Under the heading of "Warlike Stores" in 1924-25 the sum granted was £136,519; in 1925-26 it came down to £49,424. This year the sum asked for is £43,487. I do not know what the figure would be regarding the actual expenditure, but I think it is desirable that we should have some information regarding this provision for warlike stores. I might say regarding the Appropriation Accounts for the year in which £136,000 was granted only £38,000 was spent. What was spent in 1925-26, of course, is not known yet. But in view of the time of peace since 1923 it is difficult to understand why this considerable expenditure on warlike stores, each year about the same amount, should be required, and I think it is important that we should have some statement regarding it. In particular, I would like to know whether the Minister's declared policy regarding second-hand or Disposals Board materials applies in the case of warlike stores as well as the general stores. In particular I would wish the Minister to tell us whether in any recent purchase, or in any contemplated purchase of aeroplanes it has been the policy to purchase old, reconditioned machines or newly-built machines. I do not know in what year the purchase of aeroplanes was made or what account it might have been charged against, whether 1924-25, 1925-26, or even prior to that. I think, as a matter of fact, there have been purchases of aeroplanes within the last year or eighteen months. I would like to know whether those aeroplanes have been purchased as new machines or reconditioned old machines, and whether, if the latter, there was care shown in the purchase and ample test made before delivery was taken. If, on the contrary, there were new machines purchased, has the Minister been satisfied that new machines were delivered? Then in respect of the purchase of ammunition. I would like to know whether it has been the policy of the Ministry in the purchase of rifle cartridges to purchase new cartridges or old cartridges, 1925 cartridges or 1920 cartridges, and whether there has been care taken in the purchase, whether it has turned out, in fact, that a very considerable proportion of those delivered recently have been cast as unsatisfactory, and will the Minister confirm or correct the statement that as many as 14,000,000 rifle cartridges have been purchased for delivery within the year, or delivered in any small portion of the year, and if anything like that proportion of cartridges has been purchased, will the Minister give us some justification for the expenditure on that quantity at this time. I have no idea at all what the value of cartridges might be, but a quantity such as I have mentioned must, inevitably, cost a large sum of money, and I do not think any prospective demand upon the ammunition reserve would justify having so large a quantity of ammunition in store. I presume, if my figures are approximately correct, they are additional to the stock already in hands. So there must be, at the present time, or in contemplation, an immense reserve of rifle ammunition. If my suggestions are baseless, then I shall be pleased to have the refutation immediately from the Minister, but if I am correctly informed, or if any quantity even in or about the figure I have named is accurate, then I think it is desirable that the Minister should justify the expenditure of so large a sum as would be required to purchase so large a quantity of rifle ammunition.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE.
I take it that it is under this heading the purchase of officers' swords is accounted for. I would like the Minister to say how many officers it is contemplated will be supplied with this parade sword. What is the value of these swords, and is a sword considered a necessary equipment for an officer in present-day circumstances?
I think I might as well dispose of Deputy Wilson's question right away. Officers have swords and will carry swords, and I think they are a necessary equipment for officers. They are not costing the taxpayer anything. I am sure Deputy Wilson will be glad to hear that.
I am.
The officers have purchased these swords themselves out of their own money.
Voluntarily?
Yes.
May they choose not to purchase them if they wish?
Officers are supposed at the present time to wear swords instead of the revolvers they were carrying heretofore while on duty. When the question was put up to me to give sanction for the swords I demurred somewhat about giving sanction to purchase swords at the public expense, and the officers agreed amongst themselves that, as long as they got permission to wear swords as part of their equipment, they would purchase them at their own expense, and they have done so.
I think it is important that the Minister should state this clearly—is it or is it not within the option of any officer to decline to purchase a sword?
No. sir. I take it that every officer will have to equip himself with a sword now, because I certainly would not stand for one half of the officers of the Army wearing swords and the other half going without swords.
Why do we not pay for them?
If the Dáil thinks it is necessary a Vote can be brought in any day to pay for the swords. If the Dáil is prepared to vote the money, I am prepared to hand back to the officers the few pounds they have paid for the swords, but until that is done, and until the House tells me it is an absolute necessity to do that at the public expense, I am not inclined to do it. As regards the question Deputy Johnson has raised about the war-like stores, nothing like the amount of ammunition he has suggested—14,000,000 rounds of rifle ammunition—is being purchased this year. A certain amount of ammunition is being purchased for the purpose of keeping up our reserve and for the replacement of what would be wasted in training and manoeuvres generally. That replacement will be made during the year. We have a reserve of ammunition, and we are bound to have a reserve of ammunition. I think that the Army Chief who would say that he should be left high and dry with a few rounds of ammunition behind him would not be a man that could be trusted in a position of that kind. It is necessary to have a reserve, and the amount of that reserve is what is considered normal and reasonable.
The Deputy also raised the question of second-hand stores. I think I have already stated before in this House that I do not intend, and never intended, to purchase second-hand stores. I have not done it in the past, where it could be avoided, and it is not my intention to do it in the future. Any article which can be purchased, let it be ever so small, will be purchased new. Even if we have to wait for twelve months, my policy is to buy new materials wherever it is possible to get them.
