In connection with this Vote, it represents almost a quarter of a million of money, and I think we would want to have some details of how this money is spent. I can understand an expenditure in cases where barracks have been burned. Is it the intention of the Government to repair those barracks? £160,000 was put down in last year's vote. What has been done with that £160,000 and with a quarter of a million this year?
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SUB-HEAD T—WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
A considerable portion of this particular item appeared in the Board of Works vote last year. There was a lot of renovation work done last year, and it is intended to restore this year certain barracks, mainly in the South, which were burned. The accommodation there is limited. In certain cases through the country, too, we are at considerable expense in regard to commandeered premises. One Deputy mentioned a short time ago a particular place in which we are, and the commandeering was a serious injury to the local authority.
I can understand it in Clonmel and places like that.
We have already voted £100,000 for commandeered premises, and also £100,000 for the reconstruction of barracks, including the Mícheál Barracks in Cork and other barracks throughout the country. And, in view of that fact, that we have already voted £200,000 in this connection we ought to have some more explanation of this Vote.
I should like some explanation of the last three items under sub-head T:—Lands—Expenditure on the reinstatement and fencing of military lands, £6,365; rents, £5,182; and staff (herds, etc.), £2,000. I should like to know does the Deputy-Ranger come under that heading. Is his salary paid out of that?
His salary is on the Board of Works Estimate.
I should also like to know whether his Department has any control over the grazing of the Curragh lands, because recently I had a letter from some grazing farmers asking for grazing rights for sheep or cattle. If the Minister's Department has any control, I think he should try to meet those men in order to enable them to live on the edge of the Curragh. I think that the Deputy-Ranger there is receiving £200 a year of public money, and I am informed that he is giving no service for it. If that is so I think it is time that payment of this salary should be stopped.
I think this particular item is included under sub-head T —"Maintenance at Curragh,""minor works," and so on. Some of those items that are now in the Army Vote appeared on the Board of Works Vote last year. Some of these items did not appear in the Army Vote last year.
In support of what Deputy Colohan has just said, I wish to say that I am informed on the very best authority that this office of Deputy-Ranger is a sinecure.
That question arises in another Vote.
I thought Deputy Colohan referred to that.
He referred to lands.
With reference to the present Vote, I should like to know what is done with certain Government property on the Government's range at Glenamaal. There is a large track of country there which was taken over by the British Government for an artillery range. If it is not going to be utilised by the present Government or their successors it might very well be sold I am sure a considerable sum will be acquired by the sale of that land. Certainly we should not go on keeping it up if it is not going to be used as an artillery range.
I think it is there you will have to get rid of some of these goods that do not improve with age.
The lands?
No, the munitions.
Can the Minister say if the money set aside for the maintenance of the Curragh—£47,850—is purely at the discretion of the Commanding Officer to say how the money is to be spent, or is it with the sanction of the Army Council or the Minister for Finance?
The Army Finance Officer, who in turn has to have his proposal approved by the Minister for Finance.
I want to know is all this work being done by the Board of Works, or is it being done by our own engineering staff, or by contract. This is a considerable amount of money, and it ought to show considerable results.
When the sum exceeds a certain amount, I think £100, the Board of Works usually hands it out by contract. The Army Corps of Engineers could be given the opportunity of doing certain work, and during the period of the disturbances they were used in certain barracks. In this particular case I think it was one of the Cork barracks, I saw the work they did, and having regard to the disturbed times, I think it was advisable to have them to do the work of that kind, as there might have been some objection by the tradesmen to go in and out of the barracks, but that is not the case now.
I want to draw attention to a matter that has been referred to me. It is in relation to work which is being done by the soldiers outside the barracks in connection with water supply, undoubtedly for the barracks, but a considerable distance away from the barracks. It is in Mullingar, and the contention is—shall I say, rather, for the sake of impressing the Minister, that the request is—that this work should be done by the civilian population. It may be said to be in connection with the barracks, but it is a long way from the barracks, a considerable distance. Soldiers are sent to do this work on the plea that it is work in connection with the barracks, and it is a matter of considerable importance to the unemployed men in the town. I think it is reasonable to say that once the military get outside the barracks, even for work in connection with their own supplies, that some consideration should be given to the requirements of the local people. I cannot advocate this as a matter of principle, but I do put it forward as a matter worthy of favourable consideration from the Government that work outside the barracks in such a connection as this should be given to the local people.
