Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Mar 1932

Vol. 41 No. 2

Vote 71—Repayments to the Contingency Fund.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,583 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Roimhíocanna Ilghnéitheacha áirithe d'aisíoc leis an gCiste Teagmhais.

That a sum not exceeding £1,583 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, to repay to the Contingency Fund certain Miscellaneous Advances.

There is one item which, personally, I am not satisfied should have been paid from the Contingency Fund. When we were in Opposition we felt that payments from this Fund were of such a nature that they ought to be carefully examined by the Dáil. I shall take the opportunity of putting before the House a brief statement showing the nature of this Fund. A Contingency Fund was established in 1923-24 by the Vote of a Grant-in-Aid of £20,000. No final payment is charged against the Fund, and the Fund is restored to its original figure each year either by means of the repayments to Contingency Fund Vote or by repayment from the ordinary service Votes of advances made to them. The purpose of the Fund is to defray urgent or unforeseen expenditure which is not covered by ordinary Votes, and for which it may be impracticable to seek the immediate approval of the Dáil. The Minister for Finance may make advances from the Fund to meet deficiencies on the ordinary Votes, and for new services. Advances from the Fund are repaid from the appropriate ordinary Votes where a Vote for the service financed by the advance exists. In other cases they are repaid from the Vote for Repayments to the Contingency Vote. An account of the Contingency Fund, showing the advances made, repayments effected, and advances outstanding is prepared annually and is examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. This account is annexed to the Appropriation Account of the Vote for Repayments to the Contingency Fund in the annual Appropriation Accounts.

Part 3 of the Estimate gives particulars of the advances from the Fund in the current financial year which cannot be included in the ordinary Estimates. These are the provision of State bounties in respect of the birth of triplets. As the Department of Finance has no control over that important service, I hope the Minister for Finance will not be asked to account for the expenditure under that head in this House. Stamp duties remitted on deeds and other instruments in the Supplementary Estimate amount to £1,455 18s. 6d. These are Government deeds which are supposed to be stamped free of duty, but as no machinery exists for remitting that duty they are stamped, and the Revenue Commissioners Appropriation-in-Aid is met out of the Contingency Fund. The amount falls now to be reimbursed to the Fund in the Supplementary Estimate. The Department of Lands and Agriculture and the Department of Education present the majority of the instruments for stamping, free of cost, the former in connection with lettings and the acquisition of lands for forestry purposes, and the latter in connection with agreements between managers of national schools and their teachers.

The third item is in respect of renewal fees for 1931-32 and 1932-33 for patents in respect of the De Vecchis process for the desiccation of sugar beet. The position of that particular patent is a rather complicated one, and I have not had time to inquire into it, or to have it inquired into by the Department of Industry and Commerce, which, I think, is the Department originally responsible for the expenditure. I do not propose to say anything about it except that the item is a particularly small one and that I will have the matter inquired into.

The fourth item is an ex-gratia grant of £75 compensation to Mr. William McInerney for injuries received. Mr. William McInerney, of Kilrush, County Clare, is the gentleman who figured in Deputy Cosgrave's statement when, as President of the Executive Council, he was introducing the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Bill. Mr. McInerney was wounded on 12th September last as the result of an attempt made on his life, alleged to be due to his open denunciation of certain illegal organisations, allegations for which, after careful inquiry, I am satisfied there was no substantiation. His injuries were such as to necessitate his detention in hospital for about six weeks, and I understand that he still carries a bullet in the muscles of his back. Mr. McInerney, through the Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, made an appeal for monetary assistance from the State, and while it could not be admitted that he had any claim of a legal or equitable nature on the State, the late Government—and I should like to emphasise the late Government—felt in view of his injuries and as he had no apparent redress in law that the circumstances of the case were such as to warrant making an ex-gratia grant. On consideration the amount was fixed at £75, and was advanced from the Contingency Fund by direction of my predecessor, the late Minister for Finance. In opening my statement, I drew attention to the fact that the purpose of the Fund was to defray unforeseen expenditure which was not covered by the ordinary Votes, and for which it might not be practicable to seek the immediate approval of the Dáil. I am convinced that this certainly was a case in which the approval of the Dáil could have been sought before the ex-gratia payment was made. However, the payment was made, and it becomes my unwilling duty to submit it in the House, in order that the matter may be legalised, and that the Contingency Fund, for which I am responsible, may be reimbursed to that amount.