Would the Minister say whether, in the case of the ammunition that was purchased, it was new ammunition or old ammunition?
The ammunition purchased last year was up-to-date ammunition; it is new and serviceable. It was put into store, and it can be taken out this year, next year, or whenever it comes in turn. There was, as I am sure Deputy Johnson knows from his connection with the Public Accounts Committee, a certain amount of old ammunition bought four or five years ago. That ammunition was not of a class fit for storage. It has been used up to a very large extent, and any of it that was considered dangerous was destroyed. The purchase of such ammunition does not take place now; ammunition of that type was not bought last year or the year before, and it will not be bought in future.
I raise that matter because I know the information is being retailed and I want to give the Minister an opportunity to make it clear, as he has now done, that any cast ammunition was old, not new.
I am quite clear about that; there is not the slightest doubt about it. The ammunition purchased last year was perfectly new, and the ammunition that will be purchased this year will be new. All that ammunition is made for storage, and we can keep it over two or three years. It will be used in the ordinary way, and we will get replacements every year. What we buy this year will be placed in reserve and will be taken out next year or the year after. It is ammunition which can safely be kept in reserve.
As I told the Deputy, there was ammunition made, not for us particularly, but for general purposes during the war; that ammunition was not made for storage, and it would not keep more than two years at the outside. We got that ammunition; we had to take what we got at the time. It has been used up as far as possible and any that was considered dangerous was destroyed. As far as last year's purchases are concerned, it was all up-to-date ammunition, ammunition I can vouch for. I am glad to have an opportunity of refuting the statements that have been, and are being, made about purchases of that kind.
Deputy Johnson referred to aeroplanes. I think we have passed the item touching on aeroplanes, but if the Deputy wishes to get any information about aeroplanes, I will be glad to give it to him.
I asked a question in regard to aeroplanes when we were touching that sub-head, and the Ceann Comhairle mentioned that I could raise that point under the sub-head dealing with war-like stores.
I am prepared to give the Deputy any information he requires in regard to aeroplanes. We purchased some aeroplanes, and we got the type of machine we wanted. The machines were of a type in use and that was tested in other places. Some people wanted to carry out experiments with new machines in connection with which trials had not been completed. I did not think I was justified in having experiments of that kind, and I decided to take the type of machines that were tried and that are, in fact, in use at the present time and are associated with bigger armies in other places. They are machines that have passed the experimental stage. I stipulated for new machines, but when the machines were delivered we discovered that the engines were reconditioned engines. There was no secret about that, because the log-books were sent along with the machines, and we knew exactly everything that happened each machine from the day it was made. We knew how many hours they were in the air and everything else about them. After a good deal of discussion and negotiation we fixed on prices.
We are aware that these engines are not made new at the present time; it is impossible to get them made new. They are the very same engines that are being utilised by the British Government. They are reconditioned engines, and, from the technical information I could get from people who are able to advise me on this matter, I am given to understand that the machines are air-worthy. They have been duly certified, and, as far as I am advised, they have given every satisfaction since they came here. I had more than one discussion with the officer in charge on this matter, and he is satisfied that the machines are satisfactory. The machines did not come into our possession as new machines. The engines, I should say, are not new; we knew when we were getting them that they were not new, but the rest of the machines is absolutely new.
The price was fixed on the knowledge that you have now related?
Yes. I think it is not necessary to go any further into that matter. I have given the Committee a clear statement of what actually happened.
Will the Minister state if the machine in which the late Major Moloney was killed was in perfect order before he brought it out manoeuvring? Will there we any compensation paid to the dependents of Major Moloney?
I believe the machine in which Major Moloney unfortunately lost his life was air-worthy. Major Moloney was an officer of very high intelligence as an airman and he was satisfied with the machine. He knew all about it and had flown it on many occasions. I believe it was an air-worthy machine the morning he took it out. Unfortunately, he met his death, and as far as anybody can make out his death was due to an accident, an accident that nobody, to this day, can explain.
I suppose the Minister saw the report in the Press that the machine was not in order and that Major Moloney, before he went out, mentioned that it was not in perfect order?
I did not see that report, and if such reports do appear in the Press I am not responsible for them. I do not believe everything I see in the Press, and I am sure the Deputy does not, either.
The statement was not contradicted. It was a rather serious statement to make and it should have been contradicted.
The machine that Major Moloney unfortunately lost his life in was not one of the machines under discussion at the present time. It was a machine purchased at an earlier period, and Major Moloney knew exactly the condition of that machine. It was the Major's duty, if the machine was not in order, to report it to his Commanding Officer. I am not assuming the machine was not in perfect condition.
Does the Minister say that Major Moloney did not report it to the Commanding Officer?
If Major Moloney reported it to the Commanding Officer, the Commanding Officer never reported it to me.
Will compensation be paid to the dependents of Major Moloney?
I do not think that matter arises now.