My opinion is that this is one of the best forms of training you could give an Army to make it as effective as Deputy Esmonde wants. If they ever go to war they might have to provide something similar on the field, and this would be great training for them.
This is the first time I have heard of the case mentioned by Deputy Johnson. I would like further particulars, and I will inquire into it.
Would the President be able to inform me what area is the Minister for Defence paying rent for? Is he paying rent for the whole Curragh, or only for portion of it? Does that portion called Little Curragh come under their holding or not?
There is no rent, as far as I am aware, paid for the Curragh itself. There may be some for areas outside the Curragh.
Is the Curragh the property of the State?
Certainly.
Could I find out what Department deals with it? I cannot find it in the Estimates.
I take it that it was ruled that it was not in order to discuss questions regarding the Curragh.
Not at all, but the chief ranger comes under another head.
Am I in order in referring to the question of the ranger?
Not on this Vote.
Because we have got the head ranger in the Dáil, I am happy to say. I think it ought to come under this Vote.
It is not in this Vote, and I am sorry I cannot allow it to be raised.
Would it come under the heading "Herds?"
I think it comes under this Vote. It comes in the Schedule sub-head E, "Staff (Herds, etc.)."
I think herds ought to include rangers.
I cannot allow a discussion on this question on this Vote, for it does not arise.
On page 206 you will see "Staff (Herds, etc.)."
That is not a Curragh item.
Will the Minister tell us what is meant by "maintenance at Curragh?" Is this the maintenance of works and buildings, or is it maintenance of the swards, fields, or racecourse? I take it there are men engaged in this work of maintenance, and possibly even a herd might do some work.
Maintenance there, I take it, refers to electric light and ordinary repairs in the camp.
Sub-head agreed to.
I would like to know whether this refers to compensation in respect of damage or injury to persons other than members of the Army, as well as to people in the Army.
Not as a rule to the Army, but to outsiders.
People who have suffered damage?
Yes.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the entirely inadequate compensation that is paid to the parents of people who lose their lives because of the negligence of soldiers. I know of one instance quite recently. It was a case of a youngster of five or six years who was shot dead inside a military barracks, not by one of the military, but by another youngster who was allowed to pick up a rifle, put a charge into the breach, and fire it, blowing the top off the head of the other child. In that case the Minister gave the parents £12. Surely that is not adequate compensation, and to my mind there should be a total revision. It is entirely inadequate to offer £12 compensation to the parents of a child for the expense they have been at in bringing the child up.
I do not remember that case. I have given very careful and very generous consideration to those cases that have come before me. In cases where it appeared to me that there was a loss, I tried to take the point of view that at least we should do as the law prescribes an employer should do for an employee. The number of cases is very considerable. The amounts demanded, apart from deaths, are usually very high. In the case of a child, while I admit that no money can pay for the loss, it must also be admitted that it is hard to establish a case for compensation. For damages, yes, you can establish a case, but for compensation it is very difficult to draw up a certain schedule which will meet the case. Compensation is all that we have undertaken to pay in respect of personal injury, and compensation, accordingly, is all that we could undertake to pay in the case of such incidents as the very sad and tragic one mentioned by the Deputy. Under the Army Pensions Act, in the case of partial dependency on soldiers, the maximum sum is £100. I can quite understand that that is neither compensation nor damages, nor anything else, but still it sets a standard, and it is rather hard to justify a departure from that. Generally speaking, as far as it is possible to give fair consideration in the light of Personal Injuries Commission, and in the case of dependents on army pensions we have endeavoured to do what is fair in the circumstances.