The Minister says that he is satisfied that this payment was not justified. I would like to ask if the Minister is in a position to judge that. The legal advisers to the late Government advised them to make an ex-gratia grant to this man in County Clare. If a citizen in the exercise of his civic rights receives an injury—and the Minister admits that this man has a bullet in the muscles of his back—he should be compensated. Perhaps this man may be married and may have a family that might otherwise be left helpless. Does the Minister suggest that the Contingency Fund should not be called upon in such an emergency to make some reparation to a citizen injured in this way?

I understood the Minister to say that he is now satisfied that the reason given by the late Government for making this grant to Mr. McInerney was unfounded.

The allegation was that the attempt on his life was due to his open denunciation of certain illegal organisations. I have searched the files, and I cannot see any substantial evidence to show that that allegation is true.

Mr. Hogan

I should like to know from the Minister how he has satisfied himself that there is no truth whatsoever in that allegation. Has he got a police report? Are there any reports on the files from the police? If he came to the conclusion that there was some doubt about the matter, it was open to him to apply to the police for a report.

May I remind the Deputy that the money has already been paid?

Mr. Hogan

I know the money has been paid, but this statement is being made now. Apparently the Minister came to the conclusion that this allegation is unfounded. He has interjected that he searched the files and could find no evidence in support of this allegation. Has he applied to the police for information? Has he got the police report, or has he come to this conclusion on his own examination of the files, without any reference to the police intelligence service?

With regard to the statement made by the Minister for Finance, I should like to know if there is a report by the police on the matter? If there is a report, it should be read in the House, because it is not fair to the police or to the officer responsible for the report that it should be treated in this way by the House. I, for one, shall not be a party to it.

I happen to be familiar with the circumstances pertaining to this particular case, and I should like to inform the House of them. The individual concerned happens to be a particularly vulgar, foul-mouthed and truculent individual, who has been throwing his weight about the western portion of the county——

Mr. Hogan

On a point of order——

The Deputy should not make such statements in the House when the individual concerned is not here to defend himself.

Very well. May I say that he has been unduly aggressive?

No. The man is not here to defend himself.

There can be no attack on an individual who is not here to defend himself.

They are paying him £75.

This individual has made attacks on people who have been politically opposed to him, and people who look for trouble usually get it. That, in my opinion, is what happened in the case of this individual, and, as there is no lawful authority for the payment of this money, I do not see why the payment should be approved of by this House.

It is quite clear that Deputy O'Grady does not agree with the Minister for Finance. Deputy O'Grady's statement is that those who look for trouble get it and deserve to get it. I do not know the circumstances of this case beyond what I read in the newspapers. None of us can blame Deputy O'Grady for the statement he made with regard to this man, because Deputy O'Grady is new to this House and I am sure that if he were aware of the usual procedure he would not have made the statement. I do say, however, that if the Minister for Finance comes to the House and states that he is not satisfied that there are grounds for the making of this ex gratia payment, he ought to give to the House the reasons why he is not satisfied. If the Minister were to-day in the position he was in two months ago— on the front Opposition Bench—and if a statement were made such as this without substantiation he would be the first to demand substantiation. That he always did. We, in this House, are privileged to say what we like about a citizen if we are prepared to abuse our position. We should not, however, abuse our position by making accusations unless we are prepared to substantiate them.

Mr. Hogan

In view of Deputy O'Grady's intervention, I want to make a further observation. I do not think the Deputy could be expected to know the procedure of the House, but I think that, apart from procedure in this House, the instincts of common decency would dictate that the Deputy ought not attack a person who is not here to reply. That is the fundamental point. Deputy O'Grady is here to reply and I want to put some considerations to him. The Minister for Finance has, apparently, based his present attitude on information supplied by Deputy O'Grady. If he has not, I should like to hear it. Deputy O'Grady says he knows all about this matter. I want to draw the attention of the House to this fact; at the same time, there was another outrage in Clare. The State Solicitor's house was fired into. Certain questions were raised here about that. President de Valera stated, at the time, that it was common knowledge about there that this outrage had got absolutely nothing to do with any of these illegal organisations. Furthermore, Deputy O'Grady stated publicly, as reported in all the papers at the time, that it was well known that this outrage, which took place practically at the same time, was carried out by sympathisers of the Government and friends of the Government Party. He stated that publicly and it was reported in all the papers. The Deputy who made that statement is the Deputy who now comes forward and makes this charge in connection with Mr. McInerney. There is one further point to which I wish to draw the attention of Deputies. Later on, when the Military Tribunal commenced to operate, a certain very prominent member of that illegal organisation in County Galway came before that Tribunal and admitted that he and his colleagues had carried out this outrage. I want to put that to Deputy O'Grady's credit, in view of the unfounded attack he made on Mr. McInerney.

