Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1936

Vol. 63 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote 9—Commissions and Special Inquiries.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £8,628 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí eile Coimisiún, Coistí agus Fiosrúchán Speisialta.

That a sum not exceeding £8,628 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and other expenses of Commissions, Committees, and Special Inquiries.

General Mulcahy

I move: "That the Estimate be reduced by £100 in respect of sub-head D." This Estimate provides a sum of £2,200 for salaries, travelling and incidental expenses in connection with the Commission of Inquiry into Banking, Currency and Credit. The Commission, which is one of great importance, was set up in November, 1934—18 months ago. Not a single word has been published in respect of the Commission's workings. A very considerable amount of very important evidence must have been given before this Commission, whether by officials of Departments, by persons connected with banking or others interested. It is of the greatest importance that the evidence placed before this Commission should be made available at once. I put down this motion in order to hear from the Minister for Finance what he proposes to do with regard to the evidence given before the Commission and when we may expect a report from the Commission. When the Commission was set up, I raised the question whether the evidence would be published or not, and the Minister for Finance replied that, for the time being, it was decided not to publish the evidence. I think the development that has daily taken place in the situation is of a nature that dictates that the evidence should be made available forthwith and that we should be informed when a report may be expected. Are we to wait for two more years for the report of this Commission, or what exactly is the Commission doing? Why is it necessary, at this stage of the Commission's proceedings, to vote £2,200? The information contained on the face of the Estimate would suggest that we are not going to get a report from the Commission for 12 months or more. I raised the matter in order to hear the Minister's views.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think that we have any right to try to control the manner in which the Commission of Inquiry into Banking, Currency and Credit, which has been set up by the Government, conducts its inquiry. One thing we may be certain of is that, constituted as it is of men experienced in these matters and broadly representative as it is of every interest in the community, it will do its work in the way which, in the collective view of the members, is best designed to secure reliable results. The Commission has decided that, for the proper prosecution of its task, its sittings should be held in camera and that the evidence submitted to it should, for the time being at any rate, not be published. There is nothing new or novel in that procedure. It has been adopted before and, if my recollection is correct, it was the procedure which was followed by the Banking Commission set up by our predecessors in the year 1925.

Neither has this Commission been lax or indolent in prosecuting its inquiry. Its first meeting was held on the 23rd November, 1934. In the period up to 23rd April of this year, the full Commission had held 21 sessions, averaging three days each. In addition, there have been numerous meetings of the statistical sub-committee set up by the Commission which has prepared and considered very valuable material not previously available concerning certain aspects of the economic and monetary position of the State.

I am not in a position to say when the Commission will report. I understand that it is at present engaged in reviewing the materials in its possession with a view to the formulation of its recommendations. I am sure it will be as diligent and expeditious in formulating its recommendations as it has been in conducting the inquiry entrusted to it. I cannot, at this stage, commit myself to any further statement with regard to the evidence but it may be taken that, as soon as the report has been presented and considered, the evidence will be made available to the general public. As I have said, there is nothing unusual in the procedure which the Commission has seen fit to follow in prosecuting its inquiry. It was the procedure adopted by the first Banking Commission, and I think it is the procedure generally adopted by Commissions of this kind. There would be no use in publishing evidence piecemeal. If the sittings of the Commission were thrown open to the Press the proceedings would get, at the very best, a summary and, for that reason, perhaps, misleading report, simply because attempts would be made to summarise in a column or half a column evidence and discussions which might have, in fact, occupied the greater part of a day. Quite obviously, the wise thing to do is to wait until all the evidence is available and until those interested in the problems which the Commission is considering are able to peruse and analyse the evidence in extenso.

General Mulcahy

Who will have an opportunity of doing that?

Mr. MacEntee

Those who are interested, including, I hope, the Deputy.

General Mulcahy

The people are to have an opportunity of perusing in extenso the evidence given before this Commission—when? That evidence was provided by quite a large number of witnesses and a large number of Departments. Instead of that evidence being given to the public in a way in which they can peruse it and examine it, they are to get it some time in the future—say two years.

Mr. MacEntee

They will get it with the report of the Commission.

General Mulcahy

Lumped together with the report.

Mr. MacEntee

Not necessarily lumped together with the report.

