I beg to move: "That this Bill be now read a second time."
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - APPROPRIATION BILL, 1923—SECOND STAGE.
I beg to second the motion.
I wish to ask a question as a matter of order—to know exactly where we stand. We have just passed a resolution authorising expenditure out of public moneys by the Oireachtas for the Defence of the Saorstát under an Act still to be passed. We have been discussing Estimates for the same purpose for some time. This Appropriation Bill deals with expenditure of ten millions for the same purpose. I ask now what is exactly the position? Is this authorisation respecting expenditure under the Defence Act additional expenditure, or is it to cover the same ground as the Appropriation Bill, or any other resolution which we have already passed? I would like to have some enlightenment.
It is to cover the same ground as the Appropriation Bill. But if we were to proceed on the correct chronological order the Defence Bill ought to have preceded the Estimates and the Appropriation Act.
I suppose it really means we have been voting money for organisation that had no legal sanction, and we are now legalising the situation by voting the moneys again.
We really were voting money for purposes which had not got statutory authority, and the necessary steps precedent to, and contingent upon that act could not be taken in sufficient time to permit of the authority being given by Oireachtas, and consequently we are now regularising the whole proceedings. It would be very much more in order if we were in a position to have this Act passed before the consideration of the Estimates. It was not possible to do that, and we are now taking all the steps which ought to have been taken in that time in order to put the matter completely in order.
And any money provided under this resolution will have to appear in the Estimates whether original or supplementary.
I am sorry the Minister for Home Affairs is not here at the moment, because I would like to draw his attention to a matter that concerns his Department, but, in his absence, I will draw the attention of the President to the matter. During the discussion on the District Justices Bill, which was passed some considerable time ago, I tried to impress the Minister with the necessity for appointing to the office of District Court Registrars, and other positions under that Act, men who would be in sympathy with the Government, and would not be likely to make, through their personality, the Courts unpopular in parts of the country. Now, I have had occasion to draw the attention of the Minister on two or three occasions to appointments which are decidedly unpopular, and so unpopular were they that these appointments were cancelled. I take it they were cancelled for very good reason, either national or administrative. I have received a memorial from the residents of Ferbane, and included in that memorial are the names of all the District Councillors in the area, and of every one ever associated with the national movement, including the officers of the Irish Republican Army. The memorial was passed over to the Minister, but he still adheres to the appointment of an ex-R.I.C. Sergeant as the most suitable and efficient man for this work. I suggest that in the interests of good order and the peace of the area, and particularly in the interests of the functioning Court itself that that particular appointment should be cancelled. The Minister takes the view that there are other people in the area besides those who stand for national ideals, and in deference to the wishes of that particular class he thinks it desirable to retain this R.I.C. Sergeant in the position which he has occupied for a very short period. I draw the attention of the Minister to the matter now, in the hope that the Executive Council will take into consideration the views of the people in the area in a matter of this kind, and that in view of the hostility which is quite apparent, that the services of this particular gentleman will be dispensed with. It is said that there is a certain amount of money to be saved by reason that this particular gentleman will not have to be pensioned. I think the pension to which he would be entitled for a period of four or five years as Petty Sessions Clerk would be very small, and taking all these things into consideration, and especially the feeling of the people who are hostile to this appointment, I hope the President will be able to give us an assurance that the appointment will be cancelled.
I desire to raise on this Bill a question respecting a matter about which I have already asked the President a couple of questions, and about which I have not had as complete and as satisfactory replies as I could have wished. On Wednesday last, it will be remembered, I referred to the question of the purchase of certain trawlers, and the admission was made that 12 trawlers had been purchased. I asked to know what price had been given for them, and was informed that the price was £87,000. I was particularly interested in that figure, because I had already received some information in respect of this matter. The figure that I had been given for these trawlers consisted exactly of the same two numerals. The price I received was £78,000. It came to me as confirmation of the information that was given to me. I referred back again to my informant, who told me the price that he was prepared to adhere to, and that he was still standing to, was £78,000. I only refer to that now just to show that the matters I am now going into came before me in the shape of very reliable information. In any case, whether the figure be £78,000 or £87,000, it means that these trawlers cost somewhere in the region of six or seven thousand apiece. My informant tells me that these trawlers were last used in laying mines, and collecting mines in the late European war, and that when they had completed that work that they lay in Inverness. I am now speaking strictly to the information which has been repeated to me, and confirmed to me since these questions were put. I am told that these trawlers were offered in the public market for a price that was not higher than £250 each. In any case, I give that figure, because the matter does need inquiry. Whatever the figure be, it is perfectly clear that any person can check these figures, and that to pay six or seven thousand pounds for a trawler is an excessive figure, but how far it is excessive I am not prepared to say, except that I give this information on the authority of the person who informed me what the original price was that was paid for the purchase of these boats. The same person also informed me that proof was available that these trawlers could have been got for a price under £250. I would like to ask who made the purchase on behalf of the Government. I would like to know, and I think the Dáil should be informed, who acted on behalf of the Government in making these purchases. I asked further if certain electrical equipment, the engineering slang for which is certain electrical gadgets, had been purchased for these boats, and I desire to know how much was paid for them. I was told that only one had been equipped, and that no orders had been placed. My informant tells me that actually one trawler was fitted out with electrical machinery at a cost of £4,000, and that orders were actually placed for going on with the rest of the trawlers at that excessive and exorbitant figure, but that on last Tuesday week a telegram was sent suspending all further work. Now, these are matters that are very important, and one ought to know, and the Dáil ought to know, in the expenditure of moneys in this way, who acted on behalf of the Government in making these purchases; we ought to know what firms tendered, and how many tenders were submitted for furnishing these trawlers. If one of these trawlers had to be furnished with machinery, I would like to know if I am correct in saying that the price actually paid for furnishing it was £4,000. I would like to know how many tenders were sent in for that work, to whom the tenders were sent, and by whom these tenders were accepted. I have given all the information that has been put before me, and I know that my informant is in a position to speak correctly as to these matters. I put the matter now to the President, and ask him for this further information particularly as to who acted on behalf of the Government in making these purchases.
