficulty or delay generally in making the necessary payments. In the case of unmarried men investigation is necessary. Dependants' allowance is only paid on the understanding that the soldier contributes one-third of his pay to the support of people at home, and then, on a graduated scale, certain allowances are payable if it is clearly shown, on investigation, that there is dependence or partial dependence. The machinery that is being used for making investigations throughout the country has been the Customs and Excise machinery, and I feel that these officers have, under very, very difficult circumstances in the country, done excellent work and served the State and this particular Department very well. We have had to draw the line some place, and we have had to take it as an axiom in dealing with these matters that the family of an unmarried man who joins the Army shall not be in an improved position because of his joining the Army to any greater extent than the pay which he receives as an Army man. If his contribution to his family before he joined the Army was less than one-third of his Army pay, we do not admit that there is any liability for paying any dependants' allowance to such a family. We have found it necessary to adopt an attitude that where an unmarried man, for whatever reason, unemployed or otherwise, was not contributing to the support of his family, we could not undertake, on his joining the Army, responsibility for making any payment to him except the ordinary pay of the rank to which he joins.
On a point of information, can the Minister say what is deducted as the amount that a man gives to his household? What amount is calculated to be the cost of his own maintenance, because in cases where a man contributes 25s. a week the dependants are generally refused an allowance? I would like to know what is the amount laid down as the cost of his upkeep in the home.
I regret that I am not able to quote the actual figure at the moment, but it has been carefully investigated, and it is made to vary according to the various circumstances of the district. In all such cases in which judgment is given an appeal does lie to the Minister and, where it does seem reasonable to do so, re-investigation is ordered.
I desire to call the Minister's attention to the question of military lands which were formerly held by the British in this country. There must be thousands of acres of such lands up and down Ireland. I presume that we have taken them over and that the English have no more to do with them. I should like to know if that presumption is correct. If we have taken them over, then, surely, there ought to appear somewhere in the Estimates the payments which it is expected will have to be made in the course of the coming year for the upkeep of these lands, for labour employed on them and for the civilians generally whom the Army authorities may employ to supervise these lands. I do not see any item here under which that could come, because the Minister explained yesterday what miscellaneous expenditure meant. It seems clear, on the assumption that the English no longer control these lands, that that important item has been completely overlooked in the preparation of these accounts.
Certain lands have been taken over by this department in the War Office. Actually, in a large number of those cases, we are not yet able to say, from the information given us by the War Office, what are the full conditions upon which such lands are held. We are not actually dealing with any of those lands, but we are letting them out at rentals. They are controlled from the Army Finance Office. The only actual expenditure, then, we have is the clerical work involved on it, and the Inspectors. There are only two of them who see after the actual letting of those particular lands.
Under which of those headings are prisoners provided for?
I will tell you that when I come to it.
There was one statement made by the Minister in connection with the letting of those lands. Clearly there is a certain income accruing from the possession of those lands. Is that income reckoned in any part of this Estimate? Does it refer to the Central Fund or is it to be used in augmenting the Estimate already furnished under the head of Army Estimate 58?
Can the Minister state how much it comes to?
I regret, I cannot say what it comes to, but it comes under the Army Vote under Appropriations in Aid.
To be persistent in this matter, I should like further to ask if certain sums come back to the Army Vote under Appropriations in Aid? Assuming it was to come to a sum of £500, or whatever it may be for the year, is this Vote on Table 22 to which Deputy Wilson referred a higher figure by that rental than the figure of £15,000 assessed here yesterday?
I should like to know from the Minister whether he has any control over the Admiralty grounds in Cove, Co. Cork? There were 6 or 8 acres there, and it has been turned into a commonage. I think if the Army had some control over it it might be usefully leased to some people who would utilise it, and in that way some compensation could be got from it.
The figure under Appropriations in Aid is the net amount of the whole Appropriations in Aid.
Does it include any of those rents?
It includes the amount we get in in rent. In connection with rents, we have not yet been able to get from the British full particulars as to the tenure of this particular land.
