Vol. 250 No. 1
I move:
That the Committee of Public Accounts shall examine specially the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J, Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969-70 and shall furnish a separate report on this expenditure as soon as possible.
This motion requires some comment before the House disposes of it. The matter it is proposed to refer to the Committee of Public Accounts is a matter which has already attracted very considerable public attention. Because of its nature it is a matter of considerable significance and the manner of its proposed reference to the Committee of Public Accounts is slightly unusual.
On a point of order, I did not think there was any agreement for a discussion on the question of this matter being referred to the Committee of Public Accounts. I would remind Deputy Cosgrave of his question dated——
I do not think this is a point of order. Any motion is entitled to be discussed and I propose to discuss it without interruption.
If I might answer the Parliamentary Secretary's query, the matter to be debated on this motion is whether the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid should be referred for examination and report to the Committee of Public Accounts. The matter itself cannot be discussed in the House; it is only a question of whether we should send it to the Committee of Public Accounts or whether we should not.
I do not wish to interrupt the leader of the Opposition. I do not want to stifle any debate, but I thought it would be better if the matter went to the Committee of Public Accounts and then possibly the House could debate it.
I have no desire to prevent the Committee of Public Accounts discussing this, but I have, I think, a duty to direct the attention of the House to certain limitations which apply to Select Committees and also to the operations of the Committee of Public Accounts. Deputies who have been members of the Committee of Public Accounts are probably aware of these limitations.
As I say, this is a serious matter. It is somewhat unusual to proceed to have a special or a particular investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts in advance of the normal Appropriation Accounts being referred to it for investigation. The particular limitation to which I want to direct the attention of the House applies by long-established convention to Grants-in-Aid, as they are called, and that convention goes back as far as 1896. It is important that the House should be aware of this limitation. I shall quote for the House Appendix No. 16 to the Third Report of the Committee of Public Accounts in the year 1896 which is entitled "Grants in Aid". Briefly, the procedure is that the Public Accounts Committee does not go behind or beyond the Accounting Officer's certificate in respect of a Grant-in-Aid. That is a particular limitation.
The strictly conditional manner in which provision for public services is made by Parliament constitutes one of the cardinal principles of our financial system.
1. Not only may no grants be exceeded without fresh Parliamentary authority, accorded by a supplementary or excess grant; but the only sums which are chargeable against grants must actually come in course of payment within the financial year to which the grants relate; and consequently any portion of the grant unexpended and remaining in the hands of the Accounting Officer on the 31st March, is returnable to the Exchequer, the surrender being, for the purposes of convenience, usually effected by a write-off of the unexpended sum against the grant of a subsequent year.
Now, this is the important part:
2. The expenditure within the Parliamentary Grants has to be accounted for in detail by the Accounting Officer, and his account of the appropriation of the money, which is called the "Appropriation Account", is directed by Statute to be examined on behalf of the House of Commons by the Comptroller and Auditor General—
This, of course, has been changed by the Standing Orders which apply in our case.
—who has to ascertain and report whether the conditions attaching to the grant have been complied with, and vouchers for payments are forthcoming.
In the case, however, of one form of grant, that is, of grants which are technically called "Grants-in-Aid", the conditions are less strict. For, while such grants, which are in the nature of subscriptions or contributions, must like ordinary grants, be paid away within the year by the Accounting Officer, the receipt for the money in the lump, which he obtains from the grantee or grantees, is held to be a sufficient discharge; and the expenditure in detail is not necessarily followed up by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I say "not necessarily", because in these cases, though the Comptroller and Auditor General is often required, under Section 33 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, to examine and audit the account of the grantee, yet his statutory duty, in the absence of such requirement, is confined to seeing that the Accounting Officer is entitled to claim credit for his payment to the grantees.
I direct the attention of the House to that Appendix to the Third Report because it has been since then the practice in respect of the Committee of Public Accounts and there is, therefore, an obvious limitation on the extent of the investigation, or investigations, which the Public Accounts Committee can make.
There are, in addition, other restrictions on the powers of the Committee of Public Accounts. As the House is aware, under Standing Orders the Committee of Public Accounts is selected from the different parties in the House. It has been the established practice for the chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to be a Deputy of the Opposition rather than a Government Deputy. The report of the committee can be approved only if it is assented to by the committee, or a majority of the committee, and, under Standing Orders, in the event of there being—I quote Standing Order No. 71—"an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative". This, I think, has rarely happened but, because of the special nature of this investigation, it is right the House should be aware of these limitations.