With regard to the matters raised by Deputy Davin, I will undertake to bring them under the notice of the Minister for Home Affairs. I do not think it would be fair to ask me to give an undertaking in connection with matters connected with another Minister's Department without consulting that Minister. It would certainly be unfair to another Minister that I should adopt that attitude, but I will undertake to bring the matter to the Minister's notice at the first opportunity With regard to the matters raised by Deputy Figgis, the Dáil will recollect that some day last week a question was put regarding these trawlers, and the question was to have been further raised on the adjournment, but was withdrawn because I think some other question arose on the adjournment that day. Then we were informed that there was to be a question asked on Friday or to-day, and that question was not asked on Friday or to-day, but it is now raised, and raised in a manner which I certainly do not approve of.
I did ask that supplementary question.
The question, and my recollection on matters of this kind is fairly reliable, was not asked, but we were promised to have a question put down for Friday or to-day, and that question has not appeared yet.
There were two questions. There was a question on Wednesday and a supplementary question was asked. The supplementary question was put down on the paper on Friday.
I have here the official reply made by the President to the supplementary question.
We have nothing to do with the Company that Deputy Figgis is concerned in, if he is concerned in it, or the membership of any other company. This is not the place to thrash this out, and there certainly appears to me to be a remarkable similarity with the old Irish saying that you, Sir, will appreciate, "Dubhaírt bean liom go ndubhairt bean léi." If the Deputy wants information of any sort, or can give any assistance to the Government in the discharge of its business, he ought to give it with a view to assisting the whole administration, and not with a view to getting a petty advertisement out of it. I hope that the Dáil will never descend to that sort of system for securing popular support outside. We are not looking for advertisement in that matter. We are just as anxious to do the business of the country in a proper manner as the Deputy is. I have not got all the files of my Department in the Ministry of Finance, or of any other Department, in my bag every time I come in here, and if Deputies require information I put it to them that the information asked for ought to be reasonable information, information that I am in a position to give at a moment's notice, or of which I would have had some previous notice It would, perhaps, require the intellect of a Deputy like Deputy Figgis to be able to carry around all the information that one gets in the course of a day's, a week's, a month's or nine months' business. I myself have some association with this trawler business, an association to this extent, that, as I explained last week, the ultimate treatment of these trawlers is a matter for consideration and has not yet been finally decided between the Minister for Defence and myself. At no time have I any recollection of having sanctioned, in my capacity as Minister for Finance, the purchase of £4,000 of electrical machinery, or electrical gadgets, or whatever other sort of melodeon the Deputy was speaking about. It has not come before me.
I am sorry that I had not this particular communication on the matter before the President spoke, because I wanted to emphasise or to support Deputy Davin in the points he made. I think it is the same case as that to which he alluded, the appointment of a Court Clerk at Ferbane and Banagher. The information that came to me, or to my knowledge, was of a very definite nature, and I furnished it to the Ministry of Home Affairs. I have received a reply, and judging from the nature of the reply, the appointment has been confirmed, and I am informed in this reply from the Ministry of Home Affairs that "After a very careful enquiry into the matter, there is a very definite section of local opinion in favour of this gentleman's appointment.""A very definite section of local opinion," is open to various interpretations. A very small section might well be a very definite section. One individual might be a very definite section. "I would also add that a memorial from a great number of people of good standing in Ferbane has been received by the Minister asking for retention of this gentleman in the office." and it adds further, "In these circumstances and having regard to the economy effected by not pensioning, and his undoubted efficiency as a clerk, the Ministry is unable to agree that it should dispense with his services." Although that is very definite, I also think that it is regrettable that the reply should be in such definite terms. My knowledge of the matter is confined to information which came to me, but the information was such that I, for one, felt that I could not endorse this appointment. I hope that this communication does not indicate that the matter cannot be reconsidered, as I have good reason to believe that the appointment is a most undesirable one, and certainly should be reconsidered.
Question put: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Agreed.
Ordered: That the Third Stage be taken to-day.