Who is responsible for the letting of those lands? I have a case in mind about which I wrote to the Minister for Defence last Friday. In Ballincollig, near the Barracks, there are two houses, Oriel Cottage and Oriel Lodge. The lands of Oriel Cottage and Oriel Lodge were controlled by the British Military. The houses were burned down by anti-Treaty forces last year. A man named John Mahony had the grazing of those lands and had two Kerry cows on them. He supplied families in the village with milk. About two months ago there was an auction of certain lands in the district, and the land belonging to Oriel Cottage and Oriel Lodge was reserved for private treaty according to the Auctioneer. Mahony, who had his two cows on this land, approached the Auctioneer, and asked him would he give him an opportunity of continuing to rent this land. He stated he would make known his wants to the landlord. About a week afterwards, having heard no word from him, he again approached the Auctioneer. He was asked how much would he give, and he said he had been paying £3 to the British landlord. He was asked would he give £5, and he agreed, thinking that the thing would be settled. He heard nothing until five weeks afterwards, when he was informed that a Mr. MacMullen, of Cork City, had taken over those lands which were lying near Oriel Lodge. Mahony, as an individual, and nine or ten families to whom he had been supplying milk, considered that it was a great hardship that a well-off man like MacMullen should be able to take those lands without an opportunity being given to the man who had been renting the lands of taking them. I would like the Minister to make an investigation into the matter, and, if possible, to give Mahony a chance of competing in the open market for the land, instead of allowing it to be given away by private treaty to an individual who is not so badly in need of it as Mr. Mahony.
With regard to the 6 or 8 acres of Admiralty grounds in Cork, I regret I have not any information, but if details are sent to me I will have enquiries made. With regard to the lands of Ballincollig, they are under our control. The letting of those lands, as well as of the other lands controlled by us, is carried out under the direction of the Land Officer, who is attached to the Army Finance Offices. He is a capable and experienced officer in this particular work, and if any Deputy has any representation to make regarding any particular instance he wishes to put before me, I will be very glad to get particulars from him.
I wrote to the Minister for Defence on this matter, and he should have had the letter by Tuesday at latest with full particulars.
I should like to call the Minister's attention to the letting of some cottages at the back of Kildare Barracks. He told me at the time that those cottages might be required for the use of the military in the future. Since this I understand those houses have been rented by tenants. They have been handed to those tenants by the Board of Works. Well, in my question I stated that the local authorities would be glad to take them over on some agreement with the military. They are a considerable distance away from the barracks, and the local representatives feel that they have been unfairly treated in having these cottages let to tenants behind their backs.
It is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Works to let these houses. The Board of Works deal with any leases or rentals of any houses or small portions of land in the neighbourhood of such barracks that we can dispense with.
We have certainly displayed great ingenuity in discussing lands under sub-head C, which relates to the wages of civilians attached to units. I hope Deputy Gavan Duffy is quite satisfied.
I would point out that we have an amendment before us to sub-head B.
We have not. We have no amendment before us. Deputy Sir James Craig has given notice of an amendment.
I have no wish to press an amendment if you will allow me to speak on this. I am not finding fault or I am not hypercritical of this Estimate. In my opinion, the Estimate is a very moderate one indeed for the services required, but I should like to ask the Minister for Defence whether there are any regulations which give a detailed statement of the present Army Medical Service. Has the Director of Medical Services any authority to make any appointments in the Service? Does he settle the rank and number of officers required? How is the rate of pay fixed for this Medical Service? Who judges the capacity of the men taken into the Corps? How many men are employed in the Corps? What are the conditions of service, and the most important question I would like to ask, does the Minister for Defence or the Executive Council hold out any hope that these appointments in future will be open to competitive examination? because it is most desirable that the Director of Medical Services should not be subjected to pressure, either of political or other nature in making these appointments.
I understand, at present, that things are in a state of confusion and that it was impossible to organise at once a special Medical Service, but I would like to know whether there is any prospect of men getting into this service through their capacity alone. I should like, also, to ask whether this £80,000 includes payment to practitioners who were attending to the army through the country. These are the points that I want information about, because I do not think any of us know anything whatsoever about the position of the Army Medical Service.
The present Army Medical Service is a service in which all the appointments that have been made are only guaranteed for a period of 12 months. The number of persons to be employed in the Medical Service and their ranks and pay were all settled by a Pay Commission set up by the Executive Council—a number of Army Officers, together with a number of members from the Treasury side of the Government. The Director of Medical Services is the appointment of the Minister and he, in the particular circumstances in which we are, is solely responsible to the Minister for the efficiency of the service, and the appointments, which were all made with Ministerial sanction, were on the recommendation of the Director of Medical Services. The Service at present consists of 86 lieutenants, 45 other commissioned officers, 15 probationers, 17 dentists and 30 nurses, together with the Headquarters Establishment. I regret that I have not the figures for the Headquarters Establishment by me, but the Estimate makes provision, as well, for the payment of outside medical practitioners who are called in on urgent cases. What the future of the Medical Service shall be, and what regulations it shall be found most suitable to set up for the filling of appointments are matters that we cannot deal with at present.