General Mulcahy

And perhaps not necessarily published, but if it is published, apparently the suggestion is that it is to be published with the report. Would the Minister say what chance persons interested in the various aspects of the terms of reference of this Commission are going to have of examining the evidence in any reasonable way if they get that evidence all published together? Here are the terms of reference:—

To examine and report on the system in Saorstát Eireann of currency, banking, credit, public borrowing and lending, and the pledging of State credit on behalf of agriculture, industry and social services, and to consider and report what changes, if any, are necessary or desirable to promote the social and economic welfare of the community and the interests of agriculture and industry.

That many-sided inquiry into a collection of many-sided interests is all going to be slapped together at the end with the report that we are going to get, without having had any opportunity in a reasonable time before that of seeing the various pieces of evidence that have been given bearing on the different aspects of the case. I think the whole machinery is one of concealment. It was made clear in correspondence between myself and the Commission of Inquiry in November last, that they were collecting oral evidence and documentary evidence and, as they put it at that particular time, that in the absence of——

Mr. MacEntee

Do I understand that the Deputy was prepared to submit evidence? The Deputy seems to have had some correspondence with the Commission. I was not aware of that.

General Mulcahy

I had correspondence with the Commission.

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Deputy tell us what it was about?

General Mulcahy

Certainly. I wanted to know from the Commission whether a verbatim report of the evidence would be taken and whether that would be made available to the public and to the members of the Oireachtas.

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Deputy tell us what the reply was?

General Mulcahy

Certainly. They replied that——

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Deputy ought to read his letter and the reply.

General Mulcahy

I do not think it is necessary.

Mr. MacEntee

We would like to have a specimen of the Deputy's English composition.

General Mulcahy

I have not the same opinion of my diction as the Deputy has of his, and I do not see any reason for publishing the reply verbatim, but I can explain in a few words what it was. I wanted to find when the Minister shirked giving information——

Mr. MacEntee

Read the letter.

General Mulcahy

I will not.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is afraid to do so.

General Mulcahy

Certainly not.

Mr. MacEntee

Then read the letter.

General Mulcahy

It was an inquiry in the form of a letter as to whether the verbatim report of the evidence would be made available to the public and members of the Oireachtas, and the answer was that there would be no immediate publication either of documentary evidence submitted to the Commission or of the reports of proceedings at which oral evidence is tendered by witnesses.

Mr. MacEntee

Is the Deputy entitled to read portion of the letter and not the whole of it?

General Mulcahy

I am entitled to read the part of it I consider suitable, and I am prepared to lay copies of the correspondence anywhere the Minister wants them laid. I ask for the protection of the Chair against the Minister's impertinence and interruptions.

Mr. MacEntee

I understand that the rule of the House is that when a Deputy reads an extract from a letter of that sort if the House or any Deputy asks for it, the letter is read.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not aware of any such ruling.

General Mulcahy

I ask to be protected from the impertinences and interruptions of the Minister and his attempt to draw a red herring across the issue. The reply I got from the Commission was that there would be no immediate publication of the documentary evidence or the oral evidence. It is intended, however, they stated, that the evidence, both documentary and oral, will be published in due course in connection with the Commission's report.

I consider that after the length of time that has passed since this Commission was set up, over 18 months, and considering the volume of evidence given before the Commission and the important nature of that evidence, that that evidence should now be published. As I understand it, however, from the ordinary operations in cases like this, and from what the letters from the Commission have indicated—that is to say, that the oral evidence would be taken—that evidence must be available and in printed form at the present time. The Estimate of the Minister before us indicates that we are going to lose another year before we see any sign of a report from the Commission. In the meantime the subjects that are down here for consideration by the Commission have become more and more pressing. The whole question of credit for the agricultural industry is infinitely more pressing to-day than it was in November, 1934, when the Commission was first set up and that question is going to be much more pressing after another 12 months.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely it is the findings of the Commission that are to count in that matter?

General Mulcahy

If we are going to wait much longer for the findings of the Commission, the findings of the Commission are not going to be of much use to us, and they certainly will be findings dealing with a very different situation from the situation that confronted them when they sat down to their work in November, 1934.

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly; the position is very much improved since.

