Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 May 1925

Vol. 11 No. 22

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £10,024 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun tuarastail agus costaisí Roinn Uachtará na hArd-Chomhairle.

That a sum not exceeding £10,024 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the President of the Executive Council.

The PRESIDENT

On this Vote, it will be observed from the details given in part 3 of the Estimate, that some changes have been made. A reduction of £200 in the amount of the provision for Parliamentary Secretaries is due to the reduction of the salary of one of them from £1,200 to £1,000 inclusive. That was effected when Deputy Dolan was appointed in room of Mr. McCarthy. The allowance for private secretary for the President has been eliminated. The officer who was in receipt of this allowance has returned to his normal duties and the work of private secretary is performed by the Secretary of the Executive Council. The lower Executive officer and the allowance which was formerly paid to him as assistant private secretary has disappeared from the Estimate. This officer has been promoted to the higher Executive grade and continues to act as assistant private secretary. Three temporary clerks included in last year's Estimate are replaced by three clerical officers and the result is, as will be observed from part 3 of the Estimate, a saving in the actual expenditure for the current financial year. Expenses for travelling last year were approximately £540, and of this £85 was for travelling within the Saorstát and the balance— £455—for travelling abroad, principally to London in connection with various conferences. It is impossible to foresee, with any degree of accuracy, when conferences of this nature will be required, but it is estimated that £750 will cover such items as may arise during the coming year. It is to be borne in mind that in addition to the actual expenses of the President and staff of the Council, there are also charged under this sub-head all travelling expenses incurred by other Ministers or Secretaries on State business which pertains to the Executive Council as a whole, rather than to their own particular department. The item of incidental expenses comprises newspapers, periodicals, advertisements and many other small items which are not otherwise provided for. As regards item E (Maintenance of Motor Car) for which £700 is down, there is an arrangement being made for the present year, as an experiment, that there should be a fixed allowance of £500. That sum would include the depreciation on the car, which would be provided for by the President, road tax, insurance, etc. It will also include the cost of petrol, oil, tyres, etc., for official journeys. The estimated mileage is 20,000. Of that sum of £500, £300 is for overhead charges, including depreciation, road tax, insurance, etc., and £200 is for running expenses. That means that the figure of £200 for special repairs will be no longer necessary. It will be observed also that there is provision for two chauffeurs at £4 per week each. In future, the chauffeurs for the President's car will be provided by the Army. This will represent a reduction on the Vote of £416; but that is really a paper reduction, as the cost of the chauffeur on the Army strength will amount to the same figure.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like to ask the President if he contemplates that the items for two A.D.C.'s are to be permanent. I appreciate the importance of maintaining the dignity of the President of the Executive Council, with respect to A.D.C.'s, on the same level as that of the Governor-General. I do not know whether there is any deliberate rivalry in this matter. One is tempted to think there may be some. I take it that I am to assume that the reference made in favour of the appointment of such officers in the case of the Governor-General is equally applicable in respect to officers of this character in the case of the President. It does occur to one that, inasmuch as the President is in and around this building for about twelve hours a day, and I suppose, if he is a wise man, he tries to sleep seven or eight hours per night, there are very few hours of the day when the protection which these officers could give him would be needed.

I do suggest it is too great a charge to be borne for so small a service. I do not mean by that that the protection required by the President is so small or that the loss would be small if he succumbed to the temptations he might give to certain people; but, for the few hours that he would require that protection, it seems to me an A.D.C. at a salary of £500, rising to £700, with bonus, and an additional A.D.C. paid out of Army funds, plus £3 per week, is too high. These officers, as well as the officers acting in a similar capacity for the Governor-General, ought at an early date to be dispensed with. There is, in the Appropriation Account for the year 1923-24, reference to a certain expenditure for petrol. It is noted as being very excessive, and I surmise that the officers who acted at that time, and who, presumably, have been changed since that time, were responsible for the excessive expenditure on petrol. A sum amounting to £400 was required for petrol for one car in the year. The fact that there was that immense expenditure on petrol under the jurisdiction of an officer who was acting as A.D.C. at the time, rather shows that there was not due consideration given to the duties appropriate to this office. All I would press for is that consideration be given to the question of whether these officers are required, and whether it is intended that they be permanent adjuncts to the office of the President of the Executive Council.

Captain REDMOND

I doubt very much, unless I am otherwise informed, whether the President ever asked for the protection of those A.D.C's. Whether he did or not, I must say that I cannot see there is any necessity for the continuance of them to-day. The conditions are such that the President is not so fearfully unpopular as that he is not able to go about through the city and the country just as any ordinary member of the Dáil, or even of the Executive Council. This first A.D.C., who receives £500 a year does not, I notice, receive any of that from the Army. Now, would it not be possible to do in regard to him what it is proposed to do in regard to the President's chauffeurs, namely, that he should also be taken from the Army? If the President does require protection, who would give him better protection than an officer of the National Army? Furthermore, I do not think that we in this State should be called upon to keep up two rival establishments: a Governor-General with A.D.C's and a President of the Executive Council with A.D.C's. I think it should be either one or the other. There are countries much larger than our country, with far greater wealth and resources, who have first Ministers of State in a similar position to the President of the Executive Council, and I do not know whether they have A.D.C's at all or not.