I want to raise a case that has come to my notice, where apparently no satisfaction can be obtained by the party concerned. It was a case where a man and a woman, with two horses and cars, were going along a narrow road home from town. An armoured car came along with a lorry behind it, driving at about 40 miles an hour, and rushed into the two cars. One car was smashed and the horse was killed. A complaint was made, as a matter of fact a sworn statement was put in, and the case was put to the local military authorities by the solicitor acting on behalf of the people who had the grievance. In this case the person has lost a horse and the loss was serious because she was a poor woman. What happened? The officer who was responsible for the reckless driving of the armoured car was the person who was sent to investigate the complaint. Naturally, he tried to justify or to clear himself of the trouble in which he was involved, and he made a report against the case. I submitted the matter to the Ministry of Defence, and a statement was made that nothing could be done. The justification for that statement was that the decision of the Minister was based upon the report made by the officer who was responsible. In a case of that kind an officer other than the officer who was responsible for the local barracks, or the officer responsible for the accident, should be asked to inquire into the circumstances which led up to the accident. I think it is not fair, and certainly the report of that officer, made in these circumstances, should not be taken to be final when a complaint of this kind which, to my knowledge, in this case is justified, is being dealt with. Perhaps the Minister in a case of that kind, where the property of a citizen of the State is destroyed by the reckless driving of a military officer, would see that some compensation should be given to the person concerned.
This is the first time I have heard of an officer who was responsible for an accident being sent to investigate it. Usually what happens is this, that when the accident is reported a Court of Inquiry sits, hears evidence, pronounces an opinion, and the papers are forwarded. In most cases that I have come across, even in cases which occurred a long time ago, a Court of Inquiry has been held, and a report submitted. The files are very considerable. I should say that they approach to something very nearly the size of the Estimates Book, and in some cases this Court of Inquiry actually suggested a certain sum for compensation. But I did not come across a case in which the officer responsible for the accident was sent to investigate.
If more time were available for the discussion of these Estimates I would produce documentary evidence to prove that, as far as I could ascertain, there was not an Inquiry. If there was an Inquiry and if the aggrieved parties were brought before it, or even if they were visited by an officer other than the officer involved, I would not have considered it necessary to bring the case under your notice.
I would be glad if the Deputy would give the names and particulars of the case. Deputies have brought cases under my notice, and although I have not satisfied them completely, perhaps they were satisfied that I made as good a case as possible.
I sent all the papers to the Minister for Defence, and I received a letter back in which it was announced that nothing could be done, as apparently the people who were driving the car were the people who were supposed to be responsible for the accident. I know about the case, because I am a native of the district; I have been speaking to the people about it, and in my opinion quite the opposite is the fact.
Sub-head V deals with messes, and what I want to speak about is analogous in some ways to messes. It is harking back to wet and dry canteens, in respect of which I put a question to the President some days ago. The matter is one of very great importance. Facilities for recreation inside of barracks, and their extent and nature is a matter of very great importance for the rank and file of the soldiers, and the dry canteen where soldiers can get a cup of tea or coffee, or supper at night, is very important in connection with the recreative side of their work in barracks. It will be remembered that the President gave as a reason why competitive tenders for wet and dry canteens in barracks were referred exclusively to licensed traders that in certain barracks, owing to the conditions of accommodation and the number of traders it was necessary to combine dry and wet canteens in the same room, and in every case it is convenient from an administrative point of view to have both canteens run by the same trader, who, obviously, must be licensed. On the date on which that answer was given a further application for tenders appeared in the Press in respect of Boyle, Galway, Longford and Youghal, in respect of wet and dry canteens combined. I do want to press on the President that it is absurd that a wet and a dry canteen should be run in the same room in any of our barracks, and where the conditions are such that no other arrangements can be made I would suggest that there should be no wet canteen, because otherwise it means that any young soldier, or a soldier of any kind, who wants to sit down over a cup of coffee or tea with his pals, sits down with an array of porter or whiskey bottles in front of him. It is not fair to the men, and it is not fair to the whole tone of barrack life.
In cases where separate rooms are available the argument is put up that from an administrative point of view it is desirable that both canteens should go to the one person. Now, administration in that matter means that you want a tender for a wet canteen, say. The person tendering says that he will set up a wet canteen, he will pay so much for rent, and he will give back so much per cent. of his gross takings into the soldiers' fund. When you want a wet canteen and a dry canteen why could you not get a licensed trader to make an arrangement that he will return a percentage in respect of the wet canteen, and get a local confectioner who will run the dry canteen, and who will also return a certain percentage out of the profits? Where the administrative difficulty arises I do not know. We all know what a cup of tea or a cup of coffee can be when made, even with the best of good-will, in certain places, and if you have a person who is running a wet canteen as well as a dry canteen you will not have an attractive dry canteen, you will not have good tea or coffee, and you will not have an attractive place in which men can have their tea or coffee. The matter is very important from the point of view of what tone and what atmosphere are to be around a certain side of the men's recreation in barracks, and I would urge the President to have the matter further gone into and considered.