The normal procedure is for the chairman to submit to the members a draft report. Frequently that report is considered at more than one meeting and very often it is amended. Finally, the report, as approved, is signed by the chairman and becomes the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts. Because of the terminology of the Standing Order, as applicable to either the Committee of Public Accounts or to any other Select Committee, in the event of a majority of the members not accepting the chairman's draft report or in the event of an equality of votes on any matter, then the question is decided in the negative.
Although the committee may investigate the subject matter of the reference included in the motion, the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland issued from Subhead J, Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969-70, the precise terms of reference of the investigation have not been laid down other than anticipating that the Committee of Public Accounts will in the normal way investigate the matter; but, because of the limitation to which I have referred in the Appendix to the Third Report, which has governed the practice and procedure of the Committee of Public Accounts up to now, there is an obvious danger. As the procedure is at the moment—this is an important matter for the House to consider—the Committee of Public Accounts will not normally go beyond the certificate of the Accounting Officer that the Grant-in-Aid has been paid and that he has got a receipt from the grantee.
Therefore, I want to draw the attention of the House to the deficiencies in this procedure and to the possible need to provide certain additional powers for the Committee. As the House is aware, under Standing Orders a Select Committee empowered to send for persons, papers and records may report its opinions and observations, together with the minutes of evidence taken before it, to the Dáil and also make a special report of any matters which it may think fit to bring to the notice of the Dáil.
Under the procedure adopted in two earlier Select Committees, certain decisions were taken. So far as I am aware the first was in respect of the Moneylenders Bill, 1929. The Select Committee appointed decided in April, 1930, that witnesses would be allowed to bring advisers, including solicitors, but that it should not hear counsel. At a later date the Select Committee on Mining Leases decided in July, 1935, that the Committee, if it wished, could hear counsel.
Under the Oireachtas Witnesses Oaths Act, 1924, provision was made for each of the Houses of the Oireachtas and any Committee of either House and any Joint Committee of both Houses to administer oaths to witnesses. There are penalties in the event of the witness giving false evidence. However, there is one notable deficiency in that provision in that there is no power to compel a witness to attend before the Committee.
Therefore, the motion before the House possibly suffers from a number of technical deficiencies. Under the established procedure of the Committee of Public Accounts governed by the Minutes of the Appendix to the Third Report of 1896, it has not been the practice of the Public Accounts Committee to go behind the Grant-in-Aid. In other words, the practice has been that the Comptroller and Auditor General accepts the certificate of the accounting officer that the money has been paid to the grantee. Under the provision of the Standing Orders I have quoted, in the event of an equality of votes on the Committee the report will be in the negative. Lastly, under the Act I have quoted there is no power to compel the attendance of any witness to give evidence, although there is power if a witness attends to require him to give evidence on oath.
Without going into the matters with which this motion deals, according to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance in answer to questions here there are other investigations being undertaken by the Garda. The House is entitled to know whether it is proposed to furnish to the Committee the results of these investigations and whether all the documents and records will be put before it. It is important to clarify this point because all that is provided in the motion before the House is:
That the Committee of Public Accounts shall examine specially the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J, Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969-70 and shall furnish a separate report on this expenditure as soon as possible.
There is not included in the terms of this motion any power or directive to send for persons, papers and records. The established procedure of the Public Accounts Committee, long sanctioned by usage, is that the accounting officer, usually the Secretary of the Department concerned, is entitled to bring along and frequently asks permission of the Committee to allow a subordinate official of his Department to answer specific queries on particular aspects of the matters under discussion.
The established recognised procedure so far as this country is concerned and the established procedure in Britain since 1896 is that once a Grant-in-Aid payment is vouched for, and the receipts accounted for by the accounting officer as having been paid to the grantee, that is the end of the matter. The House and the country should be aware of the very serious limitations in the established practices and procedure. They have not been extended by the terms of this motion; in fact, it is quite terse in its phraseology. Although there is the implication that the Committee of Public Accounts is investigating the circumstances in which this money was expended, and the manner in which it was spent, now is the time for the House to realise that on the established procedure that has operated the Committee of Public Accounts would not normally go beyond the actual terms of the receipt issued by the accounting officer. It is essential at this stage that this aspect of the matter should be mentioned.