If he reported that the machine was not in order I think that his dependents, in the circumstances, are entitled to compensation.
I do not think that has any relation to the subject under discussion.
I desire to say a few words on two items of sub-head T— Military lands. The cost of tillage is set down at £1,123, and besides that there is an item of £250 for feeding and shoeing five horses, and for farm implements, etc. These two items, taken together, make £1,373. Under the head of Appropriation-in-Aid I see that the value of produce from tillage is £1,265, leaving a loss of £108. I do not raise these matters in any carping or fault-finding spirit. On the contrary, I think I am in a position to congratulate the Minister upon the results shown. It may be that some of the amateur farmers in the Dáil would consider that the Minister should have made a profit. I do not hold that. I think if the accounts of any practical farmer in the Dáil were examined, it would be found that the results shown in similar circumstances would have been, if anything, worse. Deputy Gorey is regarded for his intelligence as a sort of super-man as an agriculturist. I have heard my friend, Deputy Wilson, express his willingness to challenge any Dane or inhabitant of Scandinavia to come to his home farm, and, seeing the methods practised there, to suggest anything in the way of improvement. That being so, I think the result is fairly satisfactory, and we may confidently expect that in future the results will be better because the Minister has in prospect a considerable advantage that he will have in the future when the oatmeal tax is put into operation.
May I ask if it is the intention of the Minister to continue to hold these lands, some of which are held at an enormous rent, and which we got as an inheritance from the former Government? I wish to know if it is necessary, in the interests of the Army, to maintain these places where the rents are out of all proportion to the accommodation required.
Deputy Conlan seems to congratulate the Minister on losing £108 upon tillage. Of course, I understand his point, although I am sure the Deputy will be surprised to hear that on tillage, at Lusk, we made a profit of £333.
That is not shown.
It is shown, and the Deputy must take into account that the Appropriation-in-Aid figure shown there is for all our lands, including mountain land, and all our other lands in the country. We pay a very high rent, as Deputy Wilson has said, for some of our lands, but we cannot surrender them owing to the leases. When the leases fall in we will surrender them as quickly as possible. But we made a profit last year on tillage of £333, and we purpose this year to make a profit of over £500.
Does that make allowance for no rates and no rent?
We charge everything.
In regard to sub-head V, Barrack Services, I move an amendment to reduce the sub-head by a sum of £15,000. In order to make my case I am afraid it may be necessary for me to review the expenditure on furniture and utensils for the Army over a period of three or four years. When our Army took over barracks, from the British, most of these barracks were equipped with furniture, not with private furniture but with the furniture of the British Government. Some of the officers always supplemented the allowance of furniture by armchairs and card-tables and so on, but they took these away before the barracks were handed over. The normal furniture remained. In several cases the officers who took over these barracks were Irregulars, and they either burned the barracks or, at any rate, they took no charge over the furniture, and it is not fair to blame the Minister for Defence or the State for the loss of that furniture. But a certain amount of the furniture in a certain number of barracks taken over was British.
Now in the financial year 1922-23 there was a sum expended to buy new furniture on the part of the Board of Works. I cannot tell the amount; there was no detailed account in that year, but the report of the Public Accounts Committee shows that there were certain bills for furnishing officers' quarters in the financial year 1922-23 which had to be defrayed by the State. In the following year, 1923-24, there was no Vote for furniture or utensils on the Army Vote, but there was a very substantial amount on the Board of Works Vote. The Board of Works exceeded their estimate by a sum of £212,000. The Minister for Finance on the 26th March, 1924, said: "The total amount provided for military purposes, furniture, fittings and utensils, amounts to over £250,000"—that is a quarter of a million pounds. Then the Army also removed a certain amount of furniture from commandeered premises. Where troops were quartered in a commandeered premises, and where they found more beds than were needed, and chairs not needed, they were removed to the various permanent quarters of the Army, so that a quarter of a million pounds is comparatively a low estimate. For furniture and utensils, in 1924, £36,000 was voted. In 1925, £45,000 was voted, so that washing out the 1922-23 Vote altogether, and washing out the compensation for furniture removed from commandeered premises, the Army has had voted in the Dáil, in this regard, on the Estimates, at least £331,000 for furniture and utensils.
