Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 18.—SECRET SERVICE.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £68,000 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 Seirbhísí Sicréideacha.

That a sum not exceeding £13,000 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 Secret Services.

As the Deputies will notice, this amount has been decreased by £15,000 as compared with last year's estimate. We hope that next year the same account will be substantially less, perhaps not by so much as £15,000, but by a substantial sum. By that time we will be able to come down to what might be the normal provision for certain matters for the public safety.

Will the Minister say how much was spent last year?

I could not at the moment. I think it was substantially under £35,000. I should say about £25,000.

I think the amount is still too great. If any sum is required at all, I think that we ought not to vote £20,000 for this purpose. I want to raise the question of the administration of this money, and also the question of the responsibility for the disbursement of secret service moneys. As far as I can gather, from the information that has been published, the money is disbursed on the certificate of a Minister subject to the sanction of the Minister for Finance. I understand that that sanction is automatic. I want to put the case which is, perhaps, a little bit unlikely, but quite possible. That is where the Minister for Finance would be the person to decide to disburse secret service funds. There is no examination, there is no check. There is his certificate. That is the position, as I understand it, with regard to the disbursement of these moneys. Nominally, it may be said that the Executive Council is responsible, but I think that there ought to be a regulation or understanding, that no moneys shall be disbursed out of this fund unless it has been formally sanctioned by the Executive Council. The whole question of secret service moneys is a difficult one, and I suppose, unless one has had something to do with the disbursements, it is almost impossible for one to speak intelligently about the question. But the fact that we are asked to vote £20,000 to be disbursed on the personal certificate of the Minister, without any record of how it is spent, why it is spent, or for whom it is spent, suggests that the system requires a little correction. I do not think that we should agree to vote a sum of £20,000 to be spent on the certificate of a Minister, and I, at any rate, would like an assurance, that no Minister gives a certificate in respect of the spending of secret service moneys unless there has been a formal understanding with the members of the Executive Council, and that the purpose for which the money is voted has been formally sanctioned by the Executive Council. The Minister for Finance is the responsible Minister, and if the practice were allowed to grow up—that only he is to check the certificate and give final sanction—the Minister for Finance might be the disburser of moneys which we vote and for which no account is given. That, I think, is a fault in the administration of this fund, and I would like to have some information from the Minister as to the practice, apart from the amount voted.

The practice is—I think it is a necessary practice—that there should be no disbursement by the Minister for Finance—that the Minister for Finance should be the sanctioning and, as it were, the supervising Minister and that he should take the place, to some extent, of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in respect of this matter. But the practice is that he should not either certify for or control the actual disbursement of moneys. That practice ensures that there are two Ministers involved, one of which is the Minister for Finance. It is not a fact that the sanction of the Minister for Finance is automatic. It has been the practice to have the Minister who requires the money submit to the Minister for Finance a statement of the purposes for which it is required, and it would be possible for the Minister for Finance to demand any proofs that he thought reasonable in the matter. It may not be possible nor desirable to get the names of individuals. Sometimes, I should say, it would be impossible to have the public business done, if individuals knew that their names were going to be circulated to any unnecessary extent. But the position is, at any rate, that you have an officer of State who is not connected with the handling of the money, but simply issues it to another Minister or to some person nominated by another Minister to receive it direct. I think there have been many cases where the matter was directly before the Executive Council and dealt with by them, but there were cases where that was not thought to be necessary. For instance, there are, at fairly frequent intervals, demands from the Department of Justice for comparatively small sums—sums of from fifty to one hundred and fifty pounds. They are matters of a routine character, and it is not necessary to bring them before the Executive Council. So far, the great bulk of the money has been spent through the Army, and I have had long sessions with the Chief of Staff and the Director of Intelligence—the Minister for Defence being present—in order that we should satisfy ourselves as to the use of the money and the type of Intelligence Service that was being maintained with the money.

I quite see Deputy Johnson's position which is one that I certainly recognise. Immediately that I became Minister for Finance, I decided that the Minister for Finance must have nothing whatever to do with money and must never draw money himself. Subject to that, I think it is an obvious precaution to bring two Ministers into every transaction. Beyond that, I think you cannot go substantially in matters of secret service.