General Mulcahy

Does the Minister tell the people of this country or the agricultural community who have lost £11,000,000 a year every year since this Commission was set up; does he tell the agricultural industry which gave employment to 5,464 less farmers and 1,055 less permanent agricultural labourers than it gave in the year in which the Commission was set up—does he tell the farmers who were given less employment to that extent in spite of the increases in beet, wheat and tobacco, that they are in a better position to-day than they were two years ago, losing as they are £11,000,000 a year on the trade that they could have?

Mr. MacEntee

I only tell the farmers of this country to beware of Deputy Mulcahy's statistics.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would like to tell both sides that the position of the farmers now as compared with two years ago is not relevant on this Vote, because if that were so we could, on the question as to whether the country was in a better position when the Commission was set up than it will be when it will report, bring in every possible sort of issue.

General Mulcahy

The point I want mainly to emphasise is that we have here a Commission that is dealing with a most important matter, and, if all the circumstances were known, dealing with a matter the circumstances of which are infinitely more important after 18 months have passed and a very considerable volume of evidence has been put before the Commission both in documentary form and as a result of the oral examination of witnesses. The Commission is not going to report for another 12 months, judging by the amount of money we are asked to vote now. Whether it is going to report inside 12 months or not, the evidence that has been accumulated in the meantime should now be made public, at any rate to Deputies in the Library, so that they will have an opportunity of making some study of the evidence given up to the present and be prepared to judge a very important report with some advertence to the evidence given. I completely distrust the policy pursued by the Commission in withholding this evidence, and, in spite of the protestations of the Minister, I cannot excuse the Minister or his colleagues from having induced or compelled the Commission to withhold from the public the evidence given before them.

Mr. MacEntee

That is a most extraordinary statement. I have had no communication whatever with the chairman or other members of this Commission since it was set up. Furthermore, I may say that I have no responsibility for the procedure which the Commission adopts in conducting this inquiry. It has never been the custom in our time for the Government to attempt to interfere with the discretion of Commissions of this sort in prosecuting their inquiries. As I say, we have no control over them. The Commission is set up to pursue an absolutely independent inquiry. I have been meticulously careful not to communicate any views I may have on any of the matters the Commission has been asked to investigate to any of the members of the Commission and, beyond giving it its terms of reference, I have had no other contact with it whatsoever. Therefore, I think if the House were to refer this Vote back, because the Commission in conducting its investigation has seen fit to pursue a certain line, pursue what seems to me to be the intelligent course, to defer the publication of the evidence until the report is completed, the House, would stultify itself. That would be, I think, an unjustifiable interference with the discretion of the Commission in conducting the investigation which it has been asked to undertake.

What right have we to come along and say to men of eminence, to men of wide interests, which those who constitute this Commission have, that they shall do such-and-such a thing merely because I, or any other member of the House, think it is right to do such a thing, when they, in their wisdom, having considered all the implications in the matter, have decided that, if they are really to conduct this very critical and searching investigation in the best way possible, the sittings ought not to be held in public, that a verbatim report, as the Deputy has admitted, will be taken of the evidence, and that, presumably, in due course it will be published?

I do not know why the Deputy is so anxious to press this matter. He may have had some reason arising out of the Banking Commission which was set up here formerly. I am not aware of the reason. I would not say that any evidence given to that Commission was deliberately withheld because it might not have supported the report which that Commission presented. I would not dare say that. I do not know whether it was withheld or not —I am not in a position to say. But, I certainly would say that, whatever was the report of that Commission, it would, if the evidence was available here to us, be justified by that evidence, and I say that because the men who were on that Commission were chosen, as we have endeavoured to select the personnel of this Commission, not because they had this view or that view, but because they were the men, of all who were available, the best qualified to carry out an inquiry of that kind. As I say, having selected our Commission in that way, having asked some very eminent economists, not merely eminent here, for we have quite a number of eminent people, but people who are international figures, to sit on that Commission, having, in addition, representatives, I may say, of every general interest in the country, I think that it would be an unwarranted impertinence on our part to dictate to them the manner in which the investigation should be conducted. I, for one, would not be any party to that.

I think Deputy Mulcahy has not made the shadow of a case for referring back this Vote on these grounds. As I said, when the report is available, I anticipate that the evidence upon which the report is based will be available also. It will be available in extenso, and those who wish to study that report will have at their disposal the full text of the evidence given. Certainly the study of that report, either on the part of the Government Departments concerned, or by any other student of the question, is not going to be a cursory study —it will have to be careful, searching and detailed. It is not going to be the sort of thing that one could approach beforehand unless he had in his possession the whole volume of evidence upon which the report was based.

