I do not intend to keep the House very much more than a few minutes to-day.
Orders of the Day. - Military Service Pensions Bill, 1929—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Hear, hear!
I know possibly that the Minister for Defence is very anxious that the full implications of this Bill should not be set before the House and I take it as a compliment when I hear him expressing a desire that I should keep from the House one or two other important points which I think it may not be aware of.
Were not one and three-quarter hours enough?
As I reminded the House last evening one of the first Acts of the year 1923 was the Act appointing the Comptroller and Auditor-General and charging him with the duty of examining every appropriation account. That Act conferred upon him, for the proper discharge of that duty, powers of inquiry, investigation, and report limited only by his own discretion. He was to discharge that duty in accordance with the principles which had been laid down by the earlier British Acts of 1876 and 1921 which Acts were cited in the present Act of the Oireachtas. Among the other things which were to determine him in the conduct of his inquiry there was the principle that no Department has the right to refuse information—even though of a highly confidential character—to the Comptroller and Auditor-General if he requires it to satisfy himself that the expenditure had agreed with the Parliamentary Appropriation.
A further principle was also laid down by the Public Accounts Committee of Great Britain, and that was that the Comptroller and Auditor-General alone was competent to say what information is necessary for the discharge of his statutory functions That was the position when the Act was introduced. That was the position which held here until the Board of Assessors, I think, in the year 1925 challenged the right of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to have access to documents which that Board held were confidential. As a result of that there developed a controversy which has ended in the introduction of the present Bill.
I would like to put before the House an important principle which is at stake here. Up to the challenge by the Board of Assessors these two things were held—that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should have access to all documents, even documents of a highly confidential nature; and that he alone was competent to say what documents were necessary to him in order to discharge his duty. This right was challenged by the Board of Assessors. The matter was argued for some time and then the Executive Council come here and introduce a Bill by which it is implied that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has no right to demand confidential documents in this particular case, and, therefore, confidential documents in any case. If the Comptroller and Auditor-General has no right of access to the files in this matter, what right has he in any other case in which this plea of confidence and secrecy may be advanced? And if that principle is once conceded by this House then, in the words of the Minister for Agriculture, the Comptroller and Auditor-General has no function worth twopence in relation to these files, in relation to any documents, or in relation to any accounts. That is the issue that is involved in this Bill.
Let the House once admit that the Comptroller and Auditor-General exceeded his right in asking for these confidential documents and what was pleaded by the Board of Assessors will undoubtedly be pleaded by other Departments whenever a question that it might be awkward for them to have investigated arises. Because of their action in introducing this Bill the Executive Council are deliberately limiting the powers of inquiry and investigation which hitherto had been reposed in the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
Now, suppose that this is done under Cosgrave's Government; suppose that the Department of Justice decides that certain moneys expended on it for certain services are based upon confidential documents; that pledges of secrecy have been given to certain persons and they advance that as a reason why the Comptroller and Auditor-General will not have access to certain files; if that is done by the Department of Justice as it is being done by the Board of Assessors under Cosgrave's Presidency what is to prevent it being done under the presidency of Deputy de Valera or some successor of his? Supposing there was under Deputy de Valera's Presidency a sum of £4,000,000 appropriated for services of education and that in the matter of that £4,000,000 the Accounting Officer said to the Comptroller and Auditor-General: "You may examine and audit how we have expended £3,000,000 of that money, but there is £1,000,000 of an expenditure that you must not inquire into because we are bound in that case by pledges of secrecy to those who have been the recipients of that money." That money quite possibly might have been expended in carrying out propaganda in another State. By a process of reasoning to which we have been accustomed in this House from the Minister for Justice, it is quite possible another Minister of the same mentality might argue that propaganda in another State was really educating the populace of that State. All the time while that was being done the Accounting Officer responsible to the Comptroller and Auditor-General could argue that because of certain pledges of secrecy which he had given, the Comptroller and Auditor-General was not going to be permitted to inquire into the manner in which these funds were expended.