I would like to support Deputy General Mulcahy in his remarks as to the advisability of keeping dry and wet canteens separate and at a considerable distance from each other. As far as the Curragh Camp is concerned, there is no difficulty in separating them. There is a dry canteen and a wet canteen, each built on its own site. In other places it is advisable for the sake of our young soldiers to keep these places separate, so that soldiers will not be drawn into drinking habits. I would like to enter a plea for the local traders in considering the question of supplies to these canteens. Local traders give local employment, and I think they should be supported. It is not merely a question of saying "We will ask for tenders for these services." I say that the Ministry is bound, or should be bound, to give preference to local traders. Hitherto it has been the practice to give the contract for supplies to almost all the Army commands to a man in Dublin. We do not know how many firms are behind him. That is constituting a ring and keeping out all those who are paying for the maintenance of the Army and keeping them from earning an honest shilling. There are great complaints through the country that the local traders are not getting a fair chance of competing for the supplies.
I take it that the contract as far as supplies to the canteen are concerned, is advertised publicly. I do not know whether from the present prices which the local traders charge to an ordinary person, they would be in a position to supply in the way that a big merchant might be able to supply. What I am concerned with is that there is nothing in the Estimate as presented, to show who is in charge of the Canteen Board if there is a board, and how the funds are administered or dealt with. I heard something about this canteen business and I am led to believe that the person who has the contract at present has paid a huge sum of money to the fund which Deputy Mulcahy refers to as the Canteen Fund. If £20,000 or £30,000 is paid into the fund and if other money is available one would like to know, if it has anything to do with the Army, what are the receipts and how the money received has been expended, or, whether this Army canteen fund is simply and solely for the benefit of whoever is in charge of it. I think some report should be put into the hands of Deputies to show how this particular fund is conducted, what money is available and into whose hands the money eventually finds its way. What I do rise to refer to particularly is a matter to which I have already referred in the Dáil and a matter that has not been given the amount of attention and consideration it should get. It is the general administration of the barrack services of the National Army. We have in this Estimate a figure of £36,360 for furniture, £25,000 for utensils and chandlery, £10,550 for messes, and £5,848 for laundry. I have had placed in my hand written statements, a number of written statements to support the statement—the charge, if you like—I make here that the barracks services are not on a proper footing. I would like to know whether there is at the disposal of the Army Authorities or at the disposal of the Executive Council or whoever is responsible, documents to show the amount of furniture that was taken over from the British, where that furniture at present lies and whether there is any check on the furniture when it is removed from one building to another or from one building within the barracks to another, or whether it is possible for the furniture to be removed from barracks to the house of a private individual without any check on that furniture. We all know that as a result of the trouble which broke out in the country in 1922, barracks were destroyed but previous to the destruction of these barracks—I have one or two barracks in mind; one of them is in my own area—I know 40 or 50 carts came along and took the furniture and other stores out of the barracks into the houses of farmers and others throughout the country. I raised the question here before and I was assured by the ex-Minister for Defence or by somebody at any rate, that steps were being taken to discover the whereabouts of that furniture because that furniture and the stores which were taken out of these barracks are the property of the State. It is not right that the furniture, the property of the citizens of the State, taken out of barracks in instances like that, should be allowed to remain in the houses to which it was taken without any attempt being made to recover it. It is well known in certain districts in my area that silver spoons and officers' silver used by the British are in the houses of certain individuals. It is common property and if it is common property, if there is any secret service work being done or any attempt at all being made to recover such property, I think that property should be recovered and the people who have taken it should be punished. The main argument I want to make is this, and I put it seriously to the Minister for Defence—and I have documentary evidence to support it—that there is no check at present with regard to the amount of furniture in these barracks. There is a check upon the amount of furniture that is handed over by the Board of Works to the military authorities but once it gets into the hands of the military there is no check, good or bad, until quite recently, as far as I know, as to where that furniture is to go in the future. As a matter of fact it can go out the gates of the barracks without anybody having a check upon it.