I do not think that the Deputy has made, as I said, a shadow of a case for referring this Vote back. We set up this Commission. We did not set it up because we hoped to secure any political or other advantage. We set it up because we felt that, with the lapse of time which had taken place since the Saorstát was set up, an inquiry of this kind would be opportune and should not be any further delayed, bearing in mind that those who were on the first Banking Commission, and particularly that member who was associated with my predecessor as head of the Department of Finance, had indicated that, in their view, after a period of five years, or so, another investigation should be undertaken.

We have taken the opportunity, in conducting that investigation to ask the Commission to inquire into very much wider problems, problems that we might very easily, if we had wished, have burked. Upon occasions I have noticed leading articles in the Press about the income of this country: statements to the effect that some attempt should be made to assess it, and that other statistical data also ought to be available. Of course, the people who write the articles do not know how involved and complicated a matter that may be. As the Parliamentary Secretary said here this evening in dealing with the unemployment problem, those who attempt to make estimates of that sort are dealing with indeterminate equations. Certainly, neither I nor any of the ordinary personnel of the Civil Service would have time to devote ourselves to such a prolonged investigation as that would entail, and as I have said, we have set up a Commission to consider these things in a way that they have never been considered here before. The Commission has, possibly, wider terms of reference than have been given to any similar body on the continent of Europe within the past 20 years or so. I would like to see the report of that Commission at the earliest possible moment. I would like to see it because I think it would be useful to everyone in this country, no matter what his political views may be, or what his commercial or other interest may be. I would hope it would lay the foundations for a continuous study of economic conditions here which would be of very fruitful benefit to our people. While, as I have said, I would like to have the results of the Commission's enquiries at the earliest possible moment, nevertheless, so important do I regard the investigation that I would not attempt either to hurry them or, as I have said before, to interfere with their discretion as to the manner in which the inquiry which they have undertaken can best be prosecuted.

General Mulcahy

I join completely with the Minister in saying that I regard this investigation as of the utmost importance. I think it is of importance that the evidence which has been presented by way of memoranda from various people in the country, from various Departments and from others as well as the evidence which has been obtained, following the examination of witnesses by members of the Commission, all of which is available as it has been taken and printed during the last 18 months— all this evidence which is to be the foundation of the Commission's report —should now be published even though the report itself is not available. The Minister indicated truly that the terms of reference given to this Commission were much wider than the terms of reference given to the previous Banking Commission. There was a very great necessity to make them wide, and, as I have already indicated, the necessity is growing more marked every day. The Minister talked about burking things. I submit that he is burking things, and that he is going to burk the publication of the report of this Commission until after the next general election, and that, as part of his desire to do that, he is going to burk allowing anyone to see the evidence given before the Commission before the next general election takes place.

I do not think that the House should vote this sum of money for the purpose of assisting the Minister to withhold from them vital information on this subject of agricultural credit and industrial credit by having some further long-drawn-out examination of some aspect of the inquiry carried on until after the next general election which has been promised to us within the next 12 months. I say that because the people are going to have constitutional changes dangled before them as the major fare at the general election. This Commission has now been sitting for 18 months, and the House is asked to vote a further sum of £2,200 to meet the expenses of it. I submit that is simply an attempt on the part of the Minister to provide money to keep this Commission talking and talking and talking for another 12 months. The Commission has already been sitting for 18 months. It is well known that a considerable amount of evidence has been given before it during that period, enough, at any rate, to warrant it in coming to conclusions, particularly with regard to a situation that is getting worse and worse in a very rapid way.

I think that, strictly speaking, I should ask the House to wipe out completely this sum of £2,200 and not simply the £100 which I put down for the purpose of raising this question. I again charge the Minister that, in putting this before us and in taking up the attitude he has taken with regard to the evidence, he is doing so for the purpose of depriving the people of seeing the report of the Commission at this side of the general election or the report of the evidence that was given before it.

