Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 23 Mar 1928

Vol. 22 No. 16

ORDERS OF THE DAY. PUBLIC BUSINESS. - CENTRAL FUND BILL—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).

As I was endeavouring to point out before the adjournment last night, something will have to be done for the people in this country if they are to exist. I suggested, in the first place, that something should be done to reduce taxation, and in order to put us on an equal footing with our competitors, that that taxation ought to be reduced by about half. That may seem a tall order, but if the Government want to prove to us that they are putting this country economically—we will leave out politically for the present—in as good a position as the other countries in the British Empire, which we have been told we are definitely a part of, they will need to reduce taxation by some £10,000,000 or £11,000,000. Perhaps that is impossible. If so, we will have to face that matter in some other way. Perhaps we could come to some arrangement by which the £5,000,000 that is going yearly to the British Government could be stopped. If not, we could at least, balance our Budget and see that the normal income is sufficient to defray current expenses. We could endeavour to bring the standard of living in this country up to what it should be, in order to give people at least the ordinary comforts of life. Not only the farmers and agricultural labourers, but every class is on the verge of starvation at the present time. I do not know if they are satisfied to go on with the present arrangement, keeping a Government in power which is admittedly not leaving them economically in as good a position as they were—if, on top of that, they are to be told that no political advantage is to be reached by this arrangement. If Ireland were a self-contained country, and if we were not exporting or importing, it would not matter so much about the cost of Government, because the producer would be in a position to charge whatever he liked to the consumer—to the civil servant, and anybody else that bought his stuff. He could charge what he liked, and whatever salaries we pay our higher officials, they would, in turn, have to pay the producer for what they bought. But, as we are not a self-contained country, the matter is quite different. If it is impossible, we ought to be told that economically this country cannot expect to be in as good a position as, say, England or other countries that we can compare ourselves with. If we are a bankrupt country, we had better realise that and cut our coat according to our cloth. There would be something to be said for suffering privation economically if we thought we were going to gain something politically sometime. When we are told definitely that the policy of the Government is that we should remain as we are, part of the British Empire; when we are told that there is to be no end of partition except by consent—that we must wait until the people of the North-East consent to come into this State, and that, further, we must wait until Great Britain consents also to that union— very little hope is held out to the people in their present state of starvation.

The President told us yesterday that their policy is the same as it was for the past five years. Perhaps that is far enough to go back. On August 5th, 1923, the President said:

We have appointed the ablest and best member of the Executive Council as our Boundary Commissioner. and in his hands it will be safe. When we are returned we will take the matter up and see it carried through to what we hope and believe will be a successful conclusion.

The ablest and best member of the Executive Council on the very same date—August 5th, 1923—said:

The North-East-Counties will be glad and proud to throw in their lot with the rest of Ireland. I know the North-East as well as any man, and I say that by making the most and the best of the power that is given into your hands you will take the surest way. It won't be rectifying the Boundary. There will be no Boundary. The Boundary will be the sea, and no other.

That is within the last five years.

Might I ask, with great respect, what this has to do with the Bill?

Might I also ask what the declarations of the Minister for Finance and the President yesterday had to do with it?

Both of them were asked for.

The Vote on Account was debated for two days. It was concluded by agreement on Wednesday evening before the time allotted to private Deputies' business on the understanding that the Minister for Finance, in opening the debate on the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill, would reply to what had been said on the Vote on Account. The two matters were rather similar, of course. I understood that the Minister for Finance was replying to a question addressed to him by Deputy Lemass and that, while replying to it, he was not endeavouring to open a debate upon it. The President yesterday made a further declaration on the matter. I have allowed Deputy Ryan to proceed as far as he has proceeded, but we can hardly go into the Boundary question now.

I intervened for one purpose only. We want this Bill to-day, and if the debate continues beyond the time allowed for Government business—and it is likely to do so—I will have to move to take private Deputies' time.

I am afraid the President is late for moving to take private Deputies' time. It should have been done before the beginning of public business.

Oh, not at all.

The getting of this Bill through is absolutely a matter of agreement. It can be got through in no other way.

An important declaration of policy was made yesterday by the President, and a similarly important declaration, though of a different nature, was made by the Minister for Finance. They know, or they ought to know, the rules of order fairly well by this time, and surely when they make such declarations they do not expect that everybody else in the House is to remain silent while they are allowed to make these declarations, perhaps out of order—that is for you to decide— but they have been allowed to make them, at any rate. They made them under certain headings. The same debate is still in progress. I respectfully submit that it cannot be held we are out of order in commenting upon the important declarations made by them.

I understand the position in which the Minister for Finance was. In consequence of the agreement to terminate the debate on the Vote on Account by 7 o'clock on Wednesday the Minister did not get an opportunity of replying, and he made a brief statement in reply to the questions put by me during the debate on the Vote on Account, on the debate on this Bill. The President, however, intervened later on in the debate to make a statement of a similar nature. Of course I can understand his position also. He was anxious, no doubt, to repair the damage which the Minister for Finance had done. Having given the President that facility, I think that we should also be given facilities to criticise the remarks made by the President, even if we do not deal with the remarks made by the Minister for Finance.

I do not accept the statement that the Minister for Finance did any damage that required reparation.

You were in a great hurry to alter it, all the same.

It was irreparable.