I may possibly shorten this discussion by quoting the facts, as I know them. Both Deputy Hogan and Deputy McMenamin have asked me if I have had a report from the Gárda Síochána. I have not had a report but my predecessor had. It is as a result of the study of that report and of the correspondence which passed between the Department of the late Minister for Justice and the Department of the late Minister for Finance that I made the statement, that, in my opinion, the allegation that this man had been shot because of certain statements he had made was not substantiated. There may be some grounds for it but, certainly, the statement was not proven.

Will the Minister put the Report before the House?

Will Deputy Morrissey please keep order? He ought to know the rules of order. I have been challenged to produce the report of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána and I shall.

"Chief Superintendent's Office, Ennis, 8th December, 1931.

"Commissioner Gárda Síochána.

"Attempted Murder of James McInerney, Kilrush—Application for Compensation."

"I would like to emphasise that this report is read in the House at the instance of the former Minister for Agriculture and of Deputy McMenamin, a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

"With reference to yours of the 3rd instant, I beg to set out hereunder a brief account of Mr. McInerney's social and political status, together with a short outline of the circumstances which led up to the attempted murder. William McInerney is aged fifty-four years and resides at Vandeleur Street, Kilrush with his wife and her niece, Elisha Corry, a girl of about twenty six years. There was no issue from the marriage. McInerney, who is a building contractor, is renting the house he occupies and appears to be living in comfortable circumstances, but it is thought that he has not much wealth in reserve.

"Socially his position is only fair, because he is prone to using vulgar language, and for being offensive in this respect he was twice expelled from membership of the Hibernian Club, Kilrush, for periods of six months. There is no evidence to show that McInerney is of immoral habits, although following the attack on his life allegations to that effect were made locally. Searching enquiries however, failed to secure evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to support such an allegation, and I am inclined to believe that the immoral theory was deliberately put into circulation by the Irregular Section in order to cloud the position and thereby divert police enquiries from their direction.

"McInerney was prominently associated with the National Movement prior to the signing of the Treaty, and since the ratification thereof has been consistent in his support of the Administration. At all stages he seems to have taken special delight in openly denouncing any party which strived to subvert the State. In fact his enthusiasm in this direction might be classed unreasonable, and sometimes his criticism was meaningless."

He was qualified for Front Bench membership of the late Administration.

Mr. Hogan

Read the report.

"In August, 1929, a meeting under the Sinn Féin auspices was held at Cooraclare and he was a member of the party that went there to interrupt the speakers. On that occasion the meeting broke up in disorder and since then he was regarded in an unfavourable light by the extremist party. Since the inception of the local Cumann na nGaedheal branch at Kilrush McInerney has been identified with it as an ordinary member. He has held no appointment in that organisation nor do I think that the branch would deem it in the interests of that body to select him for officership. McInerney has been on friendly terms with one Dan Ryan, Merchant, Kilrush, and the latter some time ago gave employment in his garage to his (Ryan's) nephew, named Crowley. On the formation of a Section of Fianna Eireann at Kilrush, Crowley became Scout-Master and when the Scouts Organisation fell into decay Crowley was appointed a Second-Lieut. in the I.R.A. (locally). McInerney when he became aware of Crowley's activities urged Ryan to dismiss him (Crowley) from his employment, and this became known to the Irregulars who became more hostile to applicant."

Not less hostile, I am sure, than people whom this man's rough tongue offended, possibly people who belong to the Cumann na nGaedheal Organisation.

Read the report.

I am making the speech. I am entitled to make these interpolations and I am going to make them.

"There was also some sort of a belief in the minds of the public that McInerney was acting in the capacity of Intelligence Officer for the Government, although it is difficult to conceive how this belief could be accepted by an intelligent person. He was the very type of person that could not be used as an agent, because he had a weakness for broadcasting any information he possessed. As far as I am aware he never had any helpful information and never imparted useful knowledge to the Gárda. It can be fairly well accepted that his attempted murder was staged by the irregular element..."