Mr. Cosgrave

I regret that I had not the opportunity of listening to the whole of the Minister's statement, but I did hear him draw attention to the fact that there had been a previous Currency Commission. The work of the previous Commission was very different from the work that has been entrusted to this Commission. The circumstances of the time were very different also from what they are now. The work that has been entrusted to this Commission is of very great importance. It has a bearing, and must be expected to have a bearing, upon the national finances of the country, and, consequently, upon the policy that has been pursued during the past few years by this Government, a policy which has departed in principle from the accepted standards of national economics in most countries. During the last few years we have been in the throes of what is called an economic crisis. That was the time selected by the Ministry for a very heavy increase in taxation, for huge borrowings and for leaving to their successors whoever they may be—assuming for the moment that they do not succeed themselves—the heavy task of meeting first of all the liabilities that have been undertaken so lightly and spent with so much eclát throughout the country in the hope of rehabilitating the damage they have done to the agricultural industry, and, generally speaking, of endeavouring to construct a system of national taxation which will not press very heavily on the people. Last week the Ministry was in great glee when they heard the first results of the County Dublin elections. The later news that came in rather dissipated their hilariousness. Let us ignore for the moment the political considerations.

Mr. MacEntee

If it is in order to discuss the County Dublin elections I should be very anxious to do it.

Mr. Cosgrave

Let us ignore that and realise that we have a certain responsibility here not to gain immediate popularity for any political Party but rather to see that the finances of the State are maintained in a sound condition. Would the Minister say if he gave an undertaking to the Banking Commission that the evidence given before them would not be published prior to the publication of their report? If any such undertaking was given, then this motion in the name of Deputy Mulcahy ought to be withdrawn. If no such undertaking was given, what is the real reason why the people who are paying the expenses of this Commission, who are certainly interested in its proceedings and to whom the evidence given before it is of considerable importance, should not, as occasion requires, be afforded the opportunity of reading that evidence?

Without being personal, there is scarcely a single member of the Ministry who has had any experience of administration, with possibly one exception. It may happen that their successors will be in the same position, but they will have at least this advantage over this Ministry, that they will have a longer period of political responsibility in this country to look to for their guidance, whereas the Ministry here have had the experience of ten years of their predecessors and they have their own knowledge that they not alone opposed practically all that their predecessors did, but adopted an entirely different line of policy. That of itself would be of great advantage to their successors. At the moment and in the future, and particularly as an election is pending, it is the people's right to see what exactly is the sort of evidence that is being given before this Commission.

Mr. MacEntee

Did the Deputy always hold views of that sort?

Mr. Cosgrave

I am asking the Minister a simple question.

Mr. MacEntee

Did Deputy Cosgrave always hold those views?

Mr. Cosgrave

Did the Minister give an undertaking to this Commission that the evidence given before them would not be published until the report would be published? If the Minister says he gave them that undertaking, we will withdraw this motion, because in the case of an undertaking given by the Minister in his capacity as a Minister, however we might disagree with it, we will consider ourselves bound by it. To endeavour to equate or parallel this Commission with its predecessor, the Banking Commission set up in 1925 or 1926, is the merest humbug, and the Minister ought to know it.

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Deputy point out the difference between them?

Mr. Cosgrave

The difference is that that Commission was asked to report upon currency, upon separating our currency from what we had, upon the setting up of a national currency, and the question before this Commission is of a larger kind—it has a wider character in every respect. This is a Commission which ought to have, and must have, having regard to the standing of certain people on it, reviewed the financial and economic policy here for the last four or five years and would not have been satisfied with that, but gone behind that. What is the situation? Take the one main industry, the most important industry of the country. The solvency of that industry bears no comparison to-day with its position five years ago. Deputy O'Higgins stated here the other day that a large number of those engaged in agriculture were credit bad. I had not heard the term before, but perhaps it aptly describes what the position of these people must be, having regard to the policy pursued by this Government during the last three or four years. If that information or information of a character like that has been before the Commission, what is the reason why it should be kept from the people? Is it that the people might come to a conclusion different to the report of the Commission?

If the Minister is reading the report of the Banking Commission, I advise him to look up the page upon which there is a return furnished of the arrears of Land Commission annuities. He will find there most instructive figures, and he will also find this, that although the previous Government entered into possession of arrears of something like £600,000, the arrears during three gales since this Government took up office exceed approximately twice that figure. Further, he will find that during the ten years of office of his predecessors no addition was made to the arrears; in fact, in the case of the 1903 Act, there had been a substantial reduction; whereas in the short space of four years since the present Ministry commenced to interfere with the agricultural economy of this country the arrears of Land Commission annuities have increased to £1,200,000.