Attention should also be drawn to the fact that a committee of the House, or for that matter the Dáil itself, may deliberate in public or in private. It is the practice of select committees, including the Committee of Public Accounts, to deliberate in private. The report is subsequently made public, including the minutes of evidence and any observations the Committee may make. In this instance I believe there is a strong case for hearing the evidence in public but the Committee might appropriately, and possibly more effectively, deliberate in private.
However, having regard to the practice now in operation and in the absence of a definite decision to the contrary, the position is that committees of this character operate in private but make the report public. I believe that it is right that these aspects of the present situation should be brought before the House for consideration. The House is entitled to an assurance on behalf of the Government, whether by the Taoiseach or some authorised Minister, that all the facts relating to this matter, and including the Garda investigation which has already taken place, will be made available to the Committee, and that, if necessary, powers will be taken to compel the attendance of witnesses. Lastly, and not of least importance, there should be no attempt to frustrate the report of the Committee by a negative finding. This is a matter which involves the whole credit of Parliament and the accountability of public expenditure. General experience has shown that the Committee of Public Accounts has functioned in the past in a non-political way. However, this is the first investigation of a character such as this, where special reference was made as distinct from the normal reference of the Appropriation Accounts, which are normally considered approximately one year or even 18 months in arrears. In this particular case the special reference is unusual. For that reason it is important that all aspects of the situation should be fully considered by the Dáil before deciding that the procedure adopted is the most likely to achieve the result which, I believe, is in the public interest.
At first glance this motion which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach seems harmless, even though it is unusual that a matter such as that contained in the motion should be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts. There are a few points which disturb the Labour Party in so far as this motion is concerned. Not the least of them is that the public would not be kept informed from day to day while the Committee is sitting. My view, and the view of my party, is that no matter what investigation there is to be, it should be conducted in the full glare of publicity. I must confess we are very suspicious of this apparently harmless motion. I would prefer if the Government would propose that there should be a Special Committee of the House appointed to investigate the subject matter of this motion. During the famous debate in May last I proposed, in respect of the allegations that arms were illegally imported into this country, that a Select Committee of the Dáil should be appointed. That was rejected by the Taoiseach. In view of what has happened since last May I believe the Taoiseach should seriously consider the appointment of such a committee as per Standing Orders of this House.
It has been said that this Committee would have no real power to call witnesses or to demand papers or records to be given to them. During the past 12 months, when the accounts of the Department of Justice were being considered by the Committee of Public Accounts, one distinguished civil servant refused to pass over a particular file to the Committee or to the auditors. I believe that this proposed Committee would be far too limited in its scope and its terms of reference in investigating what has come to be regarded as a near scandal. There is doubt surrounding the expenditure. The doubts have been hinted at by the Taoiseach himself. There have been veiled suggestions and innuendoes to the effect that the money was misspent. Why is this course being adopted now? In May last the Taoiseach said he had certain information which suggested that certain members of his Cabinet should be dismissed. The Taoiseach also suggested that the information he had would be given to the Attorney General in order that the Attorney General might decide whether there should be a prosecution. The Attorney General decided that there should be a prosecution. We all know now what the conclusions of that trial were and what happened to the Taoiseach's allegations. There is now a shadow of suspicion over those who were charged with the spending of the £100,000. Why was this tidy little method of trying to determine what happened decided on? I am very disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary merely moved item No. 3 on the Order Paper. He would have saved the House time if he had expanded a little more, for the benefit of Deputies and for the benefit of the public, on what the real functions and powers of the Committee of Public Accounts would be.
I would, therefore, suggest that the Taoiseach should treat this matter a little more seriously than it appears it is being treated now. If the Taoiseach has certain information, or if as a result of the Garda investigation he has more convincing information, why would he not adopt the course which he adopted last May? Why not refer the matter to the Attorney General to see whether or not some criminal action has been committed? On that particular occasion in May last the Taoiseach refused to have a Committee of the House set up. The Taoiseach preferred to be a little more pure-souled and sent the information which he had to the Attorney General.