As far as utensils are concerned, I do not want to stress the case. Utensils, I take it, include basins, plates and mugs, things that are breakable and that are constantly being broken, things that must be replaced. But I do stress the Vote with regard to furniture. We have provided furniture to the value of £300,000. In this year, apart altogether from utensils, we are asked to provide furniture to the extent of £27,000 more. I suggest to the Dáil that that is unreasonable and excessive. We have equipped an army at the rate of £300,000 for 12,500 men. All that we ought to be asked for in the future is maintenance. I would suggest to the Dáil that £1 per man per year is enough for maintenance. I am confirmed in that belief by the fact that while we estimate for £2 6s. per head for the rank and file of the Army for furniture, the British Army estimate is £1 0s. 7d. and the British have had a longer period for deterioration than we. Therefore, I think this amendment is a moderate and reasonable one. Some replacement of furniture will be needed. You have got to fix a definite scale, and I suggest that the scale of £1 per man is a reasonable scale. There is an Appropriation-in-Aid of £2,000 in regard to barrack damages. I think that is insufficient. If £64,000 is required altogether for furniture and utensils, £2,000 is too low a sum for barrack damages. I would like to know, when the Minister replies, if barrack damages are paid by the officers? In the British Army, when an officer is supplied with the necessary furniture for his quarters, he pays one penny a day as rent for his furniture. That works out at 2/6 per month. It is not a very serious charge on officers. Where we furnish quarters for our officers, I do not think it would be unfair to ask an officer to pay that amount. It is a very small amount, £1 10s. a year. It would just provide for the necessary replacements and repairs. Therefore, I would ask the Dáil to agree with this amendment to reduce this Vote by £15,000.
Perhaps in the course of the Minister's reply he would tell the Dáil what is the scale allowed to the different grades of officers for the furnishing of their quarters. I think I am right in saying that there is a defined scale since the earlier estimates were prepared and the earlier accounts examined. It is desirable that we should be informed what is the scale of allowances of the different grades.
Deputy Cooper makes a rather general statement as regards the furnishing of quarters, and the amount of money spent on furniture since the Army was established. He stressed the fact that the British Army when they went out of occupation here, left behind them a considerable amount of furniture. Last year I visited every post in the country, and as far as I can see, they left very little behind them. Anything they did leave behind them was certainly only fit for a marine dealer. They took jolly good care to take anything that was any good away with them. Our system of furnishing quarters has been a gradual system. We estimated last year for a sum of money to furnish quarters for officers and N.C.O.'s. We got a considerable amount of furniture last year. We did not get it all. It was not possible to get it. As a matter of fact we did not buy it ourselves; the Board of Works bought it for us.
This year we estimate for £27,000 odd and that is to complete our furnishing. From this year there will be only 10 per cent. for ordinary wear and tear and replacement. The capital charge from this year onward will be comparatively nothing—only the ordinary replacements. We did not spend the amount of money the Deputy states in one year; we do it gradually, and this is the last time we will come to the Dáil to ask for money to furnish quarters. In that £27,000 it is proposed to furnish the quarters of officers, married and single. The Deputy, I am sure, does not wish to see officers housed badly. I am sure he would like to see them housed comfortably. I am sure he would say that it is not to the well-being of the officer that he should not be given comfortable quarters to live in. The quarters that I have been in certainly were not fit for an officer and were not furnished in the manner suited to the rank of a person holding the position of an officer. Some of these quarters have no wardrobe or washstands even. The officers had no place in which to hang their clothes. They simply had a bed in the room and a broken chair. In most cases that is all the furniture they had. I have seen this myself. I have taken nobody's word for it. I went very closely through the various barracks and that is what I found in many cases. This £27,000 is the sum that is necessary to equip those quarters in a reasonable way. That item will not appear again in the same shape as it is, but there will be about 10 per cent. for ordinary wear and tear. We do propose further that the N.C.O's. will get quarters separate from the ordinary billets of the men. I think that would be good for discipline. The quarters will be furnished somewhat better than the ordinary billet. I think the Deputy will agree with me that this is a necessity. It appeals to me at any rate and I propose to do it. That is included in the £27,000. It is further proposed to have a gradual improvement and the ordinary day-room in which the men dine will be made somewhat better than the bare table accommodation that one meets in most barracks. I believe that that will do good in the long run, and that it will be well-spent money. It will show the men that they are being given some little comfort and will turn them out better citizens when they return to ordinary life. It does cost a considerable sum of money. Deputy Johnson asked a question as to the scale allowed for the different grades of officers in the furnishing of their quarters. In Grade 1 it is £650, and it comes down then to £450 in the case of captains and lieutenants. That is under the regulations of the present time. As regards barrack damages, under the new regulations we are getting out this will be assessed on the unit, and when the unit is charged it will bring in the officer as well as the men. At the present time officers are not charged barrack damages.
I do not dispute anything the Minister has said. But the Minister, when referring to stores taken over from the British, talks about the inspection that he made in the year 1925—that is only last year. Any inspection of that kind to be of any value should have been made in the year 1922. I do not know if stores taken over from the British Army disappeared, though I think it probable. I know that furniture taken from my own house has disappeared, and that some of it has gone to the houses of officers who are no longer officers of the Army, and that some of it is in the quarters of the Army at the present time. I do not quarrel with that.
I should like if the Deputy would tell me where exactly his furniture is and if he can identify it.
Perhaps the Minister would inquire where some of his presses and chests of drawers in Finner Camp came from. I am not quarrelling. I am being compensated for that furniture on the Board of Works Vote. My furniture has gone and I am getting fairly adequate compensation for it. But there is a lot of furniture which has not come under this Vote but has gone on the Board of Works Vote. I will tell the Minister the names of the officers who, I believe, removed my furniture.