This is a serious position, and I say that if that is the position the saving shown here does not represent in reality the actual saving effected in the working of the barrack services. Last year the figure shown was £230,000, and this year it is £77,000. If what I say is the actual position, one cannot exactly say at the moment what the saving is, if any. Some day or other, I take it, stock-taking will have to take place if we are to have a financial settlement with the British Government. This is one of the things that must be gone into very thoroughly, and some statement will have to be made either now or in the future with regard to the form and general organisation and administration of the Barrack Services Department. I feel that the position is so serious from the documents put in my possession that the Minister would be quite justified in demanding an inquiry and appointing some body of officers or others on the civil side to go very carefully into the position. I shall probably be asked by the President why I have not placed these documents in his hands. I have not done so, because I know that if I placed these documents in the hands of the Minister for Defence, they would eventually find their way into the hands of some high officer of the Army, and perhaps the person who made the complaints and furnished me with the information would have the stripes taken off his arms and find himself somewhere else. I do demand an exhaustive inquiry into the whole position of the Barracks Service administration of the Army, and particularly in regard to the furniture taken from the barracks, which found its way into the hands of people who should not have it; likewise to the check that there is upon the removal of furniture from one barracks to another, or from one part of a building to another, or whether there is any check upon furniture which may find its way out of the barracks under the existing system.
The first question is as regards canteens. Deputy Mulcahy objected to having a dry canteen and a wet canteen in the same room. I understood that those two canteens were thus in operation only in barracks where there was not sufficient accommodation for separate canteens, and I made the answer he referred to in good faith. If that is not correct, I will reconsider the matter and see if some more perfect system can be adopted where there is accommodation. I would be also prepared to consider, in the event of accommodation for one canteen only being available, whether it would not serve the Army and discipline generally better if only a dry canteen was used. As regards the question raised by Deputy Davin, Deputy Mulcahy will bear me out when I say that during the time he was Minister for Defence, I brought quite a number of matters to his notice without disclosing the name of my informant. Any Deputy like Deputy Davin who may have information, can come to me and there will be no disclosure as to the source from which the information was received. These things are very important. If there be looseness in any service in the State, Deputies might well utilise their time in coming to my office and giving me personally particulars of these cases. Otherwise, it will take a much longer time to reach that state of discipline and efficiency that we are aiming at. I believe that directly an abuse of that sort is brought to notice and dealt with, its effect would be felt in any service. I do not know whether the Deputy was misled in connection with——
Would the President be be surprised to know that in one case where an officer attempted to interfere in the case of the removal of furniture at the Curragh he was put in clink?
No. I could very soon deal with a case of that kind if it were brought to my notice. Deputy Mulcahy will bear me out when I say that I brought cases to his notice without giving the name of my informant and put him in the way of dealing with them. I have in my hands Defence Order 18, signed by Deputy Mulcahy and dated 14th April, 1923, which sets out the requirements of Army Finance and the manner of accounting for Army stores, and states that all articles and supplies purchased out of Army funds should be correctly brought into account in the ledgers.
Recently this matter came under my own personal notice in connection with stocktaking. There were nine commands until somewhere about last March or April, and they are now reduced down to four. In that case different accounts have got to be kept for the new organisation and stocktaking had to take place. It was delayed, I know, for some time by reason of the re-organisation, but I anticipated being able to get particulars from the Board of Works in respect of the furniture they have bought and of having correct accounts kept in the store and accountancy books in future, so as to see how far we can trace any matters that should have been included in the ledgers in the past. I would be very glad to get any information which would enable us to trace goods that have been taken out of barracks. I think it would have a very wholesome effect if it were known that we were on the track of any property that had gone belonging to the State. Apart altogether from its disciplinary advantage, we can never get down to normal conditions until it is known that no man has a right to any property but his own. If any Deputy will give me particulars or information regarding that or any other abuse that is going on, I will undertake to preserve his confidence in the matter.
Does that apply to goods taken from commandeered premises which were not the property of the State?
Yes.
If it were definitely found that certain officers made their views quite plainly known in that matter, and if it became known that certain officers had conveyed information to him, would the President give an assurance that in that case the officers will not be victimised?
I can give an undertaking that those officers will not be victimised. But what does victimisation mean? To some people it will mean that every time there is an opening for promotion and that that officer is not promoted he is victimised. Suppose I give an undertaking, perhaps in 12 months of 6 months or a month I will be out of office and will my undertaking run? The Deputy need not give me any information with regard to the officers. I do not want that. But I will undertake that while I am in office —and I believe I will be able to speak in that respect for the Minister who may come after me—there will not be any victimisation of such officers. But you will certainly have to understand what is meant by victimisation and how hard it is to give what you might call a blank cheque in regard to it.