Apart from the practice up to date, is there anything in the form of the requirements that would prevent the Minister for Finance from drawing money and disbursing it? I am now looking forward and not thinking of the position at the moment, but I can see the possibility that, in the present form and arrangement of this, unless there is some other kind of check, there is the possibility of a Minister for Finance calling for the issue of so much money out of the Secret Service Vote and disbursing that. I want to know if there is anything to prevent that?

I could not say whether there is, in law, anything to prevent it or not, but it certainly has not been done. I agree with the Deputy as fully as it is possible to agree that it should not be done. That is a matter which, if felt desirable, we could arrange for.

I certainly think it would be worth while devising some way whereby there would be a prohibition upon the Minister for Finance receiving moneys which are not to be accounted for, at least as a check. The fact that two Ministers, at any rate, would be cognisant of the purposes for which the secret service money was spent would be a check, and I think it would be desirable if some way could be devised whereby there would be no possibility of the Minister for Finance being the spending authority in the matter.

That is a matter that I will look into. I think it is entirely reasonable.

I had some conversation with the Minister for Finance previously about this matter of secret service. I should like to say that, during his absence last year, it may have happened that, as Minister for Defence, I made application to the Minister for Finance for some moneys under this particular Vote. I should say that, in that case, it would form the exception to the rule mentioned by the Minister—that these matters are not quite automatic. I think there was something automatic about that, but it was inevitable in that case, and it is unlikely that such a situation as that will arise again.

That is really the sort of thing that Deputy Johnson's suggestion would guard against if we made a certain definite arrangement. It would mean that another Minister, although not immediately concerned in the matter, would have to be called into consultation.

I beg to move a reduction of £10,000 in the Estimate asked for by the Minister. It is quite clear, from the Minister's statement, that most of the money that has been spent on secret service has been spent either in connection with the Army service or with the service that is supervised by the Department of Justice. In this year's Estimates, provision is made for a sum of £4,527,000 for these two Departments—the Army and the Gárda Síochána. That figure would represent, so far as the population of the Saorstát is concerned, roughly a figure of 30/- per head for the supervision of the citizens of this State, and for the purpose of seeing that they obey the laws passed in this Dáil. In view of that very high estimate, and of the Minister's admission that most of the money now asked for in this Vote will eventually find its way out through the Minister for Defence, or the Minister for Justice, I think that this Vote is altogether uncalled for. I feel convinced myself, perhaps no other Deputy may feel in the same way, that this secret service department does not serve any useful purpose. I have heard it stated, and I believe there is some justification for the statement, that the money which goes out through a Vote of this kind is actually spent in paying secret service agents to spy on the political opponents of the Government. If that is so, and I believe there is some justification for the statement, then, in my opinion, the money is not usefully spent. If the money is set aside for purely secret service work, and if we are to take some of the things that have happened in this country as an indication of the usefulness of that service, I think one would have to agree that we are not getting a return for the money that is being spent. If we take the Cobh murder as an example, I think the Minister for Finance must admit that the return for the money spent on the secret service work done in connection with that murder has been nil. There are other examples that could also be quoted.

A statement was made in this House on one occasion by a Deputy who is not now present, but who is still a Member, that secret service agents were to be found in the lobbies outside and in the precincts of the House with their ears cocked to hear the conversations going on amongst Deputies.

No such secret service agents, if there are any such, were ever paid out of this Vote or were ever countenanced as such by any Government Department or any Minister. This money has not been spent for the purpose of spying on the political opponents of the Government.

Well, then, to pay the organisers of the Cumann na nGaedheal.

Where is the money coming from?

A generous, confiding public make available all that we want.

If the debate serves no more useful purpose than to call forth the President's denial of the statements to which I have referred, and which have been going the rounds, well, then, it will have served a very useful purpose.

If you were on these benches the very same statements would be made about you.

I make a statement which I know to be true, so far as I am concerned myself, and if I gave the name of a responsible Government supporter who told me, to the President he would believe it. I asked a question, perhaps a very nasty one so far as the Government are concerned, with regard to a certain thing that was alleged to have happened in the Army. I was afterwards reliably informed that I must have been in close touch with some high officer in the Army so as to be able to put that question in the form in which I did put it on the Order Paper. I was advised then, not only in my own interests but in the interests of the person who was alleged to be in communication with me, that it would be better for me to keep clear of that individual for some time. Of course, there was the insinuation there, at least so I gathered from the statement that was made to me, that if this Army officer was ever seen speaking to me that whoever he was he would get the order of the boot. I know, as a matter of fact, that afterwards an Army officer was accused of giving me information, and the strange thing about it was that it was the wrong Army officer that was so accused, and I believe he suffered to some extent.

