Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1924

Vol. 6 No. 31

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE XI.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I beg to move:—

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £60,000, be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for expenditure in respect of public buildings; for the maintenance of certain parks and public works; for maintenance of drainage works on the River Shannon, and sundry grants in aid."

The need for this supplementary estimate is attributable entirely to military requirements. When the original estimate was prepared, the Army was in process of rapid expansion, and it was not possible to foresee with accuracy the extent of the expenditure on the work and services which the expansion might involve. The original estimate of £78,267 under sub-head (D) for furniture, fittings and utensils, included only £45,000 for military supplies, whereas the expenditure for military purposes has necessitated a further £212,000, for which provision is now being made. The total amount that is being provided for military purposes amounts to over £250,000, and includes about £100,000 for bedding, of which it was necessary to make large purchases early the last year. Between £30,000 and £40,000 was required for the furnishing of quarters for officers, single and married. The remainder of the expenditure was in great part required for providing ordinary barrack furniture for the troops, including chairs, tables, buckets, utensils, etc. It has to be borne in mind that the barracks already equipped with these necessaries were not available for the accommodation of the troops. In regard to sub-head (EE) (compensation for premises commandeered by the Army), this is a sub-head that does not require any explanation. At the time the estimate was prepared it was not possible to foresee with any degree of accuracy the amount that would be required.

The savings of £228,000 expected under other sub-heads of the Vote are due largely to three causes. The expenditure for fuel and light for the Army shows a saving of £126,000 as compared with the original estimate. This is due mainly to the reduction of the Army strength and to the reduction in the number of internees. A saving of £45,000 is expected in the provision originally made for rents due to the fact that separate provision is now being made in respect of compensation for commandeered premises, and the original sub-head for rents, including £45,000, will not be called upon. A saving of £52,000 is expected in the original sub-head (C), which was £365,862 for maintenance and supplies. This is due, of course, to the reduction in the Army. Deputies will readily understand that in a matter of this sort, with the Army and the country in the condition in which they were, and with military operations going on, it was really impossible to do more than to give as good a guess as possible when the estimates were being prepared.

Mr. JOHNSON

Under Sub-head (D), I want to raise a question of the cataloguing of this furniture, fittings and utensils. I take it that the normal course would be to take a record of the goods coming in and also a record of the goods going out. I want to know whether we can be assured that there has been a record taken of the goods going out. The additional sum required under this sub-head is £212,000. The furniture, fittings and utensils are mainly for the Army, and I suggest that the item is a very large one. They may have all been necessary, but I have very good reason for believing that a considerable portion of this £212,000 worth went in and came out, but that no record was taken of it going out. That is to say, that there has been a great deal of leakage of utensils, fittings and furniture. Very many of the items for which this £200,000 is required are not now in the barracks, but are in the homes of people who have either supplied their own homes or sold the goods. I want to know whether the Army authorities have recently altered their procedure in regard to goods going out, and if it can be said that now at any rate there is no trafficking in Army utensils, fittings or furniture. The fact is that certain information has been more than once conveyed to the authorities with regard to the theft of Army property, and I think notwithstanding that information and warning that a kind of theft is continued, and I am afraid that the responsibility rests with the Administration in not having had any method of checking the outgo of materials.

I would like to have some assurance from those responsible that there has been a change in this respect, and that the property of the Army is retained in Army possession. The same thing might well apply to munitions and arms, but as we are not discussing armaments, I suppose there is no use referring to them. I would like to know what the regulations are regarding the checking of materials, and whether there is a periodical check taken of, say, the number of blankets, knives, forks, and larger items of furniture which have been known to go out of barracks piled up in lorries and distributed. Perhaps the Minister can give us some information on that.