May I intervene for one moment? I do not know whether Deputies quite appreciate what the position is, but the old age pensioners and many other persons cannot get paid unless this Bill passes. This Bill must pass the Seanad after being discussed here, and it is by no means a Party matter. There will be no money for Post Office officials, for teachers, and for other charges of that sort if it is not passed, and I certainly invite sober reflection upon the question of unnecessary delay in allowing the Bill to be passed.

It is not precisely a question of order; it is a question of agreement. The debate on the Central Fund Bill should not be concerned with details. As a matter of fact, this debate is very largely a repetition of that on the Vote on Account. What I suggested to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges was a particular matter of policy on the Vote on Account and on the Central Fund Bill. The statement made by the Minister for Finance was a brief statement as Deputy Lemass said, in reply to certain questions of his. Deputy Lemass asked, in the course of the debate on the Vote on Account, if the President had a declaration of policy to make. I think it was simply a statement of policy, and I do not think, at this stage of the debate on the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill, that we could proceed to debate the whole question of Government policy, particularly of Government national policy, and go back to the Boundary. I allowed Deputy Ryan to go a certain distance, but I do not know whether the Deputy himself really desires to do what would be tantamount now to initiating a debate upon the Boundary position. It would be very difficult to do it. The Central Fund Bill is a matter which could not remedy that.

If you will permit me, I would like to say that the President, knowing the rules of order, as we must presume he does, ought to have held over his statement—though I am very glad that he made it—until such time as it would have been in order.

I would have been very willing to do that if I had not been invited to make it. I presume I am the head of the Government?

The President having been invited, in an orderly manner, to make it and having in an orderly manner made it, surely on both sides a debate has been raised on this question and we are entitled to continue it?

If the President was in fact out of order, the only thing that could be done would be to allow a certain amount of latitude to somebody else and then stop the debate on that question. I do not know if Deputy Ryan is satisfied.

On a point of order. Was the President in fact out of order?

Then if the President was in order all that follows from his statement is in order. I submit that to you, sir, as a point of order.

That is too logical.

There is something in that.

I do not know if I would have raised this matter at all except that it seems to be bound up with the economic position. The point I wanted to make is this, that if we are, as it appears we are, overtaxed in this country as compared with Great Britain, and if we are going to remain a part of the British Empire, why would the Party opposite not go back to Westminster again? They would have the same facilities there for discussing British Empire matters. There would be the same, or practically the same, facilities there for discussing the affairs of this country; they would have the advantage of sitting there in the same House with the members from Northern Ireland, and economically the country would be better off. There would be some reason for continuing this Parliament if our ultimate aim was to become an absolutely independent State. But if our ultimate aim is not that, there is no justification whatsoever for carrying on a Partition Parliament. That is the only point I wished to make in the matter of the statements made by the Minister for Finance and the President. I do not wish to hold up this matter further. I suppose it is true that the money is wanted, as the President said, to pay old age pensions and other things. These are the little things that are always pointed out to us as requiring to be paid—the old age pensions, unemployment, the agricultural grant, the beet subsidy, and a list of that sort. But what we object to in this Bill is that it gives power to pay the Governor-General and the others on the list that we have so often enumerated here, and that is the reason why we oppose it.

A great deal of the time of the House yesterday was taken up in an effort by Fianna Fáil to elicit from the Government what their political policy was in so far as this State is concerned, and a great deal of time was also taken up by the Government Party in dealing with the matters raised. To my mind, on a Vote of this kind the time of the House ought to be spent on material matters. There is a time and a place for discussing the political aspirations of this country, and I believe that the people themselves will eventually settle that question. What I and the members of my Party are concerned with is to see that sufficient money is included in the Estimates to secure better social services for this country, and the one thing that stands out in our minds as needing to be dealt with most of all is the housing question.

A good many questions have been put to the Government and to the President as to what their intentions are as far as housing is concerned, especially with reference to the ability or inclination of the Government to secure that long term loans would be available for the different local authorities in the State. I know I will be told by the President, as I have often been told, that the Government have done and are doing a great deal for housing. I am prepared to admit that, but though the efforts made by the Government are good, they only touch the fringe of the situation. It has been repeatedly pointed out by members of this Party that the efforts are not sufficient to deal with the real housing problem. The subsidies given are good as far as they go, but with the limited borrowing power of the local authorities and the state of the money market, it is absolutely impossible for the local authorities to provide houses for what is generally described as the unskilled artisan. Surely, the President and the Minister for Finance ought to have stated yesterday what their policy is going to be for the present year, in so far as the representations made for long term loans are concerned. The President yesterday; when Deputy Derrig said a lesser amount was made available for housing this year than last, brought forth his usual stock answer that money is there, but no application has been made for it. We have repeatedly pointed out that the position in the money market and the attitude of banks are such as to prevent local authorities from taking advantage of the offer. If the Government had reverted to the old system in existence when the British Government was here, of giving loans for sixty years, the housing problem could be solved, but until something like that is done there is no hope that the congestion in the slum areas all over the country will be relieved.