Who was the right Army officer? Would yon inform us now?

I certainly cannot break confidence on that point. I make the statement merely to show that members of the Dáil who ask questions here in the ordinary way of discharging their duty, when supplied with information, apparently have secret service agents put to watch over and guard them, and to watch those with whom they are in communication. I make the statement simply to show that if that is where the money is expended, there is no justification for the Department bringing on a Vote to be spent in that way. The President did not let me develop the point in regard to the agents of the Government in and around this House listening to members of the Dáil discussing this, that and the other, and in the dining-room as well. I only make the suggestion to the President and the Minister for Finance that no money should be authorised by him for payment for secret service to those who find their way into this House to spy upon members of the House. If secret service agents have to interview Ministers or members of the House concerning the duties they have to perform, I suggest that they should go to Government Buildings and see the Ministers there during their ordinary office hours and not be allowed into this House at all.

May I say, for the information of the Dáil, no information for which money is voted here is supplied directly to Ministers. It is supplied to officers of the Department concerned. There never was any intention of spending any money for getting any political information. One thing alone concerns us in regard to this particular service, and that is the stability of the State and the efforts of certain people to subvert it. If Deputy Davin, or Deputy Gorey, or Deputy Thrift were here in our position they would have to follow the same course and would have to meet with the same trouble.

I am seriously suggesting, and I will continue to hold the view until some statement is put forward to prove the contrary, that no case can be made out to warrant a vote of this kind, and that no case can be made out by the Minister responsible for the spending of this money to show that any good work, or useful work, or any information of a useful nature, has ever been conveyed to the Government that would warrant this particular vote. I cited one case that shows the uselessness of this.

What case was that?

The Cobh case.

What has that to do with secret service?

The Deputy may cite more cases than that in which we have not traced certain criminals, but that is no argument against those which have been traced. The percentage was outlined by the Minister for Justice, and it showed up fairly well, and if the Deputy read yesterday's newspapers he would see that another country suffers from the same disability of being unable to bring certain criminals to justice.

I cannot agree to accept a newspaper report of something the President is thinking about, whatever I might do as to officially reported statements made by Ministers. If the nation has to find £4,427,000 for an Army of 15,000 men, and 8,000 roughly of a police force, the Army and the police forces ought to be able to do the useful work necessary to protect the State under the present Constitution. I believe the fact that we are prepared to vote a sum for secret service representing £20,000, being a reduction of £15,000 on last year's estimate, is calculated to cause a feeling of distrust amongst the people. God knows we are suspicious enough of one another without going any further in that direction. I move a reduction, feeling and believing that this vote is not a good thing for the nation. The nation is not in any danger to-day.

How do you know?

We are supposed to be told these things here in the House. It was the feeling of Ministers and Government supporters during the recent elections. The President's statement the other day at Ennis was an indication of what the position of the State is at the present time. I suggest, seriously, that statements of that kind should not be denied in the House while we have speeches like that of the President and other Ministers to rely on during election periods. I, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote. If the Minister can put up any case to show that in the past sums paid out of these funds have served any useful purpose I will accept that.

I am content to let the Deputy's statement stand. He is not responsible for the Government of the country. We are.

I think two points made by Deputy Davin have not been replied to. This vote comes under the control either of the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Justice. If that is so the amounts voted should come under either of these two heads.

All the votes for the Department of Justice or for the Army must be accounted for. Vouchers must be produced and payments must come through the ordinary routine and through the hands of scores of civil servants. Nothing that requires privacy or secrecy could be provided in the ordinary votes.

This is money for intelligence. This Vote is £15,000 less than last year. How could it be that without the Civil Service knowing it?

The Civil Service has nothing to do with it.

Can it not be accounted for by a particular Minister?

I personally inspected the books and documents with the Minister for Finance, and I was satisfied with the returns shown to me, but I would not allow this to come through the Civil Service. It has to go through a particular official.