I do not know whether the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is empowered under the Rules of the House to accept an amendment, but if I have his permission I would add an amendment proposing that a Committee of the House should be appointed to investigate the expenditure of the £100,000. It has been pointed out that this Committee could make its own set of rules, could decide that all the records and papers involved would be at the disposal of the Committee. The Dáil should direct that the investigation be in public. Certainly, there is doubt and suspicion about the expenditure of this sum. I am satisfied, and my party are satisfied, that this is the best and cleanest method of investigating this matter. We would re-echo the call we made last May. We ask that the Government accept the suggestion of a 17-man Committee of the House to investigate the expenditure of the £100,000 which was supposed to be for the relief of people in Northern Ireland.
I wish to deal briefly with the main points mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave and by Deputy Corish. I agree that the country is entitled to know what the functions of this Committee will be. I refute any suggestion or allegation, as made by Deputy Corish, that we, on this side of the House, are trying to stifle any matters relating to this particular situation. Two main points have been mentioned. They are the question of the Grant-in-Aid and the question of dealing with this matter in public. These points have been referred to by Deputy Cosgrave, Leader of the Opposition and by Deputy Corish, Leader of the Labour Party.
At this stage the Parliamentary Secretary is just clarifying some points, I take it?
That is so. I was under the impression that one member of each party was to speak.
This is not concluding?
I was under the impression that just one member of each party would speak. I reserve my comments until the matter has been fully debated here. I do not wish to show any discourtesy to the House.
The House would be helped if the Parliamentary Secretary did make some contribution now or if somebody from the Government benches would comment on the major points that have been raised.
The Chair understands that the Parliamentary Secretary has already spoken and would not normally be called on again, except by way of explanation, until he is replying.
In the most formal manner he merely said "I move".
I take it that there is no limitation on the debate?
There is no limitation.
If I speak at this stage, may I take it that the Parliamentary Secretary will have the right to conclude?
It is a pity he did not open the debate.
It is a pity Deputy Keating was not here when the matter got off the ground.
I was here.
If the Deputy wants to make this a political matter——
It is a political matter. Is Deputy Andrews saying it is not one?
Deputy Cosgrave's first point was that normally, and under the precedents under which the Committee operate, there is, in effect, no examination of a Grant-in-Aid. I think it would be fair to describe it in that way. However, I would draw the attention of the House to the wording of the motion which is as follows:
That the Committee of Public Accounts shall examine specially the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief issued from Subhead J, Vote 16 (Miscellaneous Expenses) for 1969-70 and shall furnish a separate report on this expenditure as soon as possible.
It seems to me that the wording of the motion makes it quite clear that the procedure which would normally apply in the examination of a Grant-in-Aid by the Committee would not apply in this case because the House would have decided to get the Committee specially to examine this particular Grant-in-Aid and the expenditure under it.
The next point made by Deputy Cosgrave was, I think, in relation to the power to compel attendance of witnesses. There is, it seems to me, some slight area of doubt in this field as to the powers of the Committee. I do not think the suggestion of a Select Committee of the House will overcome that doubt or that difficulty. It does seem to me that there is a great deal to be said for the House to follow, as far as possible, the normal procedure which they would adopt in the investigation of expenditure of any moneys voted by this House: to use the machinery which we have in that regard—the Committee of Public Accounts—over which, as Deputy Cosgrave pointed out, traditionally, a member of one of the Opposition Parties is chairman.
There is a lot to be said for using the normal existing procedure. I do not think we should anticipate that that procedure will be inadequate for the purposes required. If it should transpire that the procedure is inadequate for the reason mentioned—a lack of power to compel attendance of witnesses—it seems to me that it is open to the Committee to come back to the House and for the House to decide what action, if any, should be taken in that regard. There is a great deal of force in the argument that we should as far as possible utilise our normal existing machinery. I have a feeling that, as far as the public are concerned, this is what they would expect us to do and that to adopt any other procedure might well raise certain doubts as to whether we were not adopting another procedure for ulterior motives. I think that as far as possible this expenditure should be examined in the same way as all other expenditure incurred under the authority of this House is examined.
With regard to the question of disclosure to the Committee, I would refer the House to a statement I made on 26th November, 1970, in reply to questions by Deputy FitzGerald. It appears in the Official Report at column 2326 and is as follows:
If this motion is adopted the Committee of Public Accounts will be in a position to examine the various transactions connected with the Grant-in-Aid. While a detailed account is not, generally speaking, submitted to the committee in respect of expenditure from a Grant-in-Aid, my Department will, in this case, provide for the committee full details of the payments made, together with all other information available from its records or obtained from the gardaí.