If this Bill goes through you will shear the Comptroller and Auditor-General of all the powers that are necessary to enable him to discharge his duties properly. You will leave to the Comptroller and Auditor-General functions which, as the Minister for Agriculture has already said, would not be worth twopence. You will destroy the constitutional principles that the Dáil must have control over all public expenditure without exception. Those are the principles which are at stake in this matter. I ask those who feel that the control of the Dáil over public expenditure should be upheld, that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should act in accordance with the principles laid down in Great Britain so long ago as 1876, that he should have access to all documents no matter what their nature may be, and that he alone is competent to determine what documents are necessary to enable him properly to discharge his duties, to support those principles by voting against the Bill.
I think it has been emphasised well enough by Deputy MacEntee that an attempt is being made to create a precedent here that should not be permitted by this House. If, for instance, under this Bill a precedent is created by which certain money spent by the Department of Justice cannot properly be inquired into by the Comptroller and Auditor-General or by this House, what is to prevent any other Department of the State, having bungled in dealing with public funds, from coming to the House with another Bill of this nature and demanding that it be passed? The strongest argument in favour of its adoption would be the passing of this Bill. This is creating a precedent which should not be established by the House in relation to public funds.
Surely if it is thought that people who have got pensions under the Military Service Pensions Act have been entitled to them, and if there is no fraud to cover up, why is there any anxiety on the part of the Minister for Defence or the Government when the Comptroller and Auditor-General claims the right to examine the files on which these pensions were granted? I believe that the Government, knowing that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is not biassed by any political opinions, and knowing him to be just and honest in his office, fear his justice more than anything else. That is the reason, and the only reason, for this Bill. They fear that if the documents on which these pensions have been granted were examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it would be discovered that an amount of fraud has been committed, and that in the committing of this fraud not only the recipients of the pensions are involved, but the Board of Assessors, two members of which are members of the Government Party also involved.
Is the Deputy charging two members of the Government Party with fraud?
No. I think I am entitled to assume that this Bill is being brought in by the Government to prevent fraud being discovered.
What the Deputy conveyed was that there was fraud not only on the part of the recipients of the pensions, but on the part of the members of the Board.
Yes. It may be possible that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will discover that the Board of Assessors did not deal justly with the cases that came before them.
The Deputy said that it will be discovered that not only were the recipients of the pensions guilty of fraud, but also the Board of Assessors.
If that was the impression that my statement conveyed, I withdraw that suggestion.
The Deputy should be more careful because it is improper in a privileged Assembly such as this to make what can only be regarded as a very scandalous statement and then to make a simple withdrawal. It is not a procedure that will reflect any credit on the Assembly to make grave statements which could be made nowhere else against individuals and then calmly to withdraw.
I would not be satisfied with a withdrawal in a case like that. I would be prepared to go out of my way to try to repair anything that might be implied in my remarks. I assume, anyhow, that this Bill is brought forward for no other reason than to prevent a thorough inquiry into the granting of pensions. The Government feel that pensions have been obtained fraudulently by certain people and, in their efforts to cover up that, this Bill has been introduced. It is the general opinion in the country that very many people have got army pensions who are not entitled to them. From the evidence that I have, and the names that have been given by other Deputies here and the cases cited by them, it has been proved that people have obtained pensions who were not entitled to them. Deputy MacEntee also proved a case where the Pensions Board produced a certificate that a certain gentleman was entitled to a pension because of wounds received. When that certificate was examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General it was discovered that the claimant for the pension was not involved in the making of that certificate so much as the Pensions Board, that they had framed that certificate, and that certificate was falsely framed. I think we are entitled to assume that when this Bill is introduced it is an attempt on the part of the Government, or on the part of the Minister for Defence——
The Deputy mentions a case in which the Board falsely framed a certificate. I would ask the Deputy to be more explicit.
It was proved by the Comptroller and Auditor-General that the certificate was false.
Surely not.
It was proved by the Comptroller and Auditor-General that the certificate was not correct according to the documentary evidence before the Pensions Board.
It is bad enough for the Deputy to make charges himself against the Pensions Board. I take it that he is not talking now of the Military Service Pensions Board but of another Pensions Board.
Yes.
To be precise, what other Pensions Board?
The Wounds Pensions Board.