The President missed the point. Let it come through particular hands, but let the Minister be responsible, if necessary. It is here before us in a vague way. Is it put up by anyone?

It is put up by me. I know, or can know, if any sufficient cause requires this expenditure. The Department of Justice may spend some of it; the Department of Defence may spend some; conceivably the Department of External Affairs may spend some. It has not done so, so far, but it might. Other countries, at times, require to get information. The money so spent cannot be accounted for. It cannot be allowed to come through the hands of civil servants, and you cannot have it submitted to a dozen officials in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's office. You cannot have full publicity as long as the State requires this secret service, and as long as it requires its information you must have something in the nature of a secret service. Anything spent through the ordinary Civil Service channels must come under the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. There can be no privacy and secrecy, and that is necessary here as much as in other countries. It is all very well to say that the State is in no danger. No, because the adequate precautions have been taken. One cannot do everything through the ordinary police channels. Even when done through the ordinary police channels money may be required that cannot be provided through the ordinary police channels.

I quite appreciate the difficulty of running a modern State without some fund of this kind. I wish I could think that we could do it. I wish I could bring myself to the view that such a fund could be dispensed with entirely.

I am very strongly of opinion that it ought be brought down to the very smallest possible sum. For three years back we have voted sums, and in each year there has been a very big over-estimate. The sums which have been voted have not been spent. I think the position of the country, so far as it has been disclosed, would warrant us in saying that just as there has been an over-estimate in the past three years, if we voted £20,000 this year it would likewise be an over-estimate.

I hope so.

The Minister says he hopes so. I would suggest to the Minister that we should not now vote £20,000 unless there is a very clear expectation that some such sum will be required for the normal purposes of the secret service. The Minister thinks that there may be a reduction next year and that possibly we could arrive at some figure which might be considered normal. The responsibility, of course, lies with the Minister as to what amount will be required; but I would press the view that £20,000 is an over-estimate. If there is no expectation at this date that such a sum would be needed, then we ought not to vote more than would be required. If necessary the Minister might come back for a supplementary estimate.

That would not be a judicious course. A supplementary estimate would be very difficult.

A supplementary estimate would be very difficult? I quite agree. But are we to take it there is an expectation that the state of things in the country is becoming worse rather than better?

Better rather than worse, of course.

I should think it would be better rather than worse, and therefore, we ought not to vote now a sum over and above what our expectations are in this matter. I press for a reduction to the lowest possible minimum.

I think the answer to Deputy Johnson is that suggested by the President. The secret service seems to me to be one of the services where you cannot very well come for a supplementary estimate. Such a course would certainly do very considerable damage. It would do damage if, in the middle of the year, the Government has to come along and say: "We want a supplementary estimate." That would stimulate a type of mischief that one would not like to have stimulated. It certainly would create a very unsatisfactory position. If this were a vote for some ordinary service, it would be a very different matter. On the information I have I would make it a few thousand pounds less. I expect there will be some saving on the £20,000. I am not estimating for, or anticipating, the expenditure of the full amount, but you must remember that anything might arise. If, last year, when we had an estimate of £35,000, we had been cut down to the narrowest margin, owing to the state of feeling that then existed, and that existed for some time after that, I would have felt very uneasy if I had not available a sum that could have been used in any way that would have been thought proper for the secret service and that would have enabled the Department of Defence and the police to meet any development that might have arisen.

The Deputy should remember that only very recently we came out of chaotic conditions, and that we still have people amongst us who have actual experience of how easy it is to create enormous trouble in the country, people who were only lately out in arms. We are not in the condition in which a country would be where nobody had any actual experience or recent experience of revolt, and where there would be a hesitation on the part of anybody, no matter how much they might be inclined to do it, to attack the State and come out into the open. Here things might come much more rapidly to a head than in a country which had come through a peaceful period. The Deputy will understand all that, and how easy it would be for a comparatively small number of determined people to give a good deal of disturbance. It could be done in various ways, and we know that there are always people advocating it. There is no doubt that the possibility of their doing anything or getting anything is very much less and the possibility of a large number of people being led by them is also getting less.