It is our intention to make available to the Committee all the information that we have available.
The question of the procedure to be adopted by the Committee—in particular, whether their hearings should be in public or in private—is a matter for the Committee themselves. I would think it wise for the House to leave it to the discretion of the Committee to decide which procedure should be adopted in that regard. If there is dissatisfaction with the procedure of the Committee, there is another way of dealing with it. I do not anticipate any difficulty in this regard. The reason I suggest that, rather than direct the Committee in this and that it ought to be left to their discretion, is, as Deputies are aware, that certain names may crop up in connection with this investigation which most Deputies would prefer were not published. This is a possibility.
The Minister should speak for himself.
Am I to take it that Deputy Desmond does not care what names are published or what the consequences are?
I am interested in the full facts and in nothing but the full facts being disclosed.
Am I to take it that the Deputy wants everything disclosed no matter what the names and no matter what the consequences?
Without exception. There is no privilege where the taxpayers' money is concerned.
It is possible that the Committee might take the view that some names—in particular of people in Northern Ireland—which might crop up in connection with this matter should not be published. This, of course, does not mean that the details should not be made available to the Committee nor does it mean that the Committee are bound to decide that such names should not be published.
It seems to me better that the members of the Committee should be allowed to get the detailed statements which they will get from my Department and, having considered those, then they might be in a better position to decide what should or should not be made public. I do not wish to tie the hands of the Committee in any way, either to full publication or to no publication or to partial publication. I am suggesting that it would be better that the Committee should get the opportunity of looking at the information available before they make such a decision. This would be in accordance with our normal procedure. While one could anticipate certain difficulties, in certain circumstances, it might well be that such difficulties will not arise at all. If they do arise, the matter can come back to the House and the House can decide what to do. If they do not arise, there is a great deal to be said for following our normal procedure in this regard.
I would also point out that a number of Deputies from the other side of the House from time to time have asked the Government to refer this matter to the Committee of Public Accounts. In particular, Deputy Cosgrave has done so in his question No. 108 on 29th October this year when he asked the Minister for Finance "if, in view of the growing public disquiet at the disclosure of irregular expenditure of money voted by Dáil Éireann being applied for purposes other than those covered by the Vote of the Dáil, he will refer the matter for special investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts as a matter of urgency". This motion does precisely that: it refers it to the Committee of Public Accounts as a matter for special investigation and as a matter of urgency. That is indicated by the terms of the motion which calls for a separate report as soon as possible. We are doing precisely what Deputy Cosgrave asked us to do and what other Deputies also asked us to do.
I mention that because I think it is important that no suggestion should be allowed go forth from this House that the Government's approach to this matter is in any way motivated other than towards ensuring that this House, which is the supreme authority in regard to the voting of public moneys, will be given full authority and full facility to investigate this matter. If the procedure we are adopting is the one suggested by the Leader of Fine Gael, whatever else may be said about it, it cannot be said that it is designed as a method to ensure some advantage to the Government. If we are adopting precisely the suggestion made by Deputy Cosgrave it cannot be disputed that we are doing it in such a way that no advantage or disadvantage will accrue to any party in this House as a result. Anybody who is concerned with the House and with its standing, having examined the position can, I think, only come to the conclusion that the correct procedure for this House to adopt in present circumstances is the one enshrined in this motion and the one suggested to us by Deputy Cosgrave.
First, I should like to say to the Minister for Finance and to the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Andrews, that if there was any misunderstanding—there seemed to be some on the question of the taking of this motion which came up last week— it was a genuine misunderstanding. As far as our side of the House was concerned it was not understood that any formal approach had been made to take this motion quickly. Had that been understood, we would have been more than willing to accept it. It was a genuine misunderstanding. In the heat of the moment we, perhaps, spoke more strongly to each other than the facts justified.
I accept that.
Secondly, it is important that this matter should be debated here in the same spirit as the Committee of Public Accounts conduct their own debates. I have been a member of that Committee for upwards of a year and I have been impressed by the way in which debates are conducted. By and large, I think if there were an audience, which there has not been for the ordinary meetings, the audience would not easily detect which were the Opposition Deputies and which were the Government Deputies.
The Deputy will appreciate that in the presence of an audience the debate might be different.