What exactly is the policy of the Ministry with regard to the Commission? What do they want to keep from the people? What has transpired at this Commission? Are the people to be blindfolded at the forthcoming general election with regard to the financial and economic position of the country? If one takes up the returns published in the statistical abstracts, one finds a difference between the figures in the Minister's Budget speech and the figures recorded there. Let us at least have, if we can have it, a nonpolitical examination of the economic and financial condition of the country, and, if the Minister's policy has been sound or has been accepted by the Commission in any way, he is welcome to whatever political advantage he can get out of it. If, on the other hand, he hides from the public the evidence that has gone before the Commission, there can be only one conclusion, and that is that they are afraid to publish the evidence given.

Mr. MacEntee

I had not intended really to prolong this debate, but the speech we have just listened to would, for sheer nonsense, compel an answer. The Deputy who has sat down said it was humbug to try to make any parallel between the Commission which this Government set up and that which was set up by our predecessors in 1926. I agree that the investigation which is now being conducted is much wider. I hope it will be very searching and very thorough. But as to whether in character or in essence it differs so greatly from that which was set up by our predecessors as to entitle the Deputy to apply the word "humbug" to an attempt to make a parallel between the Banking Commission of 1926 and the present Commission, I entirely deny. The Deputy has referred to the reports of the first Banking Commission. I presume, therefore, I shall be in order in reminding the House that that Commission, though its terms of reference were apparently narrow and restricted, was in fact appointed to consider and report "what changes, if any, in the law relative to banking and note issue are necessary and desirable, regard being had to the altered circumstances arising from the establishment of Saorstát Eireann."

Those terms of reference are undoubtedly narrower than what we have given to the Commission now sitting. But if the Deputy knew anything about the work of his own Commission, he would have known it presented not merely a final report but four interim reports. What did they deal with? The first one dealt with banking and currency, that very narrow aspect of the problem to which the Deputy wished the House to believe the investigations of the first Commission had been confined. The second one dealt with agricultural credit; the third one dealt with long-term business credit, and the fourth interim report dealt with Government financial business, all ground which will be traversed by the present Commission in its investigations. An attempt has been made here to force me to interfere with the conduct of the present inquiry by the Commission to whom it has been entrusted. I said that I have had no communication of any sort with that Commission since I first gave it its terms of reference. I have been most meticulous to ensure that no allegation that I have attempted to influence, directly or indirectly, the Commission in the investigation which it has undertaken could be laid at my door. The Commission, of its own volition —I do not know whether by an unanimous vote or otherwise; I have said I had no intimation from the Commission on the subject—decided that its inquiry would be most efficiently conducted if the sittings were held in private. I do not propose to ask the Commission to change its decision in regard to that or any other matter which appertains to the investigation which has been undertaken. An attempt has been made here to say that because I refuse to interfere with the Commission in the way that has been suggested I am seeking to secure some political advantage. I do not know whether the report of the Commission will be critical of the policy we have pursued or commendatory of it. I would like that it should commend us; if it criticises us I hope I shall be able to benefit from those criticisms if I happen to be in my present office. I hope that those criticisms will be taken wisely, and that an attempt will be made to meet them by whoever may be in charge of public finances. But I do not care what the nature of the report is so long as it is founded upon evidence, and so long as some benefit and advantage will result to the community from the labours of the Commission. That is my primary concern, and it is the primary concern of the Government, which has agreed that the Commission should be set up.

I was saying that an attempt has been made here by Deputy Mulcahy, and again by Deputy Cosgrave, to imply that it is because we fear the political consequences of public sittings or because we have some ulterior political purpose to serve, that I refuse to interfere with the Commission in the prosecution of its investigations. I have told the House the nature of the inquiry which was pursued by the former Commission. I have pointed out that it felt it a duty to submit four interim reports, one dealing with banking and currency, the second dealing with agricultural credit, the third dealing with long-term business credit, and the fourth dealing with Government financial business. Deputy Cosgrave asked me a question as to whether I had given this Commission any assurance that the evidence would not be published. I have said that I have given the Commission no assurance; I have not interfered with it in any way. I think I am entitled to ask Deputy Cosgrave if he held in 1926 and 1927 the views which he now holds with regard to the publication of evidence given before Commissions of this sort? I think the Deputy ought to answer that question. Did he then believe that, while the Banking Commission which was set up by the Minister for Finance in his administration was sitting, the evidence given before it should be published at the time at which it was being taken. I do not know, Sir, whether I might sit down—as the song says, whether we might not all sit down together—and wait for the Deputy's reply.