Last year, in most exceptional circumstances, the Army Council called upon Dr. Maurice Hayes, and one or two associates, to rush together a medical service that would treat the wounded of the army in different parts of the country, and too much cannot be said of the work done by Dr. Hayes and his associates at that time. Having organised the Service, at the end of the Financial Year past, Dr. Hayes, having done very great service to us in very critical times, went back to his ordinary professional life, and a new Director of Medical Services was appointed. To some extent the temporary conditions that prevailed last year with regard to the requirements in the Medical Service line still continue, and while these do continue we could not have dealt with these appointments in any other way than the way in which they were dealt with.
I should like to say that I am quite satisfied with the information I have received, and I should like to bear testimony to the work that Dr. Hayes did for the Army. He has, certainly, done very self-effacing and very useful work indeed.
As regards item F, like Sir James Craig and the Army Medical Service, I am curious about the Army Veterinary Service. I would like to know how many Veterinary Surgeons there are in the Army, how they are appointed, the conditions of appointment, the rates of pay, how many horses and mules have you got in the Army, how many cavalry, and how they are distributed through the country? Is the Cavalry doing any useful work for the Army or are they merely for show purposes? Does the item, £22,000, include the price of horses, mules, accoutrements, such as saddles, bridles, etc., and what is the pay of Army farriers, if there are any farriers in the Army?
The Sub-head F is a Sub-head purely covering the cost of medicine for, approximately, 45,000 men and for some horses. We have two Veterinary Officers attached to the Army, but they do not come under this particular Vote. The Vote is purely for medicines for man and beast.
Mr. CROWLEY
Would the Minister say under what head this comes, that is, as regards horses, mules and veterinary surgeons and the surgeons' rates of pay?
The payment for veterinary officers would come under Sub-head A.
Under sub-head U I see there is only £10,000.
We are going very low, now. If anyone wants to come in before you——
Under sub-head K, Mechanical Transport, the estimate of the amount required is £336,000, an increase over last year of £64,000. I am of opinion that it would take nearly the full amount of that estimate to pay for compensation for commandeered cars. I would like the Minister to give me an answer as to when it would be likely that these people from whom cars have been commandeered would be paid. I am of opinion, as I have visited the department where the Motor Commission is sitting, that there is not a sufficient staff there to deal with the number of claims. I think you will want at least a dozen men there to deal with the claims, as there are hundreds of claims coming in almost every day. If the claimants have to wait until two or three men are able to get through all the claims, I am afraid they will have to wait for three or four generations before their claims are met, and I think it is the great-grandchildren of the present applicants who will be receiving compensation. It is necessary, I think, that the Minister should try and endeavour to do his utmost to expedite the payments under this particular Section. It would be much better and more economical to my mind if the Minister would secure decent transport for the military. It will in the first place give more employment, and the more cars that are bought the greater circulation of money. A great many of the people from whom cars have been commandeered are in the awkward position that though they are in debt to the banks and traders, and that the banks and traders are now threatening to come down on them, the military owe them money. I am quite sure that in accordance with the Act passed by the Dáil that the Sheriff will have sufficient power to get military aid to seize on the goods of those people, although it is through the seizure of their cars that they owe the money. Now, with regard to the transport, I think a limit should be put to the speed of those cars, whether they were commandeered, or are the property of the military. You want to be on your pins and needles, as they say, to get out of the way when a military car, is coming either in the day or the night. The soldiers in those cars as so delighted with the work that they did for the Nation that they are all singing, to the disturbance of the people who have to work the next day. I think it is time that this large display of military motors and lorries going through the country should cease. I do not see any necessity for them at present, and the less you see of them now the more people will appreciate that we have peace, and are trying to get back to the normal state of the country. I certainly do ask the Minister for Defence to try if possible to prevent such a huge display of military cars through the country. In the first place, it is destroying roads, and causing more expense on the rates which must be borne by the counties. It is not like the old Transport Board, that used at least to give 50 per cent. towards the cost of maintenance. This Army Council have not yet thought of that idea of dealing with the people in this manner. I urge the Minister for Defence to increase the staff in this motor department, so that these claims should be dealt with properly.
I wish to ask the Minister for Defence if there is any possibility of expediting the return of motor cars to people from whom they have been commandeered. There is one particular case I have in my mind at the moment. A car was commandeered from a man in Thurles last July, and this car was the man's only means of livelihood. About a month or so after it was taken he got into communication with the Ministry about it, and he received a reply to the effect that they were trying to trace the car. They have been tracing the car since last August, and apparently they have not succeeded in tracing it yet. The result was that this man had to go and look for other employment, having got no compensation. This man was idle for months, and that is only one of the many cases. In connection with the furious driving referred to by Deputy Lyons, we all, I think, recognise that there was a necessity for fast driving at one time, but I do not think that there is any necessity at the moment. This fast driving that is taking place through the cities and towns is a danger to the public. I think it was Deputy Professor Magennis who, some day last week, asked the question if anyone had ever seen a military lorry travelling at 50 or 60 miles an hour. I think we might ask the question has anyone seen it travelling at any other speed than 50 or 60 miles an hour. I may mention that I was up in Portobello Barracks some time ago, and I saw one of the clerks there had to jump on the bonnet of a car in order to save his life, and he was carried about 50 yards. That was inside the barrack gates, where there are prominent notices that the speed limit is 4 miles an hour.