I do not refer to promotion. I refer to victimisation. The officer should get some protection from being victimised. As I have said, I know the case of an officer sent down from G.H.Q. to go carefully into these things, and when he went to a high officer in the Curragh he put him in clink and kept him there for a fortnight. Did that come under the Minister's notice?
No.
Surely that could not happen without coming to the notice of either the ex-Minister for Defence or the present Minister for Defence?
Who is responsible for the canteens in the different barracks throughout the country—is it the Army Council or the officers stationed in the barracks where the canteens are? In some cases sums varying from £50 to £100 are owing to persons who had supplied the canteens, and the argument is put up, when they demand payment, that it was the officers who were themselves responsible.
Who has the £50 or £100?
The shopkeepers who supplied the canteens are looking for payment.
Who has the £50 or £100? Somebody must have entered into possession of the money.
It is for stuff supplied to the canteens and somebody has consumed it, I presume. The people want to know how are they going to be paid.
I do not know. Canteens are not under the administration of the Army proper. There is no sum here in respect of canteens. The profits from the canteens are, I believe, the property of the soldiers. They are used for regimental purposes—recreation and things like that. There must have been abuses where goods were supplied to canteens and traders not paid. I think those traders must be very foolish. Usually when a trader does business he wants a reference to know whom he is dealing with, and when he does not get a satisfactory reference he gets a cheque on delivery of the goods. I do not know whether the traders in the Deputy's constituency are less hard-headed than traders in other parts of the country, but if they are I would advise the Deputy to address them and advise them not to give goods to people they do not know.
It is quite enough recommendation to be an officer of the National Army.
Sub-head H put and agreed to.
On sub-head Y (Irrecoverable Balances) I want to say that some cases have come under my notice where dependents' allowances have been paid in excess of the amount to which the people were entitled. In these cases threatening letters have been received, by some of the parties concerned, demanding that they pay back the sums they have been overpaid. These sums are more than they are worth, body and soul.
Had these letters any effect?
Not in some cases. I do not think it is wise on the part of the Army authorities to pursue that matter very far.
Does the Deputy move to increase the amount for irrecoverable balances?
No. But in view of the fact that the parties have not got the wherewithal to pay back the money, and seeing the circumstances under which it has occurred, I think the Ministry for Defence might regard it as a waste of time to pursue the matter.
There is not very much recognition of those threatening notices.
Sub-head Y put and agreed to.
On sub-head Z (Office of Ministry of Defence, Army Finance Office) I wish to point out the difficulty that traders in the country and persons whose goods have been commandeered find in getting compensation. This is not a new subject to the President. It has been brought up here time and again. I looked up the records and I found that up to last week 332 questions had been put in the Dáil as to payment for goods commandeered, motor cars commandeered and goods supplied, and so on. That is an average of more than three questions a day for every day that the Dáil has sat since last September. In two or three of these cases the facts may have been contested, but not in more than two or three cases. In the majority of cases the facts were admitted, and a statement made that payment would be made as soon as possible. I admit frankly that both in the time of the late Minister for Defence and the present Minister once the notice of the Minister has been called to an account a settlement was arrived at.