The position to-day is this: a bungalow type of house is being built in a great number of towns in Ireland for something like £290. When you approach the bank to borrow to build that house the period for which you will get the money is ten years. Up to two years ago you could get it for fifteen. On that house you will get a subsidy of £80, and therefore you will have to borrow £210. On the annuity system it will cost you £12 10s. per year, and the economic value of that house works out at 10s. 4d. per week. To that have to be added rates, expenses of collection and other small things, bringing it practically up to 12s. per week. I ask this House do they think it possible that a working man in a provincial town in Ireland to-day, where the rate of wages is from 30s. to £2, can possibly pay such a rent. On the other hand, if the Government were to release money from the Local Loans Account for sixty years, the local authorities could build that same house at £290, and still give the subsidy of £80, it would work out at 5s. 2d. per week. This would be getting nearer to what the workman would be able to pay, and in a short time would solve the housing problem that we are all confronted with. I seriously suggest to the Government, if it has the intention, that this is the only means by which the housing problem can be solved.

Various suggestions are being made at the moment by the Unemployment Committee and the Engineers' Association. I have not examined them. I do not know what they mean at rock bottom, but I suggest what I have already outlined would in itself solve the housing problem. I would ask the Minister for Finance, when replying, to let the House know if it is his intention during this year, as he tentatively promised last year, that long-term loans will be made available.

I would like to deal with the question of road-making in connection with the Local Government Department. Early in March Deputy Broderick put down a question asking the Minister for Local Government what amount of money would be available during the year for the construction of roads and road-making generally, and the figures given by the Minister for Local Government show plainly that the amount of money available this year, in my own constituency at least, was only about one-fifth of what was made available last year.

Is it in order or useful to discuss the administration of the Road Fund on the Central Fund Bill?

Not useful, anyhow.

I thought we were dealing with the policy of the Government.

Those parts of it they want discussed.

The further they can get away from it the better, I think.

If we could have come to an agreement before discussing the Central Fund Bill, to confine one or two questions to one party and others to another party, we could have all these issues discussed. If we are, however, to roam over everything the Government is responsible for, namely, the whole administration of the country, it would be impossible to conclude the debate.

This is the first statement made by this Party.

I am clear about that.

From the figures supplied by Deputy Broderick, so far as my constituency is concerned, only one-fifth of the amount available last year is available this year. The fact that this answer was given rather late and that notice was given rather late to the various County Councils in the Saorstát, will, to my mind, lead to a great deal more unemployment this year in the rural areas than prevailed for the last three or four years. It was taken for granted in the county councils in the Saorstát that a certain amount of money equivalent, a great many of them thought, to that given during the last two or three years would be available during the present financial year for road-making, and a great many struck their estimates in accordance with what they believed would be forthcoming from the Department of Local Government. The attitude taken up by the present Minister for Local Government has been certainly taken very badly by the different county councils. I hope he is not optimistic enough to think that the roads in the Saorstát are yet anything like what they should be.

I want to give this Department credit for making a large amount of money available for the last few years in the effort to give us proper roads in the country, but a great deal yet remains to be done. Coupled with the fact of the roads being neglected is the fact that the menace of unemployment is going to be increased during the present year to a greater extent than it was last year. Again there is a very small amount available in the estimates for the relief of unemployment. As a matter of fact, I think I would be right in saying that there is no money at all available for the relief of unemployment, because a great deal, if not all, of the amount that now appears in the estimates will have been spent by the 31st March. So much of it has already been taken up by the various local authorities that there is no hope of anything being available in the near future for the relief of unemployment. I hope again that the Government are not optimistic enough to think that unemployment is being relieved to such an extent by the £150,000 which they made available before Christmas that unemployment has been removed altogether. I would seriously suggest to the Government to reconsider their whole policy of road-making for the present year, and that they should at least make the same amount available during the present year as they did last year. They have certainly led the county councils astray by the attitude the Minister for Local Government took up on the 31st March. I hope that on that and on the housing question we may have a clear statement of policy from the Minister for Finance when he is winding up. I do hope that we will hear something very definite from the President or the Minister for Finance on these important matters.

The President announced to-day, after Public Business, that he was going to move that private members' time would be taken up this afternoon. I call the President's attention to the fact that there is a Standing Order in existence prohibiting him from doing that after Public Business commences. We all know that the President does not know his own Standing Orders. I would refer him to Standing Order No. 78.

I have read it with great care.

Like many other things the President has read, he has not got it into his head. It is not a bit of wonder that the Ministers are anxious to closure a debate on their policy. Ministers have been coming here for the last five or six years asking the Irish people's representatives to vote them money, and they did not want to account for the expenditure of that money in a proper way to the people's representatives. We questioned them regarding their national policy. Mr. Lemass asked Mr. Blythe, and also asked Mr. Cosgrave, and Mr. Cosgrave refused to allow anybody to refer to the national policy he stood for before 1921. He was a great braggart calling for proof, calling for quotations, until a member rose up to give him some quotations. Mr. Cosgrave——

DEPUTIES

President Cosgrave.

I take it, it is merely a slip on the part of the Deputy.

President Cosgrave. President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, was a great braggart in calling for quotations until somebody rose up to give him some quotations. He thought he was at a street corner or some place else that would be suitable for him, asking for proof when nobody was round to give him proof. Mr. Cosgrave——

A DEPUTY

President Cosgrave.

On a point of order, is Deputy Aiken in order in speaking of the President as Mr. Cosgrave?

I think the Deputy should refer to him as the President or President Cosgrave. I take it the Deputy's intention is not to be offensive.