Major COOPER

I arise, partly to support Deputy Johnson, and partly to anticipate Deputy Hewat, because he described a mere excess of £6,000 as bad budgeting, and I rather tremble to know what his adjectives may be when confronted with an excess of £212,000. It is a matter of very great seriousness, however. This Vote last financial year was for £22,575; the Minister budgets for £78,000 now, which is an increase of £50,000. That is, he budgeted for more than double. But now he is forced to come down here and ask for a supplementary estimate of £212,000, so that last year what cost £22,000 is this year to cost £290,000. The Army has not increased on such a scale as to warrant such an increase in the Estimate as that. The Army has been housed to a considerable extent in private houses, or else in barracks taken over from the British troops. We have no information as to whether the British troops handed over furniture with their barracks, but if they did, then this Vote is simply enormous. I do know that private houses were taken over for the Army, because my house was one of those taken over, and no furniture was supplied by the Army. The soldiers slept on satin armchairs; the only thing they provided was an Army blanket, and nothing else, and eventually the Minister for Finance will have to pay for the damage to the furniture in private houses. These matters have been transferred to the Board of Works. But what control have the Board of Works over the Army, and to what extent have they inspected the furniture taken over by the Army, and what effective control have they over Army expenditure?

Mr. WILSON

I object to this Estimate from another angle. I take it that there will be a lot of surplus stock now that half the Army is demobilised, and I would like the Minister to give us an estimate of how much of this £250,000 would be recoverable by the sale of this surplus stock.

Mr. ALFRED BYRNE

I wish to raise a point on item (D.) I would like to know if the members of the Dáil can have placed before them documents to show who the contractors are and what they are paid. It would be very useful to know that. A good many members of the House are interested, but so far nobody has asked for such information. I think it would not be asking too much to say that whatever contractors are engaged in these matters their names should be known to members of the Dáil. We are anxious to see who these contractors are, and we are anxious to ascertain the value of the contracts. I have heard that contracts have been entered into at considerably higher rates than are paid to other traders for similar business. I take it if these things are not so, that they should not be whispered about, and, therefore, by placing this information in the hands of members of the Dáil they would be able to verify them for themselves, and see whether there was any justification for the rumours.

LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

, at this stage, took the Chair.

Mr. GOREY

Before the Minister replies, I should like to say that some of the barracks taken over from the British were furnished, and some of the furniture is there still. I cannot say if it is all there. Wherever the British were in barracks they almost sold the title deeds of the place before they vacated it. I know that in Kilkenny there was a certain Regiment of Horse, and before they cleared out everything was sold, except the title deeds of the building. In other towns where the barrack accommodation was burned down, a different state of affairs prevailed, and, of course, accommodation had to be found. Private buildings had to be occupied, but I cannot see where this £212,000 comes in at all. I want to know if there was excess stores or stock of the description mentioned in the estimate, what is to be the method of disposal. I have heard that a decision has been come to—it is common report at any rate—that all surplus of the Army clothing and so on, is to be disposed of as rags, they are to be cut up and sold as rags. That is the common report, and I should like to have some information on that point.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

With regard to sub-head (D.)—fittings and utensils— I imagine these would be small articles that came into temporary use and would not be included in Army outfit such as equipment. They are matters that only come into temporary use and would, in natural course, disappear after use in a short time. The expenses under that head seem to be very high.

Mr. BLYTHE

On the point of a very big excess under sub-head (D.), I might say that with regard to one purchase of bedding alone it amounted to £100,000. I think that probably a certain amount of pilfering goes on in every army. I am sure it is very hard to check it, and I am perfectly certain that a great deal more pilfering went on in our army than in one that might be a little older and more under control.

Mr. GOREY

On a point of explanation, I speak from experience, and I say there was no pilfering. It would be a great insult to the Volunteers who came in to say that they were pilferers. Pilfering went on with the ex-British soldiers, and nobody else.

Mr. BLYTHE

The organisation of the Army was not as well developed as it might be. Checks were not in operation as they should be. For instance, in the matter of store records, there is no doubt at all that until some months ago there were no proper store accounts. Now there are proper store accounts, and the receipt and issue of stores is properly recorded, but in the early days, when the whole organisation of the Army was still in process of being improvised, these checks and these records were not kept and, of course, failure to do a thing like that does lead to further slackness down the line, and I would not say that a considerable quantity of property did not go wrong. I think that there is probably little doubt that a good deal of property was made away with. The matter is being tightened up, and I think that it can be guaranteed for the future that there will be proper treatment of property of this particular nature. In regard to the past, I think that we have simply to recognise that we were throwing an Army together almost anyhow, spreading it out and having it fighting while it was being created, and there was confusion and all the results of confusion. Some of the contracts for furniture, fittings and such things, although they fall to be paid by the Board of Works, were bought by the Army. I do not know whether anybody was to blame or not, but there was a plea of urgency, and goods had to be supplied. They were bought by the Army and the Board of Works had to take the responsibility of paying the bills. That is a thing which we have grown out of and which I should hope will not occur in the future. I do not know what amount might be received from surplus stock, and I would be prepared simply to say that all proper steps will be taken to see that it is disposed of to the best advantage. In regard to contracts, I will consider the matter that Deputy Byrne has raised, and communicate with him.