I do not want that— the names of the officers who, the Deputy believes, removed his furniture. That is going too far. I want to get the names of the officers who removed it, and to get information as to where the furniture exactly is. This is a serious allegation to make against men regarding furniture which the Deputy says he does not want back. Let us be honest about this thing and let us have the information now.
I am not going to name any officer under shelter of the privilege of the Dáil. I prefer not to give them. But I have been told by a man whom I believe to be truthful that furniture was removed from my house to Finner Camp. I believe it was removed by military agency. I am being paid reasonable compensation for that furniture. I do not allege dishonesty or any unfair treatment. I only allege that this Vote is not the whole Vote for furniture. I allege that the Army has commandeered furniture; that it has spent a quarter of a million from the Board of Works Vote on furniture, and that still we are asked to provide more furniture. That is the point I make. I am not suggesting that there is any unfair treatment of me at all. I put in my claim for furniture and for commandeering of my house, and, on the whole, I have been treated with fairness. I have not got all I asked, but I have been treated very fairly. I am not making a personal grievance at all. I hope the Minister will not believe that I am trying to make a personal grievance.
I do not accuse the Deputy of that.
The figure that I have referred to does not come into the Army Estimate for furniture at all. There was a quarter of a million voted on the Board of Works Vote for furniture in 1923-24 for the Army. Having voted a quarter of a million on furniture when the Army was 50,000 strong —that was £5 per head, and the rank and file do not need very much furniture—we are steadily increasing the Vote. The figures were £36,000, then £45,000, and now the figure is £27,000. I do not want to put my argument too strongly, but I would suggest to the Minister that there is not sufficient control of furniture in the Army—that, in some cases, where men are not supplied with fuel, they have been burning the chairs. I have some chairs with the backs burnt off. I had some doors in my own house with the panels knocked out. I, therefore, know of these things.
I would like if the Deputy would stick to the barrack furniture and would not trouble so much about the chairs in his house that have the backs burnt off and the doors with the panels knocked out. I have not the 1923-24 Estimates before me, and I should like if the Deputy would inform me whether the quarter of a million he refers to was for the purposes of the Army or for the purposes of the Board of Works? I am of opinion that the quarter of a million was for the purchase of furniture by the Board of Works for Government establishments generally.
I regret that the Minister for Finance is not here. I can only quote his words: "The total amount provided for military purposes amounts to over £250,000." That was with regard to "furniture, fittings and utensils." If the Minister for Finance was wrong, I am not to blame. That is an exact quotation from the Official Report.
The Deputy states the amount was for furniture, fittings and utensils. We are dealing here with an item of £27,000 for furniture. If we are going to bring in that quarter of a million for furniture, fittings and utensils I should like to know how much of it was for furniture and how much of it was for fittings and utensils. It is not quite fair to say that a quarter of a million was spent in that year for furniture for the Army. The Deputy says that he is quoting the Minister for Finance. The figures which the Minister for Finance gives, I am sure. are perfectly correct, but "fittings and utensils" would probably include electric and gas fittings, pots, pans, knives and forks and a hundred other things.
I think it will be found that there was very little spent on furniture in that year for the Army. The Army would be about 30,000 strong at that time, and all the utensils had to be provided new for them. If the cost of fittings and utensils is taken out of the quarter of a million the Deputy speaks of, I think it will be found that the expenditure for furniture that year was very small.
I cannot improve on the figures of the Minister for Finance. But I cannot believe that a quarter of a million was spent on utensils—on jugs and basins and plates —for an Army of 50,000 men. I am quite sure that furniture came into that item, just as I know that furniture came in the previous year in respect of the equipment of Portobello and other barracks. The Committee of Public Accounts, of which I am a member, got details of that. The Minister is really not quarrelling with me; he is quarrelling with the Estimates presented by the Department of Finance two or three years ago, because they were not shown in detail. That is not my fault. I cannot be expected to know how much was spent on furniture, on fittings and on utensils. But I do not believe that it would be possible to spend a quarter of a million on electric light and gas fittings for the Army. I do not believe that utensils could come to £50,000 at the outside, and I do believe that a considerable proportion of this quarter of a million demanded by the Minister for Finance as a special grant for the Army on 26th March, 1924, did go in furniture. I believe that some of the furniture has not been properly looked after by the Army, that some of it probably has been burned, and that at that time there was not a sufficient sense of realisation that the Army were the stewards of the furniture and of the quarters they occupied. I think, probably, that things have changed now. I say that the best way to check extravagance and irresponsibility of this kind, and to check the feeling that if you want to keep the fire up you can break the leg off a chair and put it in, is to curtail the Vote. Until you inflict some discomfort on people who are careless in their stewardship of the goods they are in charge of, you will not make them understand properly that they will suffer. Therefore, I ask the Dáil to agree to this amendment. It allows £1 per man in the Army for the year to replace furniture. Utensils are out of it. I have allowed the Minister the full Vote for utensils, as they get broken and must be replaced, but, so far as furniture is concerned, there ought to be a rate of renewal, and my amendment would allow £1 per head per year to replace furniture broken. I suggest to the Dáil that that is a sufficient rate, and, therefore, I press my amendment.