I do not know whether the Prime Minister of Great Britain has an A.D.C., and I do not think there is any more necessity for the President of the Executive Council to have them. If it is considered it is necessary for the protection of the person of the President—which I altogether scout—that he should have A.D.C's., I suggest that they should be officers of the Army, paid out of the Army Vote, and, if necessary, give them a small increase upon their Army pay and make it part of Army promotion. I do not think that in the interests of economy it looks well to have upon the Estimate special officers set aside for this purpose at a time when I do not think anybody would consider there is necessity for it.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I am not sure that the matter I want to raise comes strictly within this Vote. I addressed a question to the President on the subject before, but I would like to raise it again, and I am determined that he shall not escape me now. It is a matter that has a somewhat international bearing. It is in connection with debts contracted by the British Auxiliary Police Force in this country. When they went around to discharge their debts, they paid fifty per cent. of them, and then proceeded to discharge the other fifty per cent. by the moral persuasion of automatic Colt revolvers. These debts are still unpaid. The matter has something of an international flavour, and I think the President is the proper person to say something on it. What I refer to occurred in Killaloe. When I asked a question about it before, the answer was that the matter could be dealt with through the Colonial or Foreign Office, or some British office. One letter that I received from the President read as follows: "I am desired by the President to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th inst. with enclosures regarding certain unsettled claims with traders in Clare against members of the British Auxiliary Forces, and to say that he is having them dealt with through the Department of Finance on lines already indicated." That was in January last. The British Auxiliaries have gone for some time. When they were sent over here they contracted debts while discharging duties for the British authorities. How are the citizens of this State to proceed against people who, possibly, are in Palestine or somewhere else at the moment, unless the Government of this country affords them some protection or takes some action with a view to giving them an opportunity for compensation? It is very poor compensation to get fifty per cent. of their debts paid and get the remaining fifty per cent in the shape of an automatic revolver. The President ought to have something to say on that matter.

Mr. JOHNSON

Under the same sub-head there is an item for cleaners, messengers and a protective force. I think we should have some information as to the present position of the protective force. I understood that the protective force had been demobilised and that the police who were employed under that title had become part of the Gárda Síochána. The body concerned presumably act in relation to the Government Buildings. I do not think it is good that we should set an example to private employers in this way, and have a special force outside the ordinary police or military. I think the Minister for Justice indicated, when talking in connection with recent Bills, that there should be only one armed force, and I take it this is separate from the ordinary police or Gárda. I would like to have some information on the matter.

Mr. BLYTHE

With reference to the point raised by Deputy Johnson, the protective force is almost demobilised. I think there are only four members remaining and they will be given positions as messengers, or some similar position, as vacancies occur. The sum that is charged against the President of the Executive Council under this heading is really calculated on the floor space occupied. The entire cost of cleaning, messengers, and the protective force for Government buildings is something in the nature of £5,000 per annum. That is divided between various departments on the basis of the floor space occupied by them.

Mr. JOHNSON

Are we to understand that the force is in process of disbandment, and that future protection will be afforded by the ordinary police or military?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

The PRESIDENT

The term "protective force" was applied in the beginning and, although the force has long since lost its protective character, the term has been all along used. Police and military are at the moment doing the duty. There are two or three items that were mentioned to which I wish to reply. Deputy Johnson raised the question of expenses connected with petrol for the motor car. I admit that the car is an expensive one. As far as I have been able to make out, it gives a rather intermittent return, sometimes four or five miles to the gallon and sometimes fourteen. I have not been able to discover the particular journey on which it gives fourteen miles, whether it does so going over level ground or down hill. This service is now a matter for myself since 1st April, and the bills that have been furnished to me in connection with the car would be sufficient to stagger any person under a salary of £4,000 a year. Last week or the week before there were 48 gallons of petrol consumed. Though the money for that quantity is relatively small, 48 gallons is really a big consumption for a week. The oil consumption bears a very poor proportion to the petrol consumption. The oil consumption is as high as 1 gallon to every 8 gallons of petrol. That varies also, and sometimes it runs from 1 gallon of oil to 10 or 12 gallons of petrol. Anybody with experience of cars will realise that it is a rather expensive item.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will you advertise the car by giving it a name?

The PRESIDENT

I am afraid the car will have very little chance of sale after that.

Mr. CORISH

Is that one of the £40 cars?

Captain REDMOND

Give Ford's an order.