There is not a scintilla of proof of that statement, and any man in this House who has legal training must agree with me.

"and although no evidence there is information that —— was one of the attackers."

Opinion is not evidence and that is the reason why I said that the allegation that an attempt had been made on the life of this man because of his political activities was not substantiated. The report of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána bears me out in that.

"It is not clear whether I am expected to give my opinion as to whether claimant should be paid any compensation. I venture, however, to express the view that McInerney's attitude although not altogether tactful, was helpful to the administration in the past. There were a number of people in Kilrush who were anxious to see the administration succeed, but these had not the moral courage to assert on their own volition allegiance to the State, consequently a person like McInerney was useful in so far as he gave a lead."

This rough-tongued gentleman who broke up meetings at Coolaclare—

"Perhaps"—the Superintendent goes on to say—When I read it, the House will understand why I have an instinctive objection to putting this Vote before the House and assuming even nominal responsibility for it, why I want to make it clear that the responsibility for this payment does not rest on this administration—

"Perhaps some little monetary assistance may entice him to continue his opposition to the extreme section."

I asked whether a report was received from the Superintendent, and the Minister stated there was nothing in the evidence before him to justify the payment of this Vote. He has read the report of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána of the district wherein it is stated that in his opinion this attack was staged by the Irregulars. Yet we are told by the Minister for Finance that there was no justification for the payment. I would like to know if it is the policy that in future the Gárda Síochána will be turned down in this way and put into contempt in this House?

Apart from the merits of the case, I want to know if the Minister is satisfied to use the Contingency Vote for payment of moneys in this way, even if he were satisfied that a man had a genuine claim. Is this the proper place to take the money from, and is this going to be a precedent, that the Administration could, if they liked, postpone making an announcement to the Dáil of payments of this kind. Is this the way they are going to do it? I would like the Minister for Finance to say definitely whether or not he approves of this, or whether any instructions will be given that the Contingency Vote will not be used for payments of any moneys except those the Vote is intended for. When this Party was in Opposition we questioned on several occasions moneys that were taken from the Contingency Fund Vote and spent months before the Dáil came to discuss them. There is no use discussing things of that nature when the Ministry can find an easy way out. In this particular case the money has been spent, and even if the House objected they could not recover it. All that can be done now is to replace it in the Contingency Fund. I would like if the Minister would state emphatically that this case shall not be taken as a precedent for future payments of this kind, and that he will see that those in charge of this fund will not be able at any future time to use it in this way. It is all very well to say that there may have been urgency. The Dáil was sitting at the time that this particular thing was on, and there were other ways of providing this money. I would like to know from the Minister if on the even of an election a Party can come along and take money from the Contingency Fund to make payments of this nature. The Minister should state definitely that he will see that no such further occurrence can arise.

After listening to Deputy O'Grady and the Minister for Finance, I would like to be clear on one point. Does the Minister for Finance and does Deputy O'Grady hold that because a citizen may be rough-tongued at the expense of certain organisations, the members of those organisations are justified in attempting to murder that particular citizen? That is what I want to know.

I hope that we will never again hear any of these reports read out here, for I consider that if there was any court in the country some of those gentlemen should be tried under the Corrupt Practices Legislation, if such is in force for Ministers. The final statement in that report gives the actual reasons for the payment made to that man as given by the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána mainly to induce him to continue his support. This gentleman was paid £75 out of the public funds to induce him to continue the support alluded to in that report— to break up meetings held by other parties. To induce him to continue that support he was paid £75 out of the public purse. That is the whole case in a nutshell. I would like to know from the Minister for Finance whether this money has been already paid and whether there is any means of making this gentleman disgorge that money. I hope we will not hear the like of that report read out here again, for it reflects on the Ministry. Especially so does the statement made in the report of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána reflect on the Ministry, when the reason put forward why that money should be paid was to induce McInerney to continue his rough-tongued support of the late Government during the election period. It may be that the sum of £75 which was paid in this particular case is only one of other similar sums of which we have yet to hear.

They do not come into this Estimate.

This one does. I am very glad that those sums did not affect the return of the Government to office. In my opinion the late Government should be in gaol for corrupt practices. For that reason I am glad that Arbour Hill Barracks are still there.