I am sure it will come as a surprise to the House to learn—although this first Banking Commission reported upon the problem of agricultural credit, and upon long-term business credit and Government financial business—that 10 years after that Banking Commission sat there is not available in the Library for Deputies of this House a verbatim report of the evidence which was given before it. Mind you, the final report of that Commission—significantly enough—was presented on 31st January, 1927, just five months before the General Election of 1927. And we are told, without a shred or shadow of evidence or foundation for the statement, that we have endeavoured to influence the present Commission in withholding from the public the evidence which is given to them, because, forsooth, there is a General Election due within the next year or so! There was a General Election due in 1927; there was a General Election held in June, 1927, and one in September, 1927. The report of that Commission was presented to the then Minister, for Finance on 31st January, 1927, and, as I have said, to-day, ten years after that report was presented, there is not a transcript of that evidence available in the Oireachtas Library for any Deputy who may care to consult it.

It is an old saying that suspicion haunts the guilty mind. I have been charged with withholding evidence because the suppression of such evidence might serve some ulterior political purpose of the Government. Why was the evidence which was given to the first Banking Commission withheld by Deputy Cosgrave when he had it in his power to publish it in 1927? I have no purpose to serve except this, that I will not interfere with this Commission in the conduct of its investigation. I wish it to pursue that investigation purely in the spirit of a scientific investigator with a desire to find out the truth, and to make the truth in regard to those various matters available to the Irish people. I have no other purpose than that to serve, and I am not going to hamper that Commission in its investigations by telling it that it is to conduct its investigation in public or in private, or by giving to it any direction or advice or hint or suggestion as to how it would be more or less pleasing to the Government that this inquiry should be pursued. As I said at the beginning, we have here now in the fact that the previous Administration did not make the evidence available to the public, and in the suggestions which have been uttered in the speeches of Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Cosgrave, an indication and manifestation of the suspicion which haunts the guilty mind.

Mr. Cosgrave

I do not happen to have any responsibility for Government in this House. When I had, I was able to answer it. I was not on that occasion in the habit of saying what the British Government did in their time. If the evidence was asked for on the occasion of the last Banking Commission, and if it was at my disposal, will the Minister say that I refused it? The Minister need not adopt a lazy attitude with regard to public business. Was the report in question kept from the people before the election when it was requested that it should be published? Was there not introduced here in the Dáil a Bill to implement the findings of the Commission, practically as they had recommended?

Mr. MacEntee

That is quite a different matter. The evidence was not made available, and the Deputy cannot get away from that.

Mr. Cosgrave

Whatever documents were in my possession or in my control or custody were left in this State by me, and I could not say that of the person who was before me, the present President of the Executive Council——

Mr. MacEntee

That is a long way from the documents which he could have put in the Oireachtas Library between the years 1927 and 1932.

Mr. Cosgrave

——the person in whose custody they should be in this State. In order to make up documents which my predecessors had taken away, I left my own documents behind, and if the Minister seeks, by inference, to lead this House or to lead the public into thinking that I removed evidence or destroyed it, I deny that emphatically, and I say that the Minister has not a single inch of ground to stand upon in that connection. Does the Minister mean to infer that I removed or destroyed evidence?

Mr. MacEntee

I am merely saying that the Deputy who, as President of the Executive Council, could have seen that this evidence was made available to members of the Oireachtas in the Library, omitted to do so.

Mr. Cosgrave

I see. It so happens that there is what is called the Ministers and Secretaries Act, and nobody ought to know that better than the Minister, if he knows anything about his duties. It so happens that documents under the control of a Minister other than the President of the Executive Council are not the responsibility of the President of the Executive Council, and nobody ought to know that better than the Minister for Finance.