I would like to ask the Minister if he is satisfied that all the cars in the possession of the Army are on record, as to where they were obtained and how; whether they were bought, borrowed or commandeered, or otherwise? It may be necessary at some future time to have a record of the answer we may get to this question.
I think this question of the speed of motor cars is applicable to every area, and I will ask the Minister to pay special attention to it. I am also in a position to state that there is a lot of joy-riding going on on the part of officers at present, and this ought to be checked. I can cite a certain occasion in the area I represent when, in the midst of irregular activity—we got very irregular down there all in a minute—a driver who brought six or seven officers down to a seaside resort for a dance had to bring his lorry home in the dead of night all alone. I do not think that should be tolerated in any army. As to the question of the commandeering of cars, certainly at one period of the hostilities it was a perfect scandal. If we had the same hustle in dealing with matters of this kind as we have in the driving of cars there would not be much to grumble about. A little more discretion should be exercised in certain areas as to the cars that are commandeered. I have had personal experience of cars being commandeered in certain places and from certain firms, the commandeering of which was responsible for men being thrown idle on the streets. I am conversant with one particular case, that of the Wexford Corporation motor lorry, which has been commandeered on several occasions, with the result that a dozen men have been thrown idle for two or three days. On one occasion I drew the attention of the Minister for Defence to the matter, and he told me that the lorry should not be taken again unless it was a matter of grave urgency—an ambush or something of that kind. We presented the Minister's letter to officers afterwards, but it was of no avail. On one particular occasion this lorry was commandeered for the express purpose of taking away empty bottles from a dance which the officers had the night before, and the men had to remain idle during that time. This is a state of affairs which should not be tolerated. It is getting the people up against the Government and the Army. Anybody with any sense respects the Army for what it has done in creating the state of affairs under which we are living now. Nobody has any special desire to criticise the Army as an army, but certainly these little incidents are responsible for making a lot of people anti-Government.
The Estimate under sub-head (a) makes provision for payment in respect of damage to, commandeering of, and hirage of cars, as well as the replacing of our present cars by cars of a different description. It has been necessary at particular periods to do a very considerable amount of commandeering. Very few people have any idea of the type of transport machinery that was at our disposal when we were called upon to undertake the task that we were called upon to undertake, and very little knowledge of the type that material was, so that we had to place on the people in different parts of the country who had motor cars the burden of allowing us to have their cars. That necessity has almost absolutely ceased now, and the commandeering of cars is, I am sure, not going on in any part of the country at the present time. The Committee which is dealing with the question of compensation and claims in respect of cars have a considerable amount of work of a rather judicial nature thrown on them. They have had serious difficulty in entertaining in any way some of the claims that have come up to them. If the work of the Committee can be expedited by additional clerical staff, that Committee shall not be left without additional clerical staff at its disposal. The work is not, to any very large extent, work that extra clerical staff can help at, but whatever is required to expedite the work of that Committee nothing will be left undone to have its work expedited, because we all realise that the sooner claims of this particular type are dealt with the more economic the dealing with these claims will be. We are in a position to know where all the cars in our possession came from. We might have some difficulty in deciding whether any particular car, which was not an Army car, was a commandeered or a captured car, because we have a very large number of cars that we have taken from the Irregulars. Everything has been done to return cars that were held from the public, and any cars that we have from the public we are prepared to return immediately if particulars are given to us of those cars and if we can find those cars in a serviceable condition.
As regards the question of speed, anything that can be done to stop nuisances of any kind on the part of our cars will be done. A lot has already been done. I cannot help feeling that where two Army cars out of 100 are seen travelling at an excessive speed, that the whole 100 cars get the blame for what the two cars do.