Deputy Cooper spoke of furniture being broken to make a fire. I am sure bedsteads and bedding have not been used to make fires. I would like to know what has become of the furniture, fittings, beds and bed clothing that accommodated 52,000 men, now that we have only an Army of 12,000. We had accommodation— perhaps it was not the best—certainly fair accommodation in 1922 for 52,000 men. I was acquainted with some of the accommodation at the time. We have only to accommodate 12,000 men now. What has become of the furniture, fittings, beds and all the other paraphernalia that were in barracks throughout the country when 52,000 men were required? Are they in cold storage? Have they been disposed of, or what has become of them?
I ask the Minister to tell us whether in the contemplated expenditure for furniture, utensils, fittings, etc., he had in mind the retention of the Army at its present size or was his provision for the smaller army which is anticipated after the year 1927? Presumably furniture will last a few years. It would be wasteful expenditure to purchase furniture for an army of 14,000 men if in two years or one year it is anticipated reducing the army to 10,000, or perhaps 5,000. That, I think, is rather more important even than looking back on what happened to the furniture that was in barracks in 1922. Even the provision, as described by the Minister, seems to contemplate the retention of an army of the present size. I think that is a mistake, when we have it suggested to us that the Minister's policy is one of gradual reduction. We should be assured that the proposals regarding equipment are for the smaller army which is anticipated after one or two years' time.
I am in absolute agreement with Deputy Cooper when he says that £1 a year should be quite sufficient for maintenance, repair and general upkeep. But there is no use in talking about £1 a year for the general upkeep of furniture you have not got. You must get your furniture before you can keep it up. This is for quarters that have not been furnished. I agree with Deputy Cooper that when that is done the £1 should be sufficient. But there is no use in charging £1 for the upkeep of an amount of furniture that you have not got. I think that that is a very peculiar way of looking at the thing. When we have the quarters furnished I believe that the amount the Deputy mentions will be quite ample. I have here the Estimates for 1923-4, and the figure under the heading of "Furniture, Fittings, and Utensils" for that year was £44,500. It is quite within the recollection, or the knowledge, of most people that all the barracks were starved for furniture; there was no furniture in them. Where people, Irregulars or others, commandeered furniture, took it from houses like Deputy Cooper's, or other houses throughout the country, and burned it, did away with it otherwise, or sold it, I am not responsible. My responsibility is only to see that the ordinary furniture that is required to keep men in decency, but not in luxury, is put into these barracks. These rooms have never been furnished. I say that deliberately. If they were furnished I say that the people who did not care the furniture, but let it become dilapidated in such a short time, would deserve the gravest censure.
At present every article of furniture in every barracks is on charge, and on charge correctly, and every article has to be accounted for to the Stores Accounting Officers. We send officers down the country occasionally to take stock of all these articles, and if an article is missing out of any quarters or stores it has to be accounted for by the officer in charge. No furniture or stores of any kind or description can be done away with until a Board of Surveyors has condemned them. Then they have to be sold in the ordinary way, and we get the best competitive price we can. It is not possible at present to do the things that Deputy Cooper suggests have been done four or five years ago. Deputy Cooper should know—I am sure he does know —that there was what some people term a war on here, and I am sure his experience will enable him to know that it is not possible to have the same check on things in war time as in peace time. I am sure that the Deputy could not account for a number of things that happened under his own charge on several occasions if he were taken to task for them; I am sure that there would have been some little wastage here and there that the Deputy could not check. That happened here; everybody knows that it happened, and it happens where a similar set of circumstances prevails in any country. I do not think that the slightest good would be done in going back and thrashing out things that happened four or five years ago. We all know they happened. They happen in every country where troubles like the troubles we had took place, and perhaps we got out of it better than most countries have got out of troubles of the same kind.
If Deputy Cooper's figures about the quarter of a million are right, the average price might be taken as somewhere around £500. A quarter of a million would provide 500 billets at £500 each. There are over a thousand officers in the Army.
I do not quite understand what the Minister means when he says that I would know of certain leakages. The only leakage I know of is where I told a man to embark certain mess stores on a ship and he failed to do so; these stores were lost, and I had to replace them out of my own pocket. I was never responsible for any leakage that was charged to the State, either the British State or this State. The Minister spoke of 1923-24. I have only the Appropriation Account for 1924-5, and while it is suggested that these barrack services were starved, nevertheless £51,000 was spent on them.
And utensils.
And utensils, certainly. But, after all, while I admit that there is great breakage in utensils, basins, plates and so on, here is £51,000, and if the President says that that is all utensils——
Oh, no.
—that would mean that every man in the Army at that time broke £1 worth of crockery, and if they did that they would have very little time to do any duty at all.
The Deputy said "furniture," and I added "utensils."