I did not mean to be offensive in that small way. President Cosgrave, President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, a member of his Majesty's, King George's, Commonwealth of Nations——

Plus Document

——said at Kilkenny on the 31st August, 1927, when he was asking the people to support his policy, "I want you to strike a blow for religion, liberty, honour and public morality." We are pleased to see here before us the strikers of blows for honour, religion and public morality. We want to examine the question as to whether their policy does in fact enable them to claim that they are strikers of blows for honour, religion and public morality. Deputy Seán Brady was going to examine that question at the invitation of President Cosgrave, and President Cosgrave ran away from the speech and would not give him time to intervene to give him some quotations to show whether President Cosgrave was in fact a striker of blows for honour, religion and public morality. President Cosgrave the other day taunted us and wanted to know whether we stood for constitutionalism. I suppose he thought we were going to reply, like the colleague sitting beside him. Mr. Blythe, the Minister for Finance of the Irish Free State, once said: "The road to freedom is by cutting a sword track through our enemies." On another occasion, and on many occasions, Mr. Blythe, who is a striker of blows for liberty, religion, honour and public morality, used to say: "The rifle and the machine-gun are the weapons of the tyrant, the dagger and the revolver the weapons of the people." A lot of blab from these strikers of blows for liberty, religion, honour and public morality used to come out in order that they would get support from the people for what they alleged was their policy. Deputy Tierney was here the other day and, referring to something Deputy Lemass said, stated that we had one foot in an armed camp and the other in the constitutional camp.

Deputy Tierney, the great striker of blows for liberty, morality, freedom and honour, once had his foot in an armed camp before 1916. 1916 came along and he took his foot out of the armed camp, and like a valiant striker of blows for religion, honour, morality and freedom, he put down his mighty feet one after the other as quickly as he could far away from the armed camp. President Cosgrave yesterday, when I asked him was he in fact a Nationalist, or did he in fact claim he was a Nationalist, in view of what his colleague, the Minister for Finance said, did not condescend to give a reply. I submit that a question so very pertinent as that should have a reply here before Deputies vote the Government any money. The Front Bench opposite got support from the people of the country and from men who are obviously honest, like Deputy Timothy Sheehy, in the belief that they were going to do something to bring this country to freedom. Before 1921 these people asked young men to die in order that the right of the Irish people to go forward for freedom might be retained to them. Now, some years after the Minister for Finance got young men to shed their blood for the rights of the Irish people to bring a Republic to this country, he comes along, and in order to keep the friendship of people like Deputy Cooper, a few Irish banks and Guinness's, and his friends, Winston Churchill and Baldwin, and a few more of that ilk, he says that he is quite content to remain within the British Empire. It is time that the Irish people saw through these strikers of blows for religion, honour and public morality, and the time is coming when the people will give proof that they are seeing through them.

Deputy Tierney yesterday was horrified that poor people should be asked to live on a mere pittance of £1,000 per year. He is like President Cosgrave, I suppose, who thinks that some fairy money comes into the Free State Exchequer. It does not come from the farmers; where does it come from? It comes from his fairy godmother. I never heard Deputy Tierney express his horror at the fact that poor people have to live on 10s., 9s. and 7s. 6d. per week. But he is horrified that a servant of the Irish people, a man who is being paid out of the reduction of the old age pensioners, should get a mere pittance of £1,000 per year. Deputy de Valera did say, and we of this party to a man, stand behind him in saying, and every honest far-seeing citizen stands behind him when he said that while this country is in its present economic position no public servant should get more than £1,000 per year. Deputy Tierney sneered at Deputy de Valera because Deputy de Valera gave proof that he meant what he said. Five or six years ago he said that Ministers and other servants of the Dáil should not receive more than £500 per year. Deputy de Valera was then President of Dáil Eireann, and was in a position to put his words into effect, and he put them into effect regarding himself.

President Cosgrave, I am sorry to say, has now left the House, because I wanted to refer to the ten per cent. that was given to the Nationalists of this country, which President Cosgrave says he embodied in the London Pact without being asked by anybody to do so. Perhaps we shall get another day for that.

The Minister for Defence is present. One reason why the House should not vote any money to the present Executive is the fact that that Executive contains the Minister for Defence, with the Minister for Defence's tongue. The Minister for Defence has consistently tried to create bitterness amongst our people since six months before Winston Churchill sent these people their instructions to attack the Four Courts. Ever since Mr. Churchill sent those instructions to the Free State Executive, and since they carried them out, the Minister for Defence has been carrying on the fell work started amongst our people by the foreign enemies of our people. He has been widening the breach day after day—the breach started here amongst our unfortunate, helpless people by a powerful foreign enemy. We stand, and we have always stood, and with the help of goodness always shall stand, for uniting the best elements of our people to stand by their rights and enable the ordinary average citizen who is willing to work to live at home here. Sneering tongues like that possessed by the Minister for Defence simply prevent any unity coming about amongst our sundered people. We did all in our power to stave off the civil war. The Minister for Defence not alone took the orders of the British to start that civil war——

The Deputy is getting very far now from Government policy.

——but he is in fact carrying on that policy to-day. No later than last night a case was discussed here, and the Minister for Defence could have done something to cover over the bitterness created by the carrying out of Churchill's order on 28th June, 1922. Instead of trying to do something to placate the embittered feeling, the Minister for Defence stood over and justified what, from the facts produced here, was obviously a foul and deliberate murder. We want not to punish anybody for what he did in the civil war. We want to get away from the bitterness created by the carrying out of Churchill's orders, and one way that that can be done is not by sneering at the poverty of people who lost their relatives in the civil war, not by denying that the Government is in duty bound to support the people whose relatives they murdered, but is by accepting the fact that we are now five years after the civil war, that people were killed and maimed on both sides, and that it is up to all right-thinking citizens to try as far as they can to overcome the ill-effects of the carrying out of Churchill's orders, and maintain the maimed, no matter on which side they were fighting, and the dependents of the people who were killed, no matter on which side the people who were killed were fighting.