Would it be competent for a Deputy to raise a question of contracts upon Vote L, and those immediately succeeding without incurring the charge of ingenuity—that is Vote L dealing with provisions, Vote M petrol, and Vote N clothing? I take it this would be the proper time to ask for a little information as to contracts. I make no apology for referring to the question of contracts, because those of us who have followed events in England for the past twenty years know that war time is a very favourite time for a most undesirable section of the community to try to make illicit profits out of the disturbed state of affairs by praying upon the want of business experience in the Army. Therefore with the examples which we have before us in recent history it is very essential that very special care should be taken to avoid any such thing there, and I should like information as to what has been done in that matter. I know that there have been cases where apparently the lowest tender and best tender has not been accepted. I do not know how far that is general. I know one case—I am told, though I cannot personally vouch for it, that it is not an isolated case— where A and B and others tendered, where A's tender was a good deal the lowest, and where B succeeded in getting the contract, but not being in a position to carry out the tender he went to A and besought him to deliver to him, B, at his Army tender price, the things which A had not been allowed to get the contract for. I can give the Minister particulars of that case. I am aware that a Contracts Committee was formed by the Government to deal with Army and other contracts, and I invite the Minister to inform the Dáil how the position of Army contracts stands in relation to that Committee; to what extent that Contracts Committee in fact has control of Army contracts? For instance, is it true that the Army authorities, who objected to civilian interference in these matters, have sometimes been too quick for the Contracts Committee, told them there was too great pressure of time, that they could not be consulted, and that the Army would take things into its own hands? It is certainly true, and I make the Minister a present of the information, if he does not know it, that a certain type of contractor has proved too quick for some of the Army authorities. What has happened in some cases has been this—I am not now speaking of goods supplied after tender—goods supplied in large quantities for which bills were sent in afterwards have been charged for, as you would expect, at a good deal more than their proper price. Some of the gentlemen concerned discovered at an early period that the military authorities being aware of the fact that they were being overcharged made a habit of taking off so much from these demands for payment. The consequence is that at a very early stage in the war some of these profiteering gentlemen, in sending in their accounts for goods supplied, took good care to add on to the amount of their account an amount which they had reason to anticipate would be taken off by the authorities. Anybody who knows what is liable to happen in contracts of that kind would know how very necessary it is to have proper supervision, and any information the Minister can give us to satisfy the Dáil that every possible care is taken against gentlemen attempting to prey on the community by getting contracts out of the Army by devious means will be welcomed. This particular type of vulture exists in every country where there is a war, and I am sure the Minister himself will realise that the utmost control is necessary. If there is a Contracts Committee in existence one would like to know what its duties and powers are, and would like to know if this control is a very real one?
Might I intervene for a moment? We had intended to take up a motion dealing with private business at 5.30 p.m., and another matter in connection with the Civil Service afterwards. If the Dáil is desirous of continuing this discussion, as the other two matters will not occupy, I think, a very long time, we could continue and finish the Army Estimates this evening if the Dáil is so willing, and then deal with the other two matters.
I do not know that it would be possible to finish the Army Estimates this evening. As far as the other matters are concerned, it is for the Minister rather to say if the Civil Service Commission is of such importance that it should be discussed to-day, and as to the other matter, I do not think that it is of any importance at all. On the question that has been raised about contracts, I take it that we are now dealing with these three or four subheads on the Vote. I would like to have a statement made on behalf of the Army Supplies Department, if there is such a body, or on behalf of the Contracts Committee as to the general position touching purchases. We have heard occasionally of the establishment of a Contracts Committee, and I desire to reiterate the question that Deputy Gavan Duffy has raised as to whether we can take it as a matter of certainty that now, at any rate, all contracts for the Army are made by the Contracts Committee. I would also like to know whether tenders are in all cases sought for, and what is the position of firms that have been place on the Contracts list. Is there any assurance given to such firms that they will get a share of orders, or what is the requirement of such firms after they have been placed on the Contracts list?
took the Chair at this stage.
I desire particularly to have some information in regard to the supplies of uniform and clothing, of which I understand a large contract was given to Schneider of London two or three months ago; as to the circumstances under which 50,000 suits were ordered, and whether the delivery of such suits has been up to time. Further, whether the delivery of such suits is at such a rate as could be met by even the smaller clothing manufacturers in Ireland. I think it is due to the country generally to have some detailed information as to whether it is good or not for the reputation of the contractors. I think it is well that the facts in regard to the contract for 50,000 suits going to London should be made known. I understand that orders for a large quantity have since been secured in Ireland, but one wonders what is the difference which prevailed on the Contracts Committee or the Army Authorities or whoever was responsible for giving this order away. One would also like some information as to whether contracts for clothing and contracts for materials generally are given to manufacturers or to traders of established reputation in the business, or whether any person who is able to send in a tender is treated on an equality with people of established reputation in the business? There are ugly rumours abroad respecting the way in which certain people have been able to leap suddenly into fame as contractors for supplies, people who were not in the business of contracting, and who were not in the business of supplying anything like the class of material for which they were contracting.