I said services, and I agree about the utensils. But if men are entitled to break that amount of utensils in a year, they are wasted in the Army; they should become tramp jugglers. I agree that it is not fair to blame the Minister for what happened three or four years ago, because he was not then a Minister, but there is a laxity in dealing with these things that began three or four years ago, and though it has been checked, it has not been checked to a sufficient extent. I believe that it can be checked more effectually by agreeing to my amendment, by reducing the Vote for furniture—I am not proposing to reduce the Vote for utensils—to a limit of £1 per man in the ranks per year. If that presents difficulties, so far as the officers' quarters are concerned, I think that the officers should be asked to contribute a penny a day. Half-a-crown a month is not a very serious item for an officer, but mounting up it would make a substantial contribution to the cost of furniture. Therefore, I am afraid that the amendment will have to go to a division.
The Minister has made no comment on the question that I asked about the furniture and fittings when there was an Army of 52,000 men.
We have plenty of beds, blankets and things of that kind.
What about the furniture?
We have no furniture. We are looking for furniture, but we have plenty of beds and blankets to sell, and if the Deputy will get me a buyer I will have an amount of money to put to the Appropriation-in-Aid next year. I will sell them to him if he likes.
Tá.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- David Hall.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Michael Egan.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
I want to raise a question on sub-head Y. There has been on the Order Paper, I understand, an amendment with regard to this Vote. Although it does not appear on to-day's Order Paper, I think it is necessary to raise the question of the wisdom of continuing to provide both a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary on this Vote. We shall be told, I have no doubt, that it is essential there shall be a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary. But I do not think it is necessary that there should be two persons holding these two offices. Ministries which are growing in their responsibilities and functions are not provided with a Minister and a Parliamentary Secretary, and as the work of the Ministry of Defence is much less urgent than it was three years ago, I submit there is a need for a coalition of offices so long as we are bound to provide two officers. I am not quite certain whether it is a statutory obligation to have a Parliamentary Secretary. I think it is.
Yes, it is in the Ministries and Secretaries Act, Section 8.
But it is not provided that he shall be paid one thousand pounds a year, or that the Minister from this Department must be separate from any other Ministry. My point is that, while it is essential by statute that there shall be two persons holding two offices in this Ministry of Defence, we are not bound to provide two salaries, and it does seem to me that the office of Minister for Defence might well be combined with some other Ministry, and the actual parliamentary work done by a Parliamentary Secretary so long as the statute remains as it is.
I believe the salary fixed for a Parliamentary Secretary is also included in that Act, and is laid down at £1,000 to £1,200 a year.
I shall be surprised if that is correct, because there are other Parliamentary Secretaries provided for at other salaries, and I think that is a matter for the annual Vote.
At half salary?
The salary of the Parliamentary Secretary for the Department of Finance is estimated at £1,200, inclusive, this year, and I do not think there is any enactment which makes a differentiation between the various Parliamentary Secretaries in respect of salary.
Do I understand the Deputy to say that there is a part salary in the Estimate?
No. The Minister misunderstood my statement. I said there were Ministries provided with Parliamentary Secretaries at salaries differing from that provided for this Parliamentary Secretary. I am only putting that forward as testimony that the salary of a Parliamentary Secretary is not fixed by Act of Parliament. If the Minister can show me that is wrong I shall want to know why there are differences in the salaries paid to Parliamentary Secretaries.
What does the statute provide?
The statute provides a maximum of £1,200 a year.
Does the statute provide that there must be a Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Defence?
Yes.
Therefore there must be a person holding the office of the Minister for Defence and a person holding the office of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence. Does Deputy Johnson mean that there should be only one person for the two offices?
No.
Then what is the Deputy's point?
My point is that, within the statute it is possible for, let us say, for the sake of illustration, the Minister for Education also to be the Minister for Defence.
I do not think the Minister for Defence himself, who is answering here, can be asked to make a case against the abolition of the Minister for Defence as a separate personality. What Deputy Johnson suggests is that conceivably under the Ministries and Secretaries Act, by order of the Executive Council, it could be ordained that one person would hold the two offices.
No. The Ministries and Secretaries Act provides for a Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Defence in order to establish a Council of Defence. You could not have a Council of Defence in accordance with the Act, without having a Parliamentary Secretary. It provides for two laymen on the Council of Defence, and I think the Dáil did that deliberately in order to take away from that Council the military aspect, which it would have if it were composed of all military men. I think the reason a Parliamentary Secretary was put into that Act was in order that a certain amount of civilian control should be exercised over the Army.
I am not quarrelling with the Act, but my recollection is clear enough. There was a time when the President held the office of the Minister for Defence, and if it were possible for one person to hold two Ministries then it should be now.
I think it is only by order of the Executive Council.
I think it is stronger than that. The Dáil appoints a Minister who is a member of the Executive Council on the nomination of the President, and that procedure has been adhered to in connection with the appointment of the Minister for Defence and also in the case of the Minister for Education.
If I understand Deputy Johnson's point rightly it is that there should be a combination of offices.
Yes.