When speaking on Army pensions I said that we did not stand for the granting of pensions to able-bodied men. I just want to make that remark because it was, I think, rather unintentionally commented on in one of the papers, and one would think that we stood for the granting of pensions to people who served during the Black-and-Tan war. We do not stand for the granting of pensions to able-bodied men who were not promised pensions when they started to serve.

Is it not a fact that the Deputy and his Party are advocating pensions for those who resigned from the R.I.C. during the pre-Truce period?

Deputy Davin asks a question, and the reply to that question is that there were a certain number of R.I.C. men that resigned in the Black-and-Tan war because they would not obey the British instructions to carry out war on their own people. These men resigned and when they resigned they were given a promise by Michael Collins that they would not be let down. Michael Collins was speaking then authoritatively on behalf of the then Government of the Irish people and we mean to see, whenever we have the power to put that promise into effect, that it will be put into effect.

But the fact is that they are able-bodied men.

These men were promised that they would not be let down, and we are not going to let them down, any more than the British let down the people who actually carried out war on our people. We want to see that they are not penalised for standing for the Irish people rather than for the British Government.

I want again to appeal to this House not to pass this Bill until they receive some assurance from the Government Benches that they are going to try their utmost to go forward from the disastrous divisions created in this country by the British Government when they sent over their orders to attack the Four Courts and when the Four Courts were attacked. I want the House not to give one penny to the Government until they give a promise that they are going to stand by the rights of the Irish people to freedom and independence, and that they are not going to degrade our nation by carrying out the wishes of the British in this country, every time the British express a wish.

Before the debate continues I would like to say Deputy Aiken got a patient hearing for a particular speech on Government policy, and he worked a considerable number of statements in in regard, for example, to the attack on the Four Courts in 1922. Now I propose that, except for the speech of the Minister for Finance in concluding this debate, this matter of Government policy should not be further discussed. Perhaps it is no harm to set out how it was raised. It was raised, on Tuesday last, by Deputy Lemass in asking a series of questions, and the acting Ceann Comhairle said:

"I have allowed the Deputy to go a considerable length in the hope that he would connect this matter to the question under discussion. The Treaty is not under consideration, and unless the Deputy directs his argument to connect it with this Vote he must curtail that line."

Now the Deputy did curtail his argument, subsequently, and the Minister for Finance made a statement of policy in reply which was afterwards followed by the President. I think a good deal of what we have just listened to would have been more relevant to a debate, for example, on the nomination of members of the Executive Council by the President than on the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill. I want to put it to the House whether this particular Central Fund Bill is the time for going into such an extremely wide field of debate as that now raised. I have never in the course of debate here since the Fianna Fáil Party came into the House applied the technical rules of Parliamentary debate at all, and the result is often that when Deputies get a certain amount of liberty they want to go on and on. In this case we have had a statement from the President, from the Minister for Finance, and from Deputy Ryan, and now a statement from Deputy Aiken. I think clearly the Minister for Finance in replying must be allowed to make some reference to those statements. But before the debate continues I think the House should decide whether the Central Fund Bill is the occasion on which it wants to debate these particular matters. It appears to me from my particular position in the matter that if the Minister in replying was allowed to deal with some matters raised by Deputy Aiken, that would be reasonable, but that the debate should range now at this stage, the Bill having been debated a whole day, over all these matters of Government national policy, which might be raised at another time and otherwise, seems to me to be an extraordinary procedure. I would like the House to be clear before we enter upon that procedure.

There is a consistent theory on the other side, on the Fianna Fáil Benches, that for some unknown reason they have a right to say all they want to say about any person; that they have the right to hit out. I suggest that if this procedure under which a Deputy like poor Deputy Aiken is allowed to make silly speeches on any subject he chooses, that other Deputies should be permitted to answer him in kind. If that sort of thing is allowed to go on, so far from bringing back the debate to the position in which you would like to see it, when Deputies would be speaking to a definite point, certain Deputies in my opinion will trade on it, and will take advantage of the protection they are getting, and the debate will travel far from the sphere to which it should be confined. As far as I am personally concerned, I wanted to follow Deputy Aiken and it was my intention to give my opinion of him just as freely as he gave his opinion of members of the Executive Council. If I cannot do that, if it is not in order, then I think other Deputies should not be permitted such liberty.

Having regard to the fact that this discussion has taken place and that from our side certain things have been said which the Minister for Lands and Agriculture is anxious to answer, I think in the interests of the House it would be very desirable that the Minister should have the opportunity of answering. We deliberately appeal that the Minister should have the opportunity which we had upon these Benches. I shall probably be following him, and so that this Bill may not be hampered in any way I am prepared to debar myself from answering the Minister, from extending the liberty which we ask you to extend to the Minister.

I do not intend to intervene in this debate which has been so very interesting——

Is the Minister on the point of order?