But surely it is wrong that an ordinary trader should be obliged to communicate with a Deputy and get a question put down here before a State Department pays its debts. There obviously must be great difficulty in certifying some of these accounts. I admit that. Officers who contracted them left the service or were transferred to some other part of the country and could not be traced, and the State very rightly safeguarded themselves and would not pay until it was clear that the debt had been contracted. I think, however, that the precautions taken were excessive in some cases, at least, where tradesmen—men of good reputation—were able to support their claims by the names of well-known officers, some of them Deputies in this Dáil. Yet, they sent in their accounts again and again, and got no redress, until they got the matter taken up in the Dáil. Knowing the difficulties as I do, I hope that that state of affairs has come to an end, because it has done more harm to the Government and more harm to the stability of the State than almost anything that has happened in the last eighteen months. Wherever you go through the country you have to stand a succession of grumbles and you hear the question, "Why don't the Government pay their debts? This account is now due twelve months or eighteen months, and I never would have supplied the troops if I thought it would be like this." All this has not made people feel that there was a well-established, regularly-functioning Ministry of Defence. Then, there are constant repetitions of the request to furnish accounts sent in already three or four times in detail. I know that has done much harm. I know the President has far too much to do already. He has to attend to Foreign Relations, and to the Ministry of Finance, and to the Ministry of Defence as well. I do not want to ask him to do impossibilities. But I do hope that the first thing that the new Minister for Defence will do when appointed will be to set up simple, quickly-working machinery whereby these debts will be settled.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General manages to deal with the Army Vote for the year 1922-1923 without the slightest reference to the fact that there was a war on, and without reference to the circumstances in which the country had to provide from the different parts an Army to deal with a very intricate military situation. The Comptroller and Auditor-General has managed in his report on the accounts for 1922-1923 to deal with the accounts of the Army and to deal with criticism of the Army without putting in one word to show that there was anything but peace conditions and anything but a long-established Army. When Deputy Cooper rises to deal with the Army Finance Office and makes a complaint that the debts are not being paid, I feel that he makes it without reference, not perhaps to the fact that 1922 and 1923 was a war period, but without reference to what was the embryo from which the Army itself came, or who was the embryo from which Army control came in that particular period.
I was referring to the last nine months.
I would like to know how many of the 322 questions put during the past nine months referred to the last nine months. Many of the questions that arise to-day with regard to unpaid accounts are unpaid accounts that refer to 1922. I feel that there is criticism of the work of the Army Finance Office here. I want to say, with regard to the Army Finance Officer personally, and his staff, that I do not know how they managed to do their work and how persons not brought up in the very hard and philosophic school in which the Army Authorities during the past two or three years were brought up, could have met the situation, with the difficulties that had grown up around us and that they, as cold, thinking, financial-minded men, had to try and solve. Nobody will ever know what were the difficulties of the Army Finance Officer and his staff, and nobody will ever realise the circumstances in which their difficulties arose and the widespread nature of their difficulties generally. I feel that it is due to me to make these remarks as against the implied criticism of the work of the Army Finance Office.
I would like to draw attention to a practice which appears to be general in dealing with Army accounts. In every Army account I have seen that has come back from the Ministry there has been ten per cent. deducted. I have never yet seen an explanation of what the ten per cent. is for. Ten per cent. is not a usual deduction in business accounts, especially when the account is running for two years. The only conclusion that I can arrive at is that it is for overcharges. If I am right in that, it means that the Ministry has a suspicion that every trader in the country is a rogue.
resumed the Chair at this stage.
That is the impression that is created throughout the country. I would like very much to endorse Deputy Cooper's remarks as to the very bad effect that the nonpayment of these accounts is having on the credit of this country. I think every Deputy will back me up when I say that the universal cry is, "Why do the Government not pay their debts?" I quite agree with Deputy General Mulcahy when he refers to the difficulties, but the difficulties do not cover 50 per cent. of cases. For months there have been Claims Officers in every Command, but I have not yet seen the result of their work. I do not say that they have not done their work; I believe they have. I believe that these officers have inquired into every individual case, but still the money is not forthcoming. I wish to bring the matter of the ten per cent. discount very strongly to the Minister's notice. I will give an instance of an account which I saw. When the document came back from the Ministry the 10 per cent. was deducted first, and then other deductions began, with the result that the deductions amounted to over 50 per cent. of the total account.
I think it right to say, with reference to Deputy General Mulcahy's statement about the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report— that there is not running through it a recognition of the difficulties of the Army—that it was his duty to report on the accounts. It was not his duty to justify or excuse any faults in accounts. But undoubtedly running through the memoranda there is the inference that things were overlooked by him, after reference to the Minister for Finance, which would not have been overlooked but for the circumstances. Deputy Cooper has said something about reputable firms having made claims. I do not want to defend the Army Accounts Department for having delayed payment, but inasmuch as Deputy Cooper asked for the report of the Public Accounts Committee, I may not be overstepping my duty if I say that the Public Accounts Committee has had its attention drawn to certain reputable firms having grossly overcharged, and it is the view of the Committee that the names of those reputable firms shall be published in the Committee's Report.
Is the Committee unanimous on that point?
Yes.
Good.