The situation is certainly improving very steadily. The possibilities of any sudden or considerable action in the nature of a revolt are getting less day by day. At the same time, one never knows what sort of temporarily unfavourable turn events might take, and we ought to be provided with the means for dealing with any such likelihood in any way that may be deemed necessary in order to secure the safety of the State. I do hope that next year we can ask for a very much lower sum; but I do not really want now to take the minimum, thus providing for no unfavourable contingency. One might have to come back to the Dáil so as to be able to provide the Minister concerned with the funds necessary to enable him to deal with any situation that would arise, and that would be required in the interests of the State.

I took exception to this amount, but I must now say that I accept the Minister's explanation. I think his explanation has done good. As Deputy Davin has said, the explanation in itself will have done some good. Last year, as Deputy Davin has said, there was considerable talk about Secret Service men going into the Lobbies and listening to what was being said. I do not think that that was denied by the principal party concerned; as a matter of fact, he admitted it. We are glad to know that this Vote has nothing to do with that class of thing. I recognise there is still a necessity for this service, and I am satisfied if the Minister thinks he is getting value for the money. I thought that this service would come more closely in contact with the Department of Justice or the Department of Defence, and that those Departments could more accurately judge whether they were getting value for the money. The Minister, however, says the Department is under him. I do not want to get into any Cabinet secrets, but I do think it seems an enormous sum when taken in conjunction with the Gárda Síochána Vote and the Army Vote. Ordinary Deputies would imagine that this amount should be attached to either Vote, or to both. It is well we have had an explanation, and, in the circumstances, perhaps Deputy Davin would reconsider his proposal.

The Minister apparently did not want to give any information. I think a Deputy is entitled to ask fairly reasonable questions. Is it not a fact that you have in an Army of 15,000 men a considerable number of intelligence officers, who move around fairly freely in wide areas? They hold different ranks and they are paid for getting the information which we are asked to believe the Secret Service men are getting in the ordinary way.

They are not paid twice.

I am not suggesting that they are paid twice. They are doing the work which ordinary intelligence officers or secret service agents will continue to do as long as we have an Army.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy unduly, but what information does he think one of these intelligence officers could get, if he had not a penny to spend directly, as to Irregular activities, in his area?

Not in this country at any rate.

I have a case in my mind. I know one intelligence officer and he told me he was one.

We do not know anybody.

He was a pretty good man in the pre-Truce days. He told me that he became a member of an alleged revolutionary labour organisation and that he was actually appointed Secretary of the organisation. That is only one example of what may be going on. I do not know what is done with this money, but this particular man holds a rank in the Army. He is an I.O. and he is paid out of Army funds. Further, he is doing work which the Minister for Finance expects to get done out of a Vote of this kind.

He is an exceptional man.

You have the members of the Gárda Síochána who are also detectives and who are quite capable of doing all the work, to see that this State is safeguarded from attack from individuals, or organised bodies. I was told—and I ask the Minister to contradict it if it is not so—that men can come up from the country and go to Portobello or Collins Barracks, give information about some neighbour in the country having so many guns and that they will get three, four, five, ten, or twenty pounds and go home pretty comfortable. I want to know if the Minister's supervising authority merely means that he authorises payment as being a legal payment, where there is a certain amount of money in charge of an officer to be paid out immediately some individual comes along with that information? Are we to understand definitely and finally that no payment is to be made by another Minister or himself until he is satisfied that the information received is valuable or some kind of assistance to the State under the circumstances, and that the money does not go out until he authorises it?

You could not understand that. I have to know for what sort of thing it is paid. In the case of the Army I authorise certain sums to be paid to the Director of Intelligence for certain purposes. Any further examination of that will be carried out by the Minister for Defence or by the Chief of Staff. It depends on the amount of secrecy that would have to be involved. I do not in that particular case go into individual matters. In the case of the Army, which is a bigger thing, there is a considerable amount of work done and there is a considerable service there, if I may put it that way. In the case of justice matters it is rather different. They are dealing more with individual cases. What Deputy Davin says in another respect is perfectly true. The police forces are getting out into the country, getting to know the people, and probably opening up veins and channels of information that will tend very rapidly to make the more or less elaborate Army system superfluous. This is a thing that will of course tend to a reduction of this Vote very rapidly, but of course it is only comparatively recently that the police have got to that stage. They are only beginning to get a hold on things. There is also, of course, the fact that matters are calming down.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share