Two points arise on this debate—one, the method of investigation, when an allegation has been made; and secondly, the principle of law and order. The Minister for Finance gratuitously threw this matter into the House to-day.

He did not.

He gratuitously talked about the report that had been got and how he had not been convinced by that report. He was asked by two Deputies as to whether or not he had taken any information from the police, and the answer was "Nothing except what was in the Report." Then the Report was read. Granted that the man is an immoral man, that he has a foul tongue——

I did not say so.

——and that he is all the things about which allegations have been made, still he is a citizen and entitled to his rights and entitled to be protected. The Minister for Finance is not satisfied that the money should be paid, and he is not satisfied that the Report justifies it. What does the Report wind up with? That the police authority in that area is convinced that the attack was staged by what he calls Irregulars, and he says further that there is no evidence, but that he has information. I did not quite get the end, for the Minister tailed off in the reading. But there is something with regard to the information if there is not with regard to what is called evidence. The Minister for Finance is content not to approach the Civic Guard authority to find out the grounds upon which he states there is certain information, and why he states it is his opinion the attack was staged by people he indicates in a particular way. That is the point as to method of investigation. The other point is much more serious, the point raised by Deputy O'Higgins. Deputy O'Grady comes into this House and tells us, when he is defending the attitude adopted by the Minister for Finance, that what happened was that this man was asking for trouble and got it. That is a principle enunciated by the Deputy and it has not been repudiated by the Front Bench—that the man asked for trouble and the way he asked for it was by way of being rough-tongued in regard to certain organisations, and what he got was a bullet. That is why I want to underline in this House when we are starting off here on the first day of the session. There is a statement by a back-bencher which has not yet been repudiated by the Front Bench. That statement is that if a man starts off looking for trouble, if a man has a rough tongue, then that he is to get a bullet——

In the back.

That is the point that is before the House in the main. It is a small matter whether the Minister took the ordinary action that a responsible person would take in order to make up his mind before passing judgement. That is a small matter in comparison with the other points. We have it accepted by one Deputy sitting behind the Government that if a man is foul-tongued or rough-tongued as the phrase is, then he is asking for it and he should get it— that he should get a bullet.

That was never said.

That is the case Deputy O'Grady thought fit to intervene. That is the conclusion I draw from the Deputy's argument until that argument is repudiated.

I would like to say a word about this. I take it that the real question that is involved here is whether it was right that this payment should be made out of the Contingency Fund.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

No.

I take it that that is the fundamental question. I am not going to judge the whole question of the details and the whole grounds on which the payment was made. We have got a report here. I am sorry that the Minister for Finance did give way to the pressure to read that report because I do not want to see precedents of that kind established. But that was because one of the Deputies on the opposite side, one of the Deputies who was a Minister, pressed for it. I take it that was why the report was read to the House. Now the whole question is whether the Contingency Fund could be properly called upon for that payment. The point made by the Minister for Finance was just that the Dáil was in session and the question of making this payment could be brought before the Dáil, and that the sanction of the Dáil could be got instead of the Government, by what might be regarded as back-door methods, getting this payment made. If that were so it would be well if it were put before the House. Now, if there was a reason why that matter could not have been brought before the Dáil and sanction got for it I would be glad to hear it.

That was not the reason. It was quite the contrary.

As regards the merits of the case, I admit I am not in a position to judge them. The Minister for Finance had the report, and I think he was justified in the statement he made. His statement simply was that from the report which he had before him there was no evidence to prove that the attack had been made upon this man by the body that was accused of making the attack. Deputy O'Grady referred to local opinion about this case, of which he had local knowledge. He started by describing the man.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

The Deputy also had local knowledge of the Lynch case, and the President ought to know that.

He may have had, and he may be wrong in both cases, but the Deputy put it forward for what it was worth, that it was locally believed that there was no connection whatever between that shooting and the I.R.A. at the time. I know that Deputy Hogan refers to the Tribunal case in order to prove that the local opinion which I speak of was not correct. I will let the Deputy have that point.

Mr. Hogan

The local information in the Lynch case was given by Deputy O'Grady, and the same man gives this information now. The President ought to know that.