Something like 50,000 or 60,000 accounts altogether have passed through the Army Finance Office. Naturally, with such a large number, covering such a multitude of various and complicated items—because they were both various and complicated—I think it is not a bad result to have to say that only 1,600 now remain out. Even with that 1,600 there are cases coming in every other day of old accounts, etc. In certain cases very much larger purchases were made than are made by the ordinary man in the street. That will be admitted. Ten per cent. is not an exorbitant reduction to make in such cases. I have heard of one case in which certain articles of clothing figured very largely in the items, which, I think, no one with a smaller purse than Deputy Cooper would have in his wardrobe. In that case huge quantities were ordered. After the account had been paid this matter was brought to the notice of some of the officials, and they put in a claim for ten per cent. reduction, and got back something like £500. The ten per cent. reduction, I think, was made at a time when a schedule of prices was not in operation. Now that a schedule of prices is in operation—and a great many people object to it—there is no deduction of that sort.
Quite a number of cases occurred in which one could scarcely rely upon the certification of officers. I do not mean to make any imputations or to deal unjustly with officers, but it is well known that certain people are not business-like people and they will offhandedly put their name to a document, not realising the importance of it or what it means. I am positively certain that a large number of such certificates must have been obtained. When that became known in the Army Finance Office extra precautions had to be taken. The unfortunate thing about these accounts is that, supposing 50, 60 or 70 per cent. of the claimants were honest, the other 30 per cent., or whatever proportion it would be, put the onus on the Army Finance Office of applying the same principle to all, and, in consequence, delay, confusion and dissatisfaction were bound to accrue. I quite admit that when I was going round the country last year the principal cause of complaint was the Army accounts, and I would have been inclined off-hand to say, "Pay them and get them out of the way, some way or other." Then, when one has to deal with the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it was a question whether it was better to suffer the particular sort of trouble involved in explaining why payment could not be made, or being impeached in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report. On the whole, I think that I can subscribe to what Deputy General Mulcahy says, that this office has worked very well in the circumstances. I think it started a little late at the work, and it must have started not suitably mobilised for this particular class of work; but I think that within the next few months, at any rate, we ought to be entirely free from all those claims, even from those that are going to come in.
Under the heading of "Appropriations in Aid," I think an explanation might be given as to the matter I referred to with regard to the disposal of Army Canteen funds. May we expect when there is a revision in the method of presenting Army Estimates that the Dáil will be supplied with some information as to how the revenue of the Army Canteens is disposed of? Is it to be purely a question of handing over a certain amount of money to a number of individuals?
It is for the benefit of the whole body of the soldiers.
Who is in charge of the Army Canteen Board, if there is such a Board in existence? Is it the opinion of the Minister that the Dáil should not receive any information as to how the funds are administered? Is there a balance-sheet published for the ordinary patron of the Army Canteen indicating how the funds are administered in order to show what benefit is derived from the money repaid by those who have the contracts for supplies? In the previous estimates we had a small Navy provided for. I know that the Navy has disappeared. There is nothing shown under this heading to indicate what money has been received for the boats that were sold.
We have them all yet. We are waiting for the next war.
I understand that the price paid for some of these boats was looked upon by the ordinary seafaring man as being very excessive. I looked up the Estimates to find out what was the amount received for the boats in order to compare it with the amount that was originally paid for them.
We have them still. The other point mentioned by the Deputy would be better dealt with by putting down a question. I understand before the canteens were put on a proper working basis some costs were incurred in respect of that particular service, and some of the profits earned in respect of rebates went to discharge that particular liability. The Army does not enter into possession of any of these moneys which are exclusively devoted to the benefit of the soldiers. I think the Quartermaster-General is the officer who would have charge of that Department, but only as a sort of trustee, not as a beneficiary trustee.
I see an item here of £1,000 for the sale of clothing. What would that be in respect of? There is a sale of unserviceable stores. Does that include motor cars, or would they be considered unserviceable?
Yes.
Damaging the auction.
Some of them are dangerous.
The clothing, I think, means some of the "movies" mentioned.
I want to know whether a scheme to deal with the dependents' allowances in deserving cases will be forthcoming, towards which something might be contributed by the soldiers and a similar amount by the State?
Marriage allowance only now.
That is all the better. It will encourage the soldiers to get married.
I would remind the President that marriage allowance is not yet paid and leaflets were sent out stating that marriage allowance cannot be paid until a new order is made.
Question put and agreed to.