I completely accept that that could happen. But from the way members of all parties have spoken it is unlikely. It is fair to say that the Committee have always carried out their functions impartially and I think we should debate the matter here in the same way. The Government should appreciate that on this side of the House we are concerned that through no inadvertence should any failure occur in carrying out this particular function. The points Deputy Cosgrave raised are all valid ones, ones that need attention, and ones to which the Minister has directed himself, but there are one or two further things I should like to take up.
The power to compel attendance of witnesses does not appear to exist at present. The Minister feels there is some doubt about this and I think a doubt is sufficient to make it difficult for the Committee to proceed should any witness refuse to attend. He said that in such circumstances the matter could be brought back to the House by the Committee. I think he could have gone further and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary's reply will go further to say that if such a difficulty arose the Government would initiate the necessary legislation to deal with the matter by extending, for example, the powers to compel witnesses' attendance under the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1931. We are entitled to an assurance that this would be done and I think the Minister implied this in what he said.
May I interrupt? What I tried to convey was that we should not anticipate the difficulties but if the kind of difficulties we both anticipate did arise then they could, I think, be approached in at least two if not three different ways. I suggest that if such a difficulty occurred that would be the time to consider which of these ways would be the best way to approach it. The House can certainly have my assurance on behalf of the Government that it is our intention to take such steps as are necessary to make a full investigation possible.
I take that assurance to mean that while the Minister does not want to commit himself to a particular method of compelling attendance of witnesses the Government do not intend to allow this inquiry to be vitiated by the refusal of witnesses to attend?
Yes.
I agree with the Minister that there is no need to anticipate this problem which may not arise. I also put it to him that it has been necessary to get his assurance and his "Yes" just given is important because some witnesses might be minded not to appear but if they know their intention will be frustrated by the House because the Government have given this assurance, then I think the difficulty will not arise at all.
I was going to add one slight qualification and it is this. While this debate at the moment is being conducted on the kind of level on which I should like to see it conducted, the Deputy will appreciate——
You may thank us for that.
I think you can thank this side of the House also for a certain amount of it. What I want to say is that it is not unreasonable that we on this side of the House might fear that certain difficulties would be created for party political purposes. My undertaking on behalf of the Government relates to the steps necessary to ensure that all relative information is produced. It does not relate to dealing with every possible point brought up by a member of the Opposition for party political purposes as distinct from trying to get at the truth of the matter. The Government are in the position that if they refuse to co-operate on what is a genuine request only they will lose.
Yes, although some time might elapse before they might lose. I think the Minister is raising a difficulty here because I am not too sure who is to decide impartially whether something is being pressed as a legitimate inquiry or as a matter of party politics.
Ultimately, the public will.
Yes, but I fear this takes away somewhat from the Minister's assurance and this is a pity. I had stressed the importance of approaching this in a non-party manner.
That is the Government's intention—to approach it in a non-party manner.
It might have been better if the matter had been left like that rather than introduce this curious qualification. In the few seconds since the Minister spoke I have been desperately trying to envisage what kind of questions we could put which would not be necessary for the inquiry, which would require the attendance of a witness who had refused to attend and which would be for party political purposes. I cannot easily think of how we could, with any pretence of legitimacy, proceed along those lines. The Minister is raising an unnecessary hare. It is a pity he has raised it and that we have such a qualified assurance. If we, on our side, say we will pursue this investigation fully and thoroughly without fear or favour and confine it, of course, to the matter at issue then we are entitled to an assurance that if we are frustrated and some witness, who is essential for the clarification of the whole question as to what happened this money, refuses to attend, the Government will, in those circumstances, take the necessary action.
You have that undertaking.
In the light of the way the debate has gone that is as far as I should like to press the matter at the moment. The question of whether the Committee should meet publicly or privately is, I agree, a matter for the Committee. I see arguments both ways. I think the public would expect in these circumstances that the Committee would meet publicly but that is a matter which the Committee will have to consider when they meet.
There is a problem that Deputy Cosgrave raised which has not been met by the Minister. It is a difficulty which arises from the fact that on this Committee there is equality of membership and whereas normally we might expect the chairman's casting vote would decide an issue there is a provision specifically written into the Standing Orders that govern the working of the Committee that if there is an equal vote on an issue the proposal shall be negatived.