One hears, for instance, of a particular expert in his own business. I will give him credit for being an expert in his own business, but I do not know whether he is an expert in other matters or not. He was a dentist and he found himself in the position to be able to undercut people of established reputation, whether as traders or manufacturers, in the boot trade. That is only one instance. Now one would like to have positive assurance that such stories, which are quite well authenticated, are no longer true. Whatever may have been the reason or excuse for such practice in the past, it ought to be no longer possible for any repetition of such practice to occur.
The President has told us many times that it is bad policy, and not consonant with public policy, to make a bald statement that certain definite preferences would be given for Irish manufactures. We recognise it is undesirable to allow Irish manufacturers to hide incompetence behind a preference. What one would like to feel sure about is that there is no chance of other influences being brought to bear upon persons who are finally responsible for giving away orders, whether contract orders or otherwise. One would like to feel assured that the Contracts' Department, which is presumably impersonal, has a definite grip and control of the giving away of contracts, and that they will assure themselves when new people come into the field, who by virtue of their newness are only capable of tendering effectively by some underhand methods, I think that at least should be the assumption—a quite reasonable assumption—and that any such tenders should be looked at very, very carefully with a microscope, and that all the surrounding of such tenders should be examined before the orders are given. I think it would be well for the Dáil that we should have a full statement indicating all the methods of giving out contracts, and showing what the present practices are, and showing what the general understanding is as between the Headquarters, the Quartermaster General's Department, and the various local authorities and Contracts Committee. The fuller the information that is given to the country upon such a matter as this is the fewer suspicions there will be and the better feeling generally, and greater confidence will be available for the support of the Government.
I rise to support the desire that has been expressed that the Minister for Defence should make a very full statement with regard to this very important question of contracts, and it is necessary that he should do so in the interests of the Department over which he has charge, and it is all the more necessary because it is exceedingly difficult for people who desire to assist him by bringing rumours to the surface, and having them properly exposed, furnished with the facts that are essential. I give a case exactly of what I mean. I know a particular person, a friend of my own, a contractor whose word I have every reason to believe, and he said he was tendering for a certain contract. The contract was placed elsewhere, and when he went to see an officer at Portobello a certain suggestion was made to this man with which he was not able to comply. He left the barrack, and did not get the contract. I immediately asked him to furnish his name, and the full particulars of the case, and that I would at once take the matter to the Minister for Defence who would investigate it, and be able to deal with it; that it would not only be to the assistance of the service in general, but that I was perfectly certain that the Minister for Defence would regard it as assistance to himself if a matter like that could be put down on record, and that he had some facts to proceed upon. What was the answer I received? He said:—"If I were to do so, I would become a marked man, and would have no future chance. No," said he, "I will let the whole thing go by." Now, I had no reason to doubt that man's word, but it only exhibits the difficulty there is to get rumours, which are current, into such a form that the Minister himself can examine them and deal with the matter in the way in which I am perfectly sure he desires it should be dealt with. The more necessary, therefore, it is for the credit of the Army and for the credit of the country—the two being involved together —that the matter should be dealt with by the Minister for Defence in a statement to this Dáil which will show perfectly clearly that all contracts disposed of by the Army are disposed of by them in such a way and under such a system that rumours of this kind that have been current will have no future currency. It is, after all, a question of system. But no system that any Army or Government has ever invented has managed to protect itself entirely from rumours of this kind. Deputy Johnson referred to the Scheider contract; other Deputies know all that was said in regard to that contract, and I think the Minister for Defence would be doing a service if he dealt with all the facts in respect of that contract just as fully as he has them. If he would say, for example, if it is or is not, a fact as represented to me, and I state it here as having come to my ears in that fashion, that when the Contracts Committee of the Executive Council desired to deal with that matter, it found the matter was already dealt with by the Army for the reasons stated by Deputy Johnson, and that finally some part of that contract was taken away from the contractor to whom the contract was given, and the matter is dealt with in some other way. It must be perfectly clear to the Minister for Defence that previous speakers and I myself disavow all intention of raising these matters in a spirit of hostility or enmity. It is a matter that, if one may be suffered to say so, personally knowing the Minister for Defence, I know that he would do all in his power to get this thing put in such a way that credit would redound to the Army and to the country in the disposal of these contracts. That hardly requires, I think, to be stated in this Dáil. And anything that is said here by myself and by those who have spoken, I am perfectly sure is said in a full and perfect recognition of that fact. But there have been ugly rumours, there has been a certain amount of disquiet, and I urge the Minister for that reason to make a statement convincing this Dáil that all contracts will be handled by one Department—the Committee set up by the Executive Council—and that the method will be such that the officers actually requiring the goods will not be enabled in any way to come into contact with the contractors who are asked to tender for the goods.