Mr. JOHNSON

On that point may I take it that a great part of this £212,000 has still to be paid away, and whether, before doing it, or in the doing of it, if it is now going on, any attempt is being made, in view, perhaps, of a little more time to do it than was possible twelve or six months ago, to see that the orders that were given were given in proper form, that the prices charged were not excessive, and that if orders were given without contracts being made, if they were given as emergency orders, that no excessive prices are being paid for these emergency orders. I would like some assurances, too, as to the method of giving contracts; as to whether these contracts, which are Public Works accounts, although for the Army, have all been given through the Contracts Committee. I assume that the larger ones, such as a bedding contract which we have had before us previously, were given through a Committee. I am anxious that the Minister for Finance should at least have some means of checking the very large number, probably of smaller items, which were given away under the plea of emergency and perhaps without having due regard to all the requirements of the strictest economy. I would like to know whether the Minister can give us an assurance that all checks possible in regard to the prices are being taken, and that where no previous quotation was received and no contract entered into a very careful watch will be placed upon the amount charged and the quantity received. One learns that there has been a good deal of looseness in that respect, and I think it may still be possible to recover some of the losses if that care is taken before payment.

Mr. BLYTHE

I know that many accounts are being and have been contested, and have been reduced. I do not know really whether they are those that come under this Vote, or other Army expenditure of that nature, but I know a great deal of care has been taken to bring down excessive charges to a reasonable level.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Am I correct in assuming, with regard to item "D," that furniture, fittings and utensils provided for Army use includes the furniture, fittings and utensils provided for the camps in which internees were kept? In that case there would be, presumably, a very large amount of material that will now be available for sale.

Mr. BLYTHE

There would be surplus stock. What it may be sold for I do not know.

Mr. T. MURPHY

I would like to call the attention of the Minister to the question of compensation for premises commandeered by the National Army, under the sub-head "EE," and I would like to make the case that is common to my own knowledge. I think the general feeling is, and I agree with it, that the awards in a good many cases are very unsatisfactory. I have knowledge of the awards made in three or four cases in my constituency. The same position will apply to a great many other claims. I have knowledge of a particular case where a claim was made for £200 for the occupation, disturbance and damage done to premises by a man who is a private householder, and the award made by the Board of Works, on the recommendation of the Inspector, was £17. I know another case where the award on a claim for £1,000 was £250, and I understand that within the past few weeks the man who received the £250 had had a letter from the Commissioners of Public Works asking for a refund of £30. In other cases in County Cork people living in hotels and carrying on business were deprived of their premises for practically twelve months, and their cases have not been settled at all. In the case where settlements were made the awards were so ridiculous that the people returned the cheques. Their premises are in a dilapidated state, the business is entirely held up, and the position is quite unsatisfactory. Another aspect of the case is that, in that particular district at any rate, the method of making the inspection of the premises with a view to arriving at a figure for compensation is very unsatisfactory. I know the case of one particular gentleman who represents the Commissioners of Public Works, and in two or three cases where he was sent to make investigations where there were large claims, he said that he had about ten minutes to make the investigation and catch a train. How could he go over all the items in a claim for £500 or £600 in ten minutes? I put it to the Minister that that is not a reasonable way of dealing with claims. I know that the claimants do not expect to be met perhaps entirely, that they were bound to make certain sacrifices, but it is not fair that people should be absolutely ruined as a result of the sacrifices that had to be made. I would like to point out also that I understand that the idea is that where an award is made by a local Inspector it is afterwards reduced by the Commissioners of Public Works, in fact, I believe it is divided by two in some cases. I would like to urge that something should be done in this matter, and that a more reasonable spirit should be adopted in regard to the claims. I daresay the Minister's answer will be that the claims were exaggerated. I have no doubt that that is the case in some instances, but I do know cases where claims were reasonable, and the people who made them were reasonable people who had no desire to make any money out of what had occurred. I put it to the Minister that in future there ought to be a more reasonable attitude in dealing with claims, and that in several of the claims that have been dealt with, where awards have been offered and have not been accepted, the matter should be re-considered in a favourable light, and the inspector making valuations should be asked to spend more than ten minutes when he is making an examination.