The PRESIDENT

I think it was Deputy Redmond who raised the question of the A.D.C.'s. When I assumed the office of President I was provided with four officers by the Army. At that time, of course, conditions were different to what they are now. Last year, on this Vote, some Deputies expressed the opinion that those officers ought to be continued. The reason that there are two is that although the number of hours of actual duty may be very small the continuation over a day is pretty long. I have had them on duty sometimes for 18 hours at a stretch. I am sure the ordinary officer would require to have a day's rest after such a duty as that. I think they take a day on and a day off. They are both officers of the Army. The senior officer formerly was attached to General Collins's staff. He had been for some years with him, and I think it was due to him that he should be appointed. Properly speaking, he is not an Army officer, and properly speaking, I suppose he is. He was in the Army and on my advice he left and took up what he is entitled to take up, a Civil Service post, having been formerly a civil servant. He is a civil servant. At least there are times when he is a civil servant and times when he is an Army officer. It suits my convenience at any rate that he should be the one sometimes and the other at other times.

I do not think, from the point of view of danger, that there is as much necessity as might be thought from some of the entries here. In any case I would be prepared to take the risk if there was any such thing, but I do not think there is. However, it is held by some people that they should be there and they certainly have done their duty very well. The allowance that is given to the extra A.D.C. is less than was given to the A.D.C. to the Governor-General, not that there is any rivalry between my institution and that of his Excellency the Governor-General.

In regard to the matter raised by Deputy Hogan, I think even Deputy Hogan himself would admit, if he were in my place, and I was in his, that he would be very much puzzled by such a matter as he has mentioned. In the Department of Defence and other Departments we have refused to accept responsibility for the debts of officials, and soldiers or officers of the Army, and I think that the British Government would be in a position to repudiate any charge in connection with the Auxiliaries. Had that matter been brought to our notice immediately after the Treaty was signed, and before these men left the country, I think we would have been able to do something in the matter, but even if it had we could not have forced a settlement. I heard of no case in which officers or soldiers on active service during the war incurring debts could be brought to book by their respective Ministers of War. Disciplinary action might be taken against individuals, if information were given in time, but I rather think that if a commissioned officer in the British Army— Captain Redmond might possibly correct me—does not pay his debts it is rather difficult to deal with him, from the point of view of the Minister of War. I believe the traders in question have lost their opportunity by allowing the time to elapse that has elapsed. It would have been necessary to have acquainted us with this matter so that we could press for a settlement before they left the country. I doubt if they were truculent, or if we did not get sympathetic consideration, that it would be possible for the British Government to have interfered in the matter.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

The position is that these people had pass-books and a regular account was kept. I am informed by an ex-Major of the British Army, who could not possibly be considered as giving anything beyond what was purely a formal statement of the facts to which he is prepared to testify, that these officers went about in full war paint knowing that they were about to leave the town, and asked for the bill. When it was presented to them they said: "Divide that by two." Everybody knows the effect of a British Auxiliary's revolver when it was swinging at his knee. There was no adequate protection at the time. These people could do nothing but divide the bill by two and get half. Is it to be said that the State can afford no protection or provide no compensation for these citizens, where these people were able to get away with the boodle? I am sure the President appreciates the situation. I am sure he should appreciate it to the extent of making an effort to get the British Colonial Office to see that these people are compensated, because they acted on behalf of the British Government while they were here, and they made the people of that particular town understand that in other matters they were acting on behalf of the British authorities. In the matter of contracting debts they were also acting on behalf of the British authorities.

The PRESIDENT

Taking another aspect of the case, this was absolutely loot, and the British Government have refused to accept any liability in respect of loot committed by any of their forces. In the case of my mother's house, it was raided 73 or 74 times. There was a considerable amount of damage done and a considerable amount of loot took place during that time. What did the Wood Renton Commission offer? I believe that she was sent a cheque for £25 to cover 73 or 74 raids.

Mr. HOGAN

That is in keeping with the Wood Renton Commission.

The PRESIDENT

I think that is an unfair statement. The Wood Renton Commission, it is only fair to say, had a very hard task and, although everybody may not have been satisfied, I really believe that never before did a Commission or Court meet with such general satisfaction as that Commission did.

Mr. HOGAN

Whatever about the Wood Renton Commission, surely the President will not call it loot when responsible officers of the Government at the time contract debts, when a passbook is kept between these parties, and when these responsible officers who happen to be leaving the country can use the fear that they had created or the reign of terror that they had created as a percentage payment of their debts. Surely that is not loot. Contracting a debt and paying for it in fear is not loot.

The PRESIDENT

I may say that we had this question of what was loot and what was confiscation on before, and Mr. O'Higgins, Minister for Justice, said he had in mind a man whose motor bicycle was being taken away by Auxiliaries or Black and Tans. The unfortunate man, dashing down the road after the officers, said: "Will you tell me whether you are confiscating it or looting it?" If it were confiscated he would be paid for it, but if it was looted he would get nothing.

Mr. HEWAT

I do not think that this case that has been brought before the House is such an extraordinary case at all. I think you will get analogous cases in connection with the settlement of the accounts that were dealt with subsequent to the departure of the Black and Tans. I think the Deputy will find that very few of the accounts that were submitted to the Government for goods supplied during the period of stress and trouble were ever paid for at 20s. in the £.

Mr. HOGAN

Do two wrongs constitute a right?

Vote put and agreed to.