Whatever source of information I have I may or may not have stated it. I said, however, that the information was local information. Deputy O'Grady made a statement in the House, and I think it was his first speech in the House. He was giving local information for the information of Deputies here. I do not think such part of the information as he was proceeding to give is at all at variance with the confidential information which the Minister for Finance has mentioned. In fact, I think it is borne out by it. Deputy McGilligan is trying to suggest that Deputy O'Grady's attitude is that if a person does something which is of a character sufficient to arouse antagonism, he may be shot. As Deputy McGilligan well knows, Deputy O'Grady did not suggest anything of the kind.

He said exactly that.

He did not say anything of the kind. He used words that everyone of us know are used in private conversation. He simply used the phrase here that this fellow was looking for trouble.

Mr. Hogan

And he got it.

In other words, he was making enemies. I am not talking of the outrage at all. I am simply talking of the statement made by Deputy O'Grady. I was listening to that statement, and I think I am just as capable of appreciating what was the intention behind the statement as Deputies on the other side. He simply made the statement that this man was of a character likely to excite antagonism in all directions; and, therefore, it did not necessarily point at all to the direction which was made the basis of the grant by the Minister for Finance of the last Government. I think that is a perfectly straightforward understanding of the statement made. Deputies on the other side want to suggest that our attitude is that if a person does excite antagonism his antagonists are entitled to shoot him.

Mr. Hogan

That is precisely the position.

We do not hold anything of the kind. Even the Deputies on the other side do not believe it.

Mr. Hogan

That is what it comes to. There is no question about it.

The Deputies there know perfectly well that that is not our attitude. Deputy Cosgrave this afternoon knew perfectly well that there was no bargain, but he wanted to suggest to the public mind that there was.

Following applause in the public gallery,

I would like to remind Deputies that visitors to the public gallery are there by courtesy and as a privilege, not as a matter of right, and, in fact, that Deputies are personally responsible for the conduct of their visitors, and that any demonstrations of approval or disapproval that may interfere with the proper conduct of the business of this House may lead to the gallery being closed.

For the benefit of Deputy McGilligan I would like to suggest that he might read some of the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. He will find that on one occasion, dealing with the period early in the civil war, a military policeman was killed coming off duty in Mountjoy. An application was made for a pension, and the Attorney-General of the then Administration pointed out that as this man was actually in a public-house brawl he was not entitled to compensation from public funds. Deputy O'Grady pointed out that this particular man was looking for a brawl, and he was not entitled to compensation as a result of what happened in that brawl.

That is not the President's explanation.

The Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, whose statement was read by the Minister for Finance, conveyed the suggestion that this man, on the merits of the case, was not entitled to compensation from the State, but in order to encourage him to create further rowdyism at certain meetings, and to continue his activities in a certain sphere, the Superintendent suggested that it might be wise for the Government of the time to pay the man some little compensation. That is the case the Superintendent made, and it was on those lines the money was granted by the last Government. I would like Deputies McGilligan, Hogan and McMenamin to examine that statement and then back it up, if they can, with argument.

This discussion has really been extraordinary. The President of this Assembly has made a straightforward and honourable statement. There are some who are quite satisfied that the Minister of the last Administration acted fairly and justly. The statement of the Minister for Finance is an extraordinary one. He read a report which does not appear to be an exact replica of what occurred. One of the back-benchers of the Party opposite made certain charges against the man who was shot. Deputy Corry, with his peculiar knowledge of finance, adopted one attitude, and Deputy Briscoe adopted another. He said that this payment might be justifiable, but it should be under another Vote. There are few Deputies in the House who will not give Deputy Briscoe this much credit, that in anything concerning finance there is little he is not master of. The points put forward by others have all been rejected by the President. I was very glad to hear his speech. I think the whole matter is a storm in a teacup. I observe that Labour has not yet intervened, and I do not know why.

Wait and see.

All this appears to be a political move to besmirch the character of the previous Administration. I think the President's statement was a manly one, and it destroys that impression.

I feel sure that we may safely accept the statement from the President that Deputy O'Grady did not mean what he was thought by some to mean.

Mr. Hogan

He meant what he said.

I think we should not let this debate come to an end without recognising that such language as Deputy O'Grady used is extraordinarily dangerous. But it has been used over and over again in this country to justify murder, and it may so be used in future. I hope I will never hear anything like it in the House again.