Major COOPER

In connection with these commandeered buildings, I want to know what control the Board of Works has over buildings in occupation of the military. There is no doubt these commandeered buildings are deteriorating in such a way that this compensation we are asked to vote tonight is not a tenth part of the compensation needed. I would like to read a letter I have received; I have not had time to check it. I know the writer, who is a tenant of mine, and I place reliance on it. I should say there would be not more than 10 per cent. of exaggeration in the letter, and I allow 10 per cent. for exaggeration in any woman's letter:—

Ballisodare.

Dear Sir,—The Government took over my house as a barrack for the troops on the 13th December, 1922, and were in occupation for 10½ months. They smashed all my dining-room furniture, kitchen, bedroom and shop fittings. They took the doors off the hinges, and burned them; skirting and moulding of the rooms, broke three new grates upstairs and kitchen grates, burned dressing tables, washstands, and presses, and there are a lot of holes broken in partitions, and broke all the windows downstairs, and took off the brass knocker and letter-plate and box. I have received £1 a week for use of furnished house. I have received in all £68 10s., leaving only £26 10s. for the damage done. There was a claims officer here a month ago, and he says I am entitled to £100 more.

That damage is in a house of which the total rental is less than £5 a year, and I believe it is a fair statement of the damage done. In my own house, I have been told—I do not know, for I have not been there, for 18 months it has been occupied by military—they took doors off the hinges and burned them. Many of these doors were made of valuable wood, walnut and rosewood, and were of a peculiar shape, and I suppose for compensation I shall be given the price of ordinary deal doors. I know for certain that the windows that have been broken for over a year have not been mended. In the West of Ireland, if you leave a window in a house broken for three months, the whole fabric of the house deteriorates owing to the damp. It would pay the Board of Works, the Government, and the country to have a staff going around repairing these injured premises, and then we should not be asked to vote such large sums for commandeered buildings. Apparently nothing is done, and apparently the Board of Works have no control. I do not know if the Board of Works ever send down an Inspector, but if the Inspector makes an adverse report it appears to have no effect on the Army authorities whatever. It is really a serious situation.

I see Vote E. in the original estimate is for rent. What rent is being paid for these commandeered premises? Is any rent being paid? Has anybody ever got rent for premises taken over by the Government? Many of these people whose houses have been taken over; like the woman whose letter I have read, are poor people, and cannot afford to stand out of their rent for long periods. Another thing, the Minister, I suggest, should make a large saving on the Vote for light. For eighteen months I have been supplying the troops with light for nothing. I have sent in repeated claims that have not been acknowledged. I have had to spend over £100 on the lighting in order that the troops may not set fire to the house by going about with candles. These are abnormal times, and since I have been in the Dáil I have not spoken about my own affairs at all. I approached the ex-Minister for Defence only once, and I asked him to take the troops away. They are not there for my protection. I must say, in justice to the irregulars, that though they knew my house was used as a barrack, and though they thought it might be used as a barrack again, when it was left absolutely open to them when the troops left, nothing was done. I have suffered nothing from those who flouted the authority of the State. I have suffered damage to the extent of at least £10,000 from the troops. I think it is useless for the ex-Minister for Defence to say, as he did say on this already, "We have transferred the responsibility for these premises to the Board of Works" unless the Board of Works, or the Minister for Finance is given some authority to deal with this matter. At present he is merely in the position of paying at long last—very long last—for the damage caused by the troops when the troops go out. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. While I recognise the financial exigencies of the State, I am not going to press for a reduction in this Vote, but when the new estimates come on, unless I see that some effective machinery has been set up to check this lavish waste of money due to lack of discipline in the Army and lack of control by the financial branch, then I shall have to move some reduction.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

I want to say, in justice to the troops, that they have been delightfully impartial in their destruction. Last June they occupied the house down in Leix in which my family lived up to a year ago, and the troops left it a month ago pretty much in the condition of the Four Courts or the Custom House.