I would like to have the Central Fund Bill passed to-day. It is necessary to have it passed because no payments can be made after the 31st March unless this Bill becomes law and a considerable number of people may suffer inconvenience and hardship by the delay. It is still time to move that the House should continue to sit until 6 o'clock, if that course would be agreeable to Deputies, in order that Deputies may have plenty of liberty for discussion. If that is desired, I would be prepared to move it and we could resume this particular debate when the Central Fund Bill is passed. For that purpose the debate could be interrupted for a short period at, say, 12 o'clock, and resumed at 2 o'clock. I do not want to prevent any particular matter that Deputies are anxious to discuss from being discussed. I do, however, think that we ought to arrange to pass this Bill to-day.

I do not think we are likely to conclude to-day the debate that has been entered on this morning, even if we were to sit to 6 o'clock, 10 o'clock or 12 o'clock, which would be the limit. I think the debate we have entered upon might very usefully be continued over several days, perhaps not on this particular Bill. I believe that some day or another we must arrange to start a discussion of that nature with full knowledge of the fact that we will go into all the matters that have been mentioned. I, for one, would like a discussion of that sort, and I know there are many Deputies on my side of the House who would be quite keen if Minister after Minister got up to answer points we wish to make against them. We are keen to have that. We know this much—I do, at least—that for years these same Ministers have had opportunities that I have not had of telling the public from a platform like this what their side of the question was and of misrepresenting the position. They have made misstatements about the whole position from 1921 onwards, and until now they have never been faced by people who know as much about the history of that time as we do. That is so. They have not been faced on a ground such as this by people who know the facts as we know them. For the first time these matters have been gone into as closely as they have recently been gone into, and Ministers have had people with knowledge facing them. When that stage was arrived at we had the squeals and the appeals that we heard during the last week from the President and others to let bygones be bygones, and to forget the past. I am prepared, as one, to forget the past if I can, although it is not a very easy thing to do it.

Is the Deputy addressing himself to the Central Fund Bill?

I am not talking on the Central Fund Bill now. I think it is not likely that this debate will be finished to-day, and perhaps if the other side will agree to fix a date with us we could arrange to have this debate re-opened and continued. Perhaps we could fix a certain hour to-day and finish the Central Fund Bill on that understanding. We are anxious to go into this matter in the most minute detail and to bring out all the evidence that can be brought out. We are anxious to have that brought out on both sides. We have nothing to fear, we have nothing to hide, and we are prepared to abide by the result. Therefore, if this Central Fund Bill is so urgent, although it is only the 22nd of March——

The Bill has to go to the Seanad.

On the understanding that a day could be arranged for a full-dress debate on this subject. I, and I think my Party, will agree that the Central Fund Bill could be finished to-day, and then we could resume this debate later.

Would I be in order in suggesting that this debate should conclude at 1.30 p.m. on this day week, that the speakers in the meantime be named, and that no other business be transacted?

Are we in the position that it is agreed that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture should next speak? I have no intention of ruling him out. Deputy Aiken having made a speech. I personally would like that there would be only one speech on the other side. If the Minister for Finance thinks that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture is the person to make it, I have no objection, provided that only the one speech is made. Do I take it now that it is agreed to conclude the Central Fund Bill to-day in the ordinary hours?

Agreed.

Deputy Morrissey was rising and, as only one member of the Labour Party has spoken, Deputy Morrissey must be allowed to speak. Is it possible to conclude the Central Fund Bill before 12 o'clock?

If there is no speaker other than myself, and if I would be the means of preventing a decision being taken on this Bill by 12 o'clock, I am prepared to waive my rights; that is, if I am the only person. If the debate goes beyond 12 o'clock I think I would have a right to speak.

The real question is if there is agreement to finish the Central Fund Bill.

I am quite satisfied that the Minister for Finance should speak.

I am afraid Deputies will lose a certain amount of private Deputies' time. If the Minister for Finance concludes now, a division will have to be taken. The division will be on the Second Stage of the Central Fund Bill. Then we will have to take the Committee Stage and the Fourth and Fifth Stages. Of course, if it is agreed, that could be done in a few minutes. All you need is consent to the moving of the motion. If that is agreed, the Minister for Finance will speak next. With regard to the other matter mentioned by Deputy O'Kelly about having a debate lasting over a day or days, there certainly will have to be agreement about that.

Mr. HOGAN

Is it not open to anybody to put down a motion?

When we get in.

There is a by-election in the North City and we would be anxious to have the Minister's speech before the vote takes place.

Have all this outside.

If I felt it would be possible to debate some of the questions arising out of 1922——

Mr. HOGAN

Including Mr. Churchill.

—Including Mr. Churchill, without heat and strictly within the limits of parliamentary language, without using the words, murder, lie or liar, and other such words, I feel that it might possibly accomplish something. It is not a matter for the Chair, but for general agreement. My view is, and I am in agreement with Deputy O'Kelly to this extent, that if we are going to discuss these matters, we should do it, as I said before, with malice aforethought; that is, to put down a definite motion with a definite purpose and for a fixed time.

I want to point out that if the discussion does happen to go on beyond 12 o'clock it means an encroachment on private Deputies' time which, in this case, is an encroachment on the private time of Fianna Fáil Deputies, and can it be clearly understood by the House that if the debate goes on after 12 o'clock it can only be with the consent of the Fianna Fáil Party?

That is so. The Minister for Finance, I understood, was to conclude the discussion on the Second Reading of the Central Fund Bill now. Then the division would be taken, and after that the remaining stages of the Bill.