I should like to make my position in this debate quite clear. It happens that this payment has been made. It will appear in the Appropriation Accounts. These Appropriation Accounts will be sent by me to the Comptroller and Auditor-General who will report upon them and they will subsequently be referred by the Dáil with that report to the Committee of Public Accounts. It has been my duty as Chairman of that Committee on a number of occasions to criticise the manner in which the Contingency Fund has been used. When I was called upon to put this Vote before the House I felt that it was not a payment which should properly be made out of the Contingency Fund. First of all, it was not a payment of extreme urgency, and, secondly, it was a payment for which it was practicable to secure the approval of the Dáil. I then found myself in this position: that the members of the late Government who would sit on that Public Accounts Committee would pillory me for having asked the Dáil to approve of a payment which I believed was improperly made from the Contingency Fund. No people can be so zealous in their duty as poachers turned gamekeepers. I felt it was necessary that I should safeguard myself against the public opprobrium which would be heaped upon me by members of the Opposition when they came to criticise this particular payment, and when I addressed myself to the House I addressed myself to this point and to this point only, that this was not a payment which I think could properly be made out of the Contingency Fund. When I put my case on this ground, following the brief which had been supplied to me, and which I presume had been prepared for my predecessor, I found that there was in it a statement that the attempt on this man's life was alleged to be due to his open denunciation of certain illegal organisations. I was not going to make that statement in the House without expressing my personal reaction to it. I took care to have this matter investigated in the ordinary way, had exactly before me the same information as was laid before my predecessor, and I said, and I repeat, that I could not find any substantial grounds for that allegation, and certainly not one tittle of evidence in the report of the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, or in another report which I have not put before the House, a report made by the Minister for Justice himself to the Minister for Finance. Does anybody want to hear that report?

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

Give it a rest.

I submit that it was necessary for me to say that. Otherwise what would the gentlemen opposite have said? They would have gone out and quoted my statement. They would have said that here was the Minister for Finance himself admitting that the attempt on the life of this man had been made because of his open denunciation of certain illegal organisations. Deputy McGilligan has given to the House to-day an example of his expertness in misrepresentation of that sort. We have seen the yes's twisted in this House until they have been made to appear noes. I know exactly what would have been the consequence if I had made a statement of that sort without expressing my own personal opinion in regard to it. Accordingly, in order to safeguard myself against that I said I could not find any evidence to justify that allegation. At once Deputy McMenamin, who is comparatively new to the House, and Deputy Hogan, who has been here for ten years, got up and pilloried me. Deputy Hogan in his best petty sessions manner asked me if I had made any investigation, or received any report from the Superintendent of the Gárda Síochána, or if I had done anything to sift this case for myself, and challenged me to produce the report. I did produce it. I read it at length, because if I had merely confined myself to one or two paragraphs which would have borne out Deputy O'Grady's description of this man, I would have been told that I suppressed something else. So I read it at length in order that there might be no possible ground for any allegation that in putting the documents before the House I kept any part of the truth from the House. That is why I produced the document. If any person feels aggrieved let him place the responsibility where it properly belongs. We on this side have suffered too long under the misrepresentation of the gentlemen opposite to be patient under it any longer, and wherever we can, and whatever we personally can do to safeguard ourselves against the distortion of the truth, amounting almost to falsehood, which we have endured during the past ten years, I warn them that certainly we will take every possible step in that regard.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

A dreadful threat.

It would be, because there were too many skeletons in your cupboard to have the cupboard opened. I do not want to indulge in cross-talk with my friend. I want to say that the money has already been paid. We can do nothing in this House except regularise the payment and reimburse the Contingency Fund, which we are bound to keep at the limit of £20,000. I should like to contradict a statement of Deputy McGilligan. I did not, when I was introducing the matter, refer to the police report at all. I did not refer to it good, bad or indifferent. The matter of the report was not opened until it was opened by Deputy McGilligan's colleague, Deputy Hogan.

I never said it.

You said I talked about the report.

I said you dragged the whole matter gratuitously in.

I did not. With regard to the question as to whether I am going to abuse the Contingency Fund in the way it has been abused by the late Administration, I give the House this pledge: that so far as I am concerned, so long as I am entrusted with the administration of this Department, I will certainly not use the Contingency Fund in this way; that any matter of fresh expenditure which it is practicable to refer to the House, will be referred to it by me before it is made. I give Deputy Briscoe the assurance that never again will the Contingency Fund be used for an improper purpose.

Question put and agreed to.
Resolutions reported and agreed to.
Top
Share