And if the combination of offices should be effected by the Executive Council only I think it can be more appropriately raised on the Vote for the Executive Council. I am loath to allow it to be argued on the Vote for the Ministry of Defence that there should not be a separate person occupying the post.
My contention is not directed against one or the other, but there certainly is not imposed on us an obligation by statute that we must pay a Minister £1,700 and a Parliamentary Secretary £1,200.
I submit that that is not in accordance with the provision in the statute. The statute says: "There shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas to each Parliamentary Secretary appointed under this Act who shall not by his appointment be declared to be appointed without salary, such annual salary not exceeding in any case the annual sum of £1,200 as shall from time to time be fixed by the President of the Executive Council with the consent of the Minister for Finance."
I thank the President for the evidence. He has made my case.
The case now is that the Parliamentary Secretary is paid too much?
The case is that there is no need to have a Minister plus a Parliamentary Secretary. The case is that there may be a Parliamentary Secretary, but it is not necessary to pay him £1,000 a year.
It is necessary to have a Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Defence, but the Deputy can argue that it is not necessary that he should be paid £1,000. The other argument as to the combination of offices can arise on another Vote.
My argument against the payment of £1,000 to a Parliamentary Secretary, having in mind all the other charges of the Ministry, rests on the fact that it is a diminishing requirement. It is a service which is not as essential to have all these appointments now as it was two or three years ago, and the duties of the office do not require as much time and attention as they did when the statute was passed and when the original salary was fixed. I think the time has come when we ought to revise salaries in respect of this Ministry. I am precluded, in view of the withdrawal of the motion, from voting on this matter, but I call attention to what I think is an unnecessary expenditure in regard to this Ministry in the year 1926-27.
It seems to me that Deputy Johnson's argument may be answered by saying that it is a matter of opinion. It may have happened that very much more work fell on the Minister for Defence in 1922-23, 1923-24 and 1924-25, but it did not follow that there was work which might have been dealt with much more satisfactorily from the Minister's point of view if he had more assistance. That was my experience when I was Minister for Defence. It has been my experience in all the offices which I held in the State that this Ministry of Defence took up most time. This is not a question that can be solved by saying that the Ministerial charges can be cut down. I think there is need, and I think there will be need for some time longer— how long I cannot say—for the office of Parliamentary Secretary. He can render a service which is very good value for the salary paid, and in my opinion it would not be economy to abolish the office, and the best interests of the Ministry would not be served by not having a Parliamentary Secretary.
Are these appointments to be Civil Service appointments and is there a Commission to be set up to deal with them?
I should say, if there were, the educational qualifications would have been fulfilled.
We are not considering particular persons, but a particular principle which has been adopted in another Bill to-day. It would be interesting to know whether there is going to be an examination, if this question of patronage is going to be eliminated altogether out of public life.
As regards the staff, I notice that there are ten higher executive officers this year as compared with nine last year, 26 junior executive officers in place of 24, and 3 staff officers in place of 1 last year. In view of the fact, as Deputy Johnson says, that this is a diminishing Vote, one would expect that the number of higher officers would also be diminishing, whereas they are, as a matter of fact, increasing. There is a reduction in the number of lower officers, such as temporary clerks and temporary shorthand-typists, but I see no reason, particularly in view of the fact that we have an Army Finance Officer, a Deputy Army Finance Officer, and an Assistant Deputy Army Finance Officer and a Parliamentary Secretary, why there is an increase in the number of higher officers. I would like to know, in view of the disemployment of a certain number of temporary lady typists, if soldier-typists are being employed in their positions, and if their cost is included in this Vote.
There are good reasons why there are more executive officers this year than last year. We had a considerable number of temporary clerks in the office who got the option of sitting for an examination. A certain number of them did so, and passed, and they are now established servants. In my Department, as in all the Departments generally, it is the policy to get permanent officers into it. It means a saving, because it works out in the ratio that where you had three temporary clerks employed two permanent officers can do the work. The temporary people are being gradually withdrawn from the service and permanent people employed.
Surely a temporary clerk would not be appointed a higher executive officer?
No. There were four transferred officers of the higher executive grade. The increase of one higher executive officer was due to the fact that there was a vacancy in the Army Audit Section of the office. While we are tightening up all the services that we have in that office, it has been found necessary to appoint this officer. We find that wherever officers of this class are brought in to do special work they effect considerable savings, and it is in order to effect savings that they are appointed. If you want to get work of a specialised character done, and that it is necessary to send a man down the country to do it, a man that you can trust, then you must have an officer of some standing. You could not send a temporary man on such work. Unfortunately we had some trouble with temporary people, but at the present time we have very few temporary people in the office. The typists in the office are lady typists who have passed an examination, and there are no soldier-typists. We have still some temporary typists. The system in my Department is that all that kind of work is pooled, and is distributed amongst the lady typists by the lady superintendent in charge. There is a considerable tightening-up in that respect and a considerable saving is being effected in the office.
I had intended asking some questions on sub-head T, which deals with the revenue from military lands.
We have had the balance sheet and profits derived from the tillage already explained.
The best tillage proposition in the country.