May I intervene for one single second. I have an engagement with the Labour Party to stand up and be shot at——

I think it is right to say that at another opportunity I shall be most happy——

Mr. HOGAN

There is no fear of your being shot. You need not have any fear about that.

Might I say that the Deputy has a far greater opinion of himself, apparently, than anybody else has, and if the Deputy were to wear a brass hat his head would not expand so much.

Mr. FAHY took the Chair.

I do not intend to take up any length of time in replying because the debate has been so discursive that to reply even to a quarter of the points raised would be impossible in the time at my disposal. One point that has been raised this morning I will refer to, and that is the question of long-term loans for housing. The Committee on Unemployment have presented a report which we regard as a very useful and valuable report. That report makes certain recommendations. We are considering that report and trying to see what action can be taken to put into operation a long-term programme of housing which will in the course, say, of ten years or thereabouts, solve the housing problem for us. In connection with that we are considering this question of opening the Local Loans Fund and we are favourably considering that. While a definite decision has not yet been come to, I have to say that we hope to make an announcement on that and other matters connected with housing at an early date. Deputies, in the course of the debate, have pointed out that there was less money in the Estimates for drainage this year than there was last year, and in the matter of housing a similar complaint has been made. In regard to housing, undoubtedly fresh proposals will have to be laid before the Dáil in the coming year. With regard to drainage, the position is this, that it has been extremely hard to get ahead with drainage. A great many of the schemes under examination have proved to be very far from economic schemes. They are schemes that have been found not to be economic to the owners of the land even with the help of a thirty-three and one-third per cent. Government grant. As the Deputies are aware, the Government would be prepared to increase their grant from thirty-three and one-third per cent. to fifty per cent. provided that for every pound over thirty-three and one-third per cent, the county councils will contribute another pound. In most cases, the county councils have absolutely refused to make any contribution. In some cases there have been agreements to contribute. Because of this difficulty in finding schemes that are really economic with the help that can be given it has not been possible to get ahead rapidly with drainage. The money provided in the Estimates for the coming year is the amount which this year's experience shows would be likely to be required. We are very anxious to get on with drainage, but we do not feel that drainage is a work that should be done irrespective of cost and irrespective of economic results, but there is certainly no slowing down.

I appreciate the difficulties of county councils in this matter, but I do think that a somewhat more progressive policy might be pursued by the county councils, and they might be more willing to put up contributions to enable the work to be carried out in the areas under their jurisdiction. I do hope that Deputies who have pressed here for additional assistance for drainage will press the county councils in their local areas to contribute something.

Hear, hear.

If the county council would contribute five or six per cent. of the cost of this scheme, then there would be an additional five or six per cent. contribution by the Government, and these, added to the thirty-three and one-third per cent. which the Government are giving in every case, would suffice to make the scheme economic. I would hope, if that matter is pressed on the county councils, that we would make more progress. But when we are preparing the Estimates we cannot put in more money than our actual experience up to date leads us to believe to be necessary. I agree with you, A Chinn Comhairle, that it is unfortunate that we did not succeed in arranging before the commencement of this debate on the Bill that some one or two subjects would be discussed. It is quite possible that if we had at the beginning arranged to discuss the subject which Deputy O'Kelly was referring to, and had begun with that, and had continued it right through this Bill, we might have been able to conclude it. On the other hand, if we had taken a subject like drainage, we should have had a very thorough discussion on that subject. If we had taken a subject like housing or a subject like the agricultural policy of the Government which Deputy Ryan raised, and if we had taken that at the beginning of the debate and carried it on to the Central Fund Bill, we could have a very thorough discussion, whereas in actual fact we were ranging very widely and discursively over all Government policy, and it has been impossible, I think, to discuss any matter satisfactorily.

I do not know whether I should reply any further at this stage to the question that was raised in connection with the military service pensions. But the reason why the documents which the Auditor-General asked for were not given to him, was simply this, that you could not give the documents to the Comptroller and Auditor-General without the right to have these documents inspected by the Committee of Public Accounts. I think that would be of no value, and would place the Comptroller and Auditor-General in a very invidious position. He would be in an invidious position if he were to comment on certain documents and was not to be in a position to produce these documents here for the Committee of Public Accounts. If the documents are produced to the Committee of Public Accounts, undoubtedly they could not remain confidential documents.

If there were details, shall I say, of a sensational or interesting character in any of the documents, I think, without casting any aspersion on any members of the Public Accounts Committee, it would be impossible to secure that secrecy be observed.

Would that not apply equally to civil servants who might come into the possession of the same documents?

Quite. The documents that relate to military service pensions do contain details in regard to which, in fairness to individuals and in the public interest, the utmost secrecy should be observed. Nobody has had the opportunity of seeing those documents except the members of the Board of Assessors and one or two officials connected with the Board. A very limited group of people have seen them. Under the Military Service Pensions Act, in order to qualify for a pension, it is necessary to have had pre-Truce service, not merely service in Oglaigh na hEireann, but active service, and in order to establish active service as distinct from mere membership of the Volunteers, the individual applicant for a pension has to give details of actions done. At the present stage, and in view of the fact that their neighbours with whom they are now living in amity might have been involved in some way or other in these actions, it is quite contrary, I think, to the public interest that the details should become known or come into the possession of anybody who might be tempted to give publicity to them.