Mr. MacEntee

That seems to be trying to put the onus on Mr. Blythe.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am not attempting to do that. I am simply stating the fact. The Minister means to infer that, by reason of some remissness on my part, that evidence is missing. I draw his attention to the fact that there is a statute law in connection with this matter, and the Minister hedges by saying that I am trying to put Mr. Blythe in that position. I am doing no such thing. I am merely saying that whatever documents were left under my control were left by me in the office, and I want to know if any charge or allegation is being made against me to the effect that I removed or destroyed documents. If such charges are to be made, I want to know who is making the charges, and I shall meet them. I shall then know how to treat those responsible for making these charges, and shall make them meet the consequences.

Now to business. These are the kind of digressions usually indulged in by the Minister for Finance when he has a bad case. I have never seen or read of, in any country, such a manifestation of the slave mind as dominates the Ministry here when questions are put up to them in this House. They are always trying to evade the issue or trying to blame somebody else. On this occasion we have not asked for the Press to be present at the meetings of the Banking Commission. No claim is made in respect of that. We are not even asking that the evidence tendered before the Banking Commission should be published, except with the consent of the Banking Commission, and we are not going to blame the Minister if the Banking Commission, in its discretion, objects to the publication of the evidence. That point might have been clear from my statement, because I said that if the Minister had given any undertaking to the Banking Commission that the evidence would not be published we would not press for it. We are saying, and we are entitled to say, that very material changes have been made in the economic and financial conditions of this country during the last four years, and we are entitled to assume that these matters came before the Banking Commission in connection with their discussions. If the Banking Commission now, or at any time, say that they object to the publication of the evidence, we say: "Very well, we will accept that." But will the Minister undertake to have the report of the Banking Commission published five months before the general election? He seems to have some fault to find with his predecessors in publishing the report in January and having a general election in the following June. Will the Minister undertake to give that much notice this time? Will he undertake to give four months' notice? We are not asking for anything unreasonable. Public money is involved here. This is supposed to be a deliberative Assembly, and no matter what majority there may be in this House, when public money is voted it is our duty to see that value is got for the money voted. We do not dispute or criticise the cost of this, but we do say that, in respect of the spending of that money, we are entitled to see some of the results. That is by no means an unreasonable request. If, after 18 months, there is a very voluminous report published, and if the publication should take place on the eve of a general election, that is not fair to the public. Of course, I am sure the Minister will now get up and say that the first Constitution of this State was published on the morning of a general election. He will probably say that.

Mr. MacEntee

Again, suspicious.

Mr. Cosgrave

If there is no cause for suspicion here, nobody will be better pleased than we, because the architects of suspicion during the last 14 years are on those benches opposite. They have tried to sow suspicion in the minds of the public for 14 years, and, mark you, recent events are disclosing the fact that the public is discovering what they have been doing.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear!

Mr. Cosgrave

And it is not a wise proceeding to start with. The Ministers may, in the beginning of their hysteria, possibly, have had some grounds for it, but every year they have been in office has shown that there were no grounds for it and that it was unjust and improper. No matter how we may disagree on political matters, I think that at any rate we ought all to agree on having respect for truth and justice.

Mr. MacEntee

I would love to take up the matter with the Deputy, Sir, but perhaps it would be better to ask that the question be put.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 32; Níl, 44.

Tá

• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Finlay, John.
• Keating, John.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Neill, Eamon.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Corbett, Edmond.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Flynn, John.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Bennett and O'Leary; Níl: Deputies Smith and Beegan.

Question declared lost.

Motion No. 2 not moved.

Main question put.

Mr. Dillon

On this Vote there is a charge for a committee which was set up by the Department of Education to inquire into matters relating to industrial schools. As that committee was set up two years ago, I want to know from the Minister if it has yet reported, or whether steps can be taken to get from it an interim report on the conditions at present applying to juvenile offenders on remand?

Mr. MacEntee

May I call the Deputy's attention to the fact that there is nothing on this Vote about inquiring into the position of reformatories or industrial schools? There was last year but not this year.

Mr. Dillon

Is not that committee still sitting?

Mr. MacEntee

Nothing is provided for expenses.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no money for it in this Vote.

Mr. Dillon

I admit freely that there is no money on this Vote and that I cannot say anything about it.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy was going to ask about the report, I think it will be available in a comparatively short time. I cannot give the date specifically because it is a matter more for the Minister for Education, but I understand that it will be forthcoming shortly.

Question put and agreed to.