It is bad enough for the Deputy himself to make charges against boards, but now he says the Comptroller and Auditor-General proved that a Pensions Board—it is not clear what precise Pensions Board — falsely framed a certificate. I have read everything that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has ever written. and nearly everything that the Comptroller and Auditor-General has said at the Public Accounts Committee, since he was appointed, and to attribute to him the statement that a Pensions Board falsely framed a certificate is fantastic.
What I said was that the Comptroller and Auditor-General discovered that the certificate was not in accordance with the evidence before the Pensions Board.
Again might I ask the Deputy for the reference?
The Deputy must not make these charges implicating the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Comptroller and Auditor-General may have stated, as it is his function to state on occasions, that a particular payment was not in accordance with statutory authority. That is the form of many statements by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on such matters. What the Deputy has stated is that the Comptroller and Auditor-General proved that a particular Pensions Board had falsely framed a certificate. The Deputy ought not to make such statements.
Might I intervene to say that I think Deputy Clery is speaking under a misapprehension as to what I said last night?
I suggest that Deputy Clery should explain what he means.
I think before Deputy Clery makes a statement of this kind he should make himself sure of the matter, and not be under a misapprehension. The Comptroller and Auditor-General ought not to be attacked, and ought not to have attributed to him statements which he could not under any circumstances be conceived to have made. He could not have made the statement that the Deputy has attributed to him.
I was in fact paying a tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor-General rather than attacking him.
Not at all. It is an absolute attack on the Comptroller and Auditor-General to say that he said that a Pensions Board had falsely framed a certificate.
I think it is due——
Before Deputy MacEntee is allowed to intervene, I suggest that Deputy Clery is the person to clear the matter up.
I think Deputy MacEntee must let Deputy Clery clear the matter up himself.
I suggest that the Ceann Comhairle clear the matter up, too.
When Deputy MacEntee was speaking last night he cited a case of a gentleman claiming a wound pension who came before the Pensions Board, and the Pensions Board issued a certificate that that claimant had received wounds within a certain period which entitled him to receive a wounds pension as a volunteer. When the Comptroller and Auditor-General went into the documents he discovered that the certificate was wrong.
I must again ask for the reference.
I am entitled to assume that the certificate was, deliberately or otherwise, made out false by the Pensions Board.
The Deputy is entitled to assume nothing of the kind.
I mean by the Wounds Pensions Board.
The Deputy is not entitled to come to any such conclusion. I do not propose to let the Deputy continue his speech on that basis. He must conclude his speech. He is making the wildest possible statements which are contrary to all Parliamentary procedure.
I withdraw that statement and say it is quite clear that the certificate was not drawn up in accordance with the documentary evidence before the Board.
No, it is not. The Deputy will have to conclude his speech. He is taking us altogether outside the scope of the Bill and making wild statements about a matter which he apparently does not appreciate. As I said before, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee must be kept in a particular position. The Deputy has no appreciation of that position. The Deputy is dealing with a matter he does not understand and apparently has not taken the trouble to understand. The Deputy must conclude his speech as he is completely irrelevant and out of order. I will not hear Deputy Clery further.
He is getting the Minister on the raw.
I am not going to hear Deputy Clery further, because the Deputy is not discussing this Bill at all. He is simply making a series of irrelevant allegations.
If you declare that my mentioning those things is out of order I have no intention then of continuing in that strain. I want to know if you, therefore, rule me out of order.
Yes, I rule the Deputy out of order for persistent irrelevancy.
I maintain that there has been no disorder.
I have made a definite ruling and I will not hear Deputy Clery further. I call on Deputy Clery, therefore, to conclude his speech. Deputy Esmonde.
An impartial Chairman.
I entirely protest against being ruled out of order in this manner.
I think——
I think it is entirely uncalled for. This is another method of covering up the fraud that has been committed by the Pensions Board. The Chief Whip of the Government Party opposite has given pensions to all his followers in the County Meath. It was never before discovered why Meath has more pensioners than any other county in Ireland. The Chief Government Whip gave them to his followers.
Since the Deputy refuses to obey my ruling, I order him to withdraw from the Dáil.
(The Deputy not offering to withdraw from the Dáil.)
I direct the attention of the Dáil to the conduct of Deputy Clery.
My statement cannot be denied by the Chief Government Whip.