Sir JAMES CRAIG

I could give you a similar example of a widow lady who is living on the proceeds of the rent of certain flats in one of the most important residential parts of the City. Her flats were commandeered. She had a considerable number of valuable books belonging to her late husband in her house. Some of these volumes cost £30. They stuffed these books in the windows. They took no thought of her carpets, and they were all destroyed. Her satin chairs were used as beds. She has received no rent up to the present, and no compensation for the damage done. The Board of Works are supposed to consider the matter. She is applying to me week after week to know if I would bring some pressure to bear on some official of the Board of Works to get her claim passed through. She is anxious to get her rent at least paid, although she does not expect to get paid at once anything like the amount of damage done.

Mr. HEWAT

I think the Minister for Finance has somewhat disarmed criticism by admitting that the large amount covered by the expenditure was owing to the exigencies of the times we have gone through, when the supervision and control of expenditure was not what it should be in a well-ordered and well-regulated State. While the Minister has disarmed criticism as regards the past, I think we must recognise that that plea loses largely in effectiveness unless the Minister can point to the institution of reforms that would prevent a recurrence in the future. Deputy Cooper has instanced a case of his own, and Deputy Sir James Craig has mentioned another case, while the Minister for Home Affairs has indicated a state of affairs which we know is common all over the country. It is not happening to-day or yesterday. It has been going on for a long time. The amount that is accumulating in claims against the State is increasing every day because the cause of complaint is not being dealt with. It is a deplorable state of affairs. It is not one case I could give, but a good many. We all know these things are occurring all over the country. There is no use coming here and discussing them. The question we must ask is, What is being done to remedy this state of affairs? Is this thing to go on until we will either have to repudiate the claims people make or foot a bill which is going to be very much larger than any of us at present can anticipate, and which nothing in the Estimates can, in my opinion, provide for?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Some complaints have also reached me with regard to this matter. I understand that some houses have been commandeered for a considerable time. The information I got is that the owners have not been or cannot be compensated until the houses are vacated by the troops, regardless of the fact that the compensation may be urgently required. I do not know if my information is correct, but that is what I heard. I heard also that in some cases the compensation awarded is altogether inadequate. I am not conversant with the machinery set up for dealing with compensation claims. I do not know if an appeal can be made or if claims can be re-heard, so that compensation would not be fixed arbitrarily by the Board of Works. I do not know if it arises in connection with this Vote, but I know cases where furniture was commandeered for the troops in 1922 and where the owners have been unable to get compensation, regardless of the fact that they were in a comparatively small way of living and required furniture. These people are certainly entitled to compensation within a reasonable time.

Professor MacNEILL

Some of the statements might convey the impression that it was the universal experience that where troops occupied houses this tale of woe, as it has been called, resulted. I do not think it was the universal experience. I am sure that the cases recounted are not the majority and are not typical cases. I may say that for months, in my absence, there were troops in my house, and they did not do any damage. They were most careful of all the property.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

You were there as well.

Professor MacNEILL

I was away the entire time.

Mr. GOREY

You must have struck oil.

Major COOPER

I agree that there were officers who were most careful. I had experience of them myself. There were also officers who were not. I think the Minister will agree that it is only reasonable that those who have suffered, owing to the fact that officers did not take care of premises, should be reasonably compensated.

Professor MacNEILL

I only spoke in order to remove the impression that things that were said to have happened were general.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The only point I want to put is this: the Public Works Department is under the Minister's control. All this matter of compensation for premises to be accounted for is here accounted for in this Vote for the Public Works Department, and is directly under the Minister's supervision. I suggest to the Minister that he should consider the practicability of getting the Inspectors of the Public Works Department to make periodic visits in future to all buildings that have been commandeered and occupied by the military, their reports to come before him, in order to see that the damage that has been complained of shall be put a stop to, so that items like this may not be incurred in future.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

There is much in the point that Deputy Cooper has made. If the Board of Works commandeer a house they take no inventory of the furniture or the fittings or of the value of them. Then the Board of Works Inspector comes along when a claim is put in. If the owner says there was a sideboard worth £20 the Inspector says the local carpenter could make one for £5. Other things are valued in the same way.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move to report progress.