On a point of order. The Minister for Finance should be aware of the fact that there was a general understanding come to that this question should be left over for discussion on another and more appropriate occasion. The Minister himself said that he had only part of the documents in connection with the Report of the Public Accounts Committee in his possession for two days. I think it is unfair at this stage, in view of the agreement come to last night in this House, that the Minister should attempt to reply to a case that has not yet been made here on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee.

I was on another point. I was replying to the point that no reason at all existed on the Government side for taking up the attitude that has been taken up except a corrupt one. I was pointing out that there were reasons, but not reasons of the sort that had been insinuated or suggested from the Fianna Fáil Benches. I do not want to go any further into the matter. I was just coming to that conclusion when Deputy Davin interrupted me. With regard to the debate that Deputy O'Kelly has referred to, I think that a motion could be put down by the Fianna Fáil Party. I am inclined to the view that it would be a desirable thing, in the interests of the expeditious transaction of business here, that time should be given for that motion, because as far as I can see, until the discussion has taken place, we are going to have it taking place in a piecemeal and unsatisfactory fashion, in almost all debates when anything of a general character arises. If the Deputy will put down such a motion, I will consult with the President and see what arrangement can be made to give plenty of time to have the whole thing discussed.

Are you sure that that will finish it?

It may not finish it, but it will give grounds for the Ceann Comhairle being stiffer about this than he can be when Deputies feel that they want to discuss it on every opportunity that presents itself.

Would the Minister say whether it is the considered policy of the Executive Council to give a substantially less amount of money for roads this year than in previous years?

It is not the considered policy of the Executive Council. I cannot reply now about the Road Fund, as I think it was arranged to have this particular debate concluded before 12 o'clock. If the Deputy wishes, he can put down a question with regard to that matter for Wednesday next.

I have put down a question and have got little satisfaction.

You got all the facts.

Facts do not always give satisfaction.

Question put.
The Dáil divided. Tá, 82; Níl, 46.

  • William P. Aird.
  • Ernest Henry Alton.
  • Richard Anthony.
  • James Walter Beckett.
  • George Cecil Bennett.
  • Ernest Blythe.
  • Séamus A. Bourke.
  • Michael Brennan.
  • Henry Broderick.
  • Seán Brodrick.
  • John Joseph Byrne.
  • Edmund Carey.
  • James Coburn.
  • John James Cole.
  • Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
  • Hugh Colohan.
  • Martin Conlan.
  • Michael P. Connolly.
  • Bryan Ricco Cooper.
  • Richard Corish.
  • William T. Cosgrave.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • James Crowley.
  • John Daly.
  • William Davin.
  • Michael Davis.
  • Peter de Loughrey.
  • James N. Dolan.
  • Peadar Seán Doyle.
  • Edmund John Duggan.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Barry M. Egan.
  • Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
  • James Everett.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
  • John Good.
  • Denis J. Gorey.
  • Alexander Haslett.
  • John J. Hassett.
  • Michael R. Heffernan.
  • Michael Joseph Hennessy.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Mark Henry.
  • Patrick Hogan (Clare).
  • Patrick Hogan (Galway).
  • Richard Holohan.
  • Michael Jordan.
  • Patrick Michael Kelly.
  • Hugh Alexander Law.
  • Patrick Leonard.
  • Finian Lynch.
  • Arthur Patrick Mathews.
  • Martin McDonogh.
  • Michael Og McFadden.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Joseph W. Mongan.
  • Daniel Morrissey.
  • Richard Mulcahy.
  • James E. Murphy.
  • James Sproule Myles.
  • Martin Michael Nally.
  • John Thomas Nolan.
  • Thomas J. O'Connell.
  • Bartholomew O'Connor.
  • Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
  • John F. O'Hanlon.
  • Daniel O'Leary.
  • Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
  • Gearoid O'Sullivan.
  • John Marcus O'Sullivan.
  • Patrick Reynolds.
  • Martin Roddy.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
  • William Edward Thrift.
  • Michael Tierney.
  • Daniel Vaughan.
  • Vincent Joseph White.
  • George Wolfe.
  • Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Níl

  • Frank Aiken.
  • Denis Allen.
  • Neal Blaney.
  • Gerald Boland.
  • Patrick Boland.
  • Daniel Bourke.
  • Seán Brady.
  • Robert Briscoe.
  • Frank Carney.
  • Michael Clery.
  • James Colbert.
  • Dan. Corkery.
  • Martin John Corry.
  • Tadhg Crowley.
  • Thomas Derrig.
  • Frank Fahy.
  • Hugo Flinn.
  • Andrew Fogarty.
  • Seán French.
  • Patrick J. Gorry.
  • John Goulding.
  • Samuel Holt.
  • Patrick Houlihan.
  • Stephen Jordan.
  • Michael Joseph Kennedy.
  • James Joseph Killane.
  • Mark Killilea.
  • Michael Kilroy.
  • Seán F. Lemass.
  • Patrick John Little.
  • Ben Maguire.
  • Thomas McEllistrim.
  • Seán MacEntee.
  • Séamus Moore.
  • Thomas Mullins.
  • Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
  • Seán T. O'Kelly.
  • William O'Leary.
  • Matthew O'Reilly.
  • Patrick J. Ruttledge.
  • James Ryan.
  • Martin Sexton.
  • Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
  • Patrick Smith.
  • Richard Walsh.
  • Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P eadar Doyle. Níl: Deputies Gerald Boland and Allen.
Top
Share