On a point of information of procedure, may I ask will private members' business be taken automatically at 6 o'clock. I ask that because the last Deputies who spoke suggested a very long statement from the Minister for Defence. Obviously, if that is made private business cannot be taken up at 6 o'clock unless the Minister is interrupted in his speech.
There are just one or two questions I wish to ask the Minister for Defence.
This debate is to be continued on another day when the Deputy can ask his questions. The Minister for Defence will now reply.
If Deputy Figgis has any reason for doubting the word of the man who came to him and told him that he was approached by an Officer in Portobello barracks in connection with a contract, that he was asked to do something which his conscience suggested to him he should not do. I take it the suggestion is that the officer asked this would-be contractor to bribe him if he was to get the contract; and if the contractor came to the Deputy and said that his mouth was sealed about the matter, because he would be a marked man if he spoke about it, I think it is an extraordinary omission to do his public duty by that Deputy, and is not in accordance with what is supposed to be the courage of the Deputy: that he could not come to the Minister and say that such was the case, and give whatever particulars of the case that had come to his knowledge. A certain limited number of people deal with contracts, with specific contracts, and with the clear statement that had been made it would have been possible to find out who was responsible for it, if anyone were responsible, and it would have helped us if the thing is a fact. I, personally, see no reason for believing it. If what I say had been done, it would have given us an opportunity to lay our hands on something that was wrong, and it might have saved Deputy Figgis and those other people who talk over these rumours among themselves, and who worry, apparently, very much among themselves, it would have saved them, perhaps, some worry. Certain statements were also made by Deputy Gavan Duffy, but Deputy Gavan Duffy has never made any suggestion to me, as a responsible Deputy, that there was anything at all wrong, in any way, with the Contract Department. It would be much more useful to me to have, from time to time, any information that came his way; it would be much more useful to have that information than to have statements broadcasted here from the Dáil to the effect that the whole Army Contract System was rotten, and that every Tom, Dick and Harry had his pull out of the public funds from the Army, because the people who are responsible for Army administration were simply a pack of thicks and fools, and did not know how business should be conducted.
I desire to point out to the Minister that that was not the statement I made.
I suggest that the statement was made by Deputy Gavan Duffy, that the public purse was being robbed through the Army Contracts' Department.
I again say that was not the statement I made. The statement I made was fairly clear, and I ask the Minister to give us an assurance on the facts which I gave to the Dáil.
The only interpretation I could put on the Deputy's statement was that the public purse was being robbed through the Army Contracts Department by the incompetence, or otherwise of those connected with it. We faced, in the most efficient way, whatever difficulties came to us. In extraordinary circumstances, we had to provide an Army with its clothing, food, shelter and equipment. We naturally had the experience of having to buy, and very early in the days of that experience the Army Authorities suggested to the Government a broad principle in regard to Government contracts: that was, that there should be a Government Department as detached from other Departments generally as, say, the Treasury is, which would deal with all questions of contracts, all questions of fairly large contracts at any rate. That Department would know thoroughly the resources of the country, the business organisations of the country, and the directions in which the Government, in providing itself with material or otherwise, could get the best possible value. The Army Authorities made that suggestion to the Government. That indicates the lines upon which the Army Authorities were trying to work, and the result of that suggestion was that the present Contracts Committee of the Government came into being.
The present Contracts Commtitee of the Government, with that idea, is working to absolute perfection, and with that idea tackled in the most systematic way that the Government, in its present difficulties and circumstances, could tackle this question. The Committee is composed of the administrative heads of a number of buying Departments, and is so organised that contracts for any particular matters are divided up amongst the buying Departments of these particular Departments in a way in which you can make use of, to the best advantage— the buying experience of these buying Departments. The greater majority of Army purchases are made through that Committee now, and they are made through contracts entered into in the ordinary way in which ordinary contracts are entered into. As far as the Army itself is concerned, contracts for Army machinery itself, these are practically contracts for food that are bought locally. On the question of buying, the Army was faced with the position that it was buying a lot of technical equipment.
The Army Authorities saw that in order to get the best possible technical equipment, and in order, when buying technical equipment, it might be necessary to harmonise with technical equipment utilised by other departments, it was necessary, when buying technical equipment, that technical requirements should be made to run the gauntlet of a technical expert body, who, as well as being able to advise the Army Authorities with regard to the up-to-date position of technical equipment in any particular direction, would also be able to say to the Army, "This, or that, or the other is the technical equipment in this particular line, which it is most economical for you to buy, because when no longer required for Army purposes it can be turned aside for the use of this or that particular Government Department." As well as initiating the idea of Central Government control and supervision in the matter of buying, it has initiated the idea of Central Government Supervision. from the point of view of harmonising the technical equipment bought by different Government Departments, and seeing that where technical equipment is being got, that we know the last word in what are the world developments in that particular direction. Mentioning these matters is, I feel, the best possible assurance that we can give here to the Dáil, and to the people whose money is being used, that the Army, in dealing with the question of contracts, looks at it from the business and efficient and up-to-date point of view. You have not had any of that particular type of squandering that is so rumoured about. I do not know if we even had the dentist that Deputy Johnson speaks about, although I think we did hear something about that dentist when we were last discussing Army Estimates.
Have his teeth been drawn?
I do not know whether he has any teeth, or ever had any teeth.
May I just say that while it may be true that this matter was raised some time ago, we have not yet had in the Dáil, a public assurance, that the changes, that were asked for then, have taken place; and, on that point, I say, inasmuch as I might well be classed with the condemnation of Deputy Gavan Duffy, that, as a matter of fact, the complaints that we have touched upon here to-day have been dealt with in the Government offices by people representing the buying Departments, and most of the complaints have been admitted, and more than we made have been admitted. Now, I want to know whether we can have an assurance in some detail that the complaints that were promised remedy have been remedied?
How long ago were these complaints made, and those admissions made?
Within the last three months.
It is past 6 o'clock, now. These details can be raised on the resumption of the debate. Let the Minister finish his speech now.
There are several other matters.
If these complaints were made within the last three months, in respect of what period were they made?
I have not the data beside me now, but they were topical at the moment of being raised.
I can give an assurance that there were not—what shall we call it—defects in the Army Buying Department three months ago, such as have been suggested here to-day. The ideas and the ideals in the matter of contracts that I spoke about, are ideas and ideals dating from September or October of last year. In the matter of the large purchases that were made in England in the beginning of this year, and not through the Government Contracts Committee, which would have ordinarily been dealing with Army Contracts at that time, we did come to a point in the early spring, when reviewing the situation, the Army Authorities decided that it was absolutely necessary to be in a position to supply with full and complete equipment our 50,000 men. We decided that within the shortest possible time, we would get 50,000 uniforms and whatever the necessary quota of other articles were, in order to have 50,000 men in such a way that we could say they were perfectly and fully equipped. Being a matter of urgency, the simplest way that presented itself to us for securing that we were in that position was to have the British War Office visited to see what machinery they usually used in getting themselves provided with the various types of equipment. They facilitated us in every way, and gave us whatever information was at their disposal. The amount of purchases made at that particular time was to the extent of £667,000. We got our material to the time, that we required it, and we got it saving a large amount. The actual cost was £443,000. We estimated that to have kept that purchasing in Ireland would cost us an additional £224,000, and that we could not have got it within the time that we required it. The circumstances were exceptional, and we did the best possible thing. We got our material promptly, and we got it through channels through which we were perfectly satisfied we were getting it at the very best price at which it could be obtained. We had not any differences at the time with the Government Contracts Committee which thoroughly understood our circumstances and our wants; and we were in a position to say to them what our requirements would be subsequent to the 1st June, and to tell them that any particular class of materials that we would require for delivery after the 1st June could be contracted for through them in the ordinary way. Actual orders have been placed through the Government Contracts Committee for 30,000 pairs of boots, and these boots are being provided at a cost of 18s. per pair. The other main contracts for the Army, for clothing and other matters, are being passed and dealt with through the Government Contracts Committee, and there is no margin, except on whatever food is being bought throughout the country, for people robbing the country through the Army. In the matter of food bought through the country, there are certain laid down prices for the different parts of the country, in a scheme that enables us to control well, the expenditure upon foodstuffs in the country. There is not at the present moment any need for concern, or any need for paying attention to rumours, and complaints and grievances that you hear with regard to any efficiency in making any of the purchases required for the Army. If the Government Contracts Committee is not in the perfect condition of the ideal that we have set before us, as it will be developed from, it is there, and if it is preventing the Army and the Army buyers doing all those appalling things which only Army buyers could do, apparently, and which apparently Army buyers must do, well, the Army must get credit for having suggested that that Committee should be there to do that buying.
On a point of personal explanation, I said very little just now, and what I did say was very moderate. I abstained specifically from making any sweeping general charges as the Minister has suggested I did, and I object to being charged with having made sweeping general charges. I merely voiced the prevalent dissatisfaction as to certain aspects of the contract question, and I invite the Minister, as I or any other Deputy has a perfect right to do, to give us information as to control over contracts. That is the essential thing, and that is what I wish him to do. I think this outburst against me was, in the circumstances very uncalled for.
The discussion on the Army Estimate will now stand adjourned. When is it proposed to resume the debate?
I move to report progress, and sit again on Tuesday.