There is genuine fear on this side of the House that, in certain circumstances, if the report did not meet the views of the members of the Government Party, and they decided they would be better off without this report, and better off to accept the odium of frustrating the report than to have the report, if they took such a decision, they could so frustrate the publication of the report. I think we are entitled in these circumstances, bearing in mind the manner in which this Committee have always proceeded and bearing in mind, if I may say so on behalf of my absent colleague, the manner in which the Chairman of this Committee has proceeded, and bearing in mind the fact that the report will be drafted by him to ask the Government for an assurance that, such a report having been drafted by him, and debated by the Committee, and amendments made in the spirit which I have already mentioned, under no circumstances would the publication of that report be frustrated for party political reasons.
I do not wish to intrude this concept into the debate but the Minister having introduced it on one side, I am equally entitled to raise a fear on the other side. This is our fear and it is one thing on which I should like an assurance that in those circumstances the publication of the report would not be frustrated for party political reasons.
I can certainly give that assurance.
So long as it means what it says. We have been told that the result of the Garda investigations will be secured, and that is all right. There is one other matter, however, about which I am a little bothered because I see here some contradiction. I had questions down to the Minister last week and he refused to reply to them. I have already adverted to that and I do not wish to comment further on it now in its own right. There is one problem.
One of my questions related to funds paid into this account—and we have been told by two witnesses and I think by prosecuting counsel that these funds were paid into this account-funds subscribed by members of the public in response to a specific request from the Minister for Finance that they should subscribe money to this fund. They subscribed their money to the Irish Red Cross in accordance with the Minister's request and it appears that moneys were paid into this fund from these subscriptions, out of which the attempted arms purchase was financed.
The Minister refused to answer the question on the grounds that this matter would be covered by the inquiry. On reading the motion I cannot quite see that it is covered by the inquiry because the motion refers to "the expenditure of the Grant-in-Aid for Northern Ireland Relief". The fact is, however, that other moneys have been abused in a curious way from what we understand, through first of all the Government and the Minister for Finance's predecessor requesting the public to subscribe to one particular fund——
On a point of order, might I suggest that the Ceann Comhairle's ruling on this earlier on was that what we were to discuss was whether or not this should be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts. I appreciate that the Deputy has to make certain points but, nevertheless, I would suggest that if we can confine ourselves to that we will maintain the standard of the debate, but if the Deputy tends to wander off into the actual subject matter, things will change.
I have been trying very hard not to refer to the subject matter except to the extent necessary to make my point. I think it is necessary to make my point here because the Minister refused to answer a question of mine on the grounds that the subject of it would be a subject of this inquiry. It does not seem to me that the motion covers it. I do not know if I am even entitled to ask the Minister for an assurance that, in the light of what he said in the Dáil last week, the other moneys involved would also be covered by this inquiry. It is true that they must be covered incidentally in so far as they have been merged in a fund with this £100,000, but it is one thing that they may be covered incidentally and it is another thing to investigate them fully. I should like to hear from the Minister on this point.
On a further point of order, may I submit that if Deputy FitzGerald is right in his contention that in fact this matter does not come within the terms of reference he is not in order in raising it now.
That is what I want to know.
It is another matter.
If the Minister is submitting that, he is also submitting that he acted irregularly last week.
No, I am not. If Deputy FitzGerald's contention is correct, and I told him last week that it was not, and if he is still contending that it is, then he is not in order in this debate.
I am not contending anything. I am saying there are two possible viewpoints.
It is great to have two Chairs. Apart from the man who is occupying the Chair the Minister is now able to rule on whether things are in order.
May I point out, Sir, that I said I submit that Deputy FitzGerald is so and so?
The Minister has twice successfully prevented the Deputy from saying something.
Although Deputy Tully does not think so, Deputies on this side of the House, Ministers or back benchers, have as many rights as Deputies over there and that includes the right to make a point of order.
The Minister has no right to interrupt anybody and I am surprised that he is allowed to do so.
The position of the Chair is that there is a motion before the House and that is the motion which is being discussed at present. The Deputy should keep to the motion before the House. We are not to discuss the matter itself.
Quite.
This will be discussed by the Committee and the only motion before the House at the moment is whether the matter should be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts. This is the subject of the motion.
On a point of order, surely one can make the point as to why it should or should not go to the Committee of Public Accounts?
It is open to the House to consider it from the point of view of whether it should or should not go to the Committee. This is certainly open to the House.
Surely we are entitled to say why we think it should or should not go?
The Chair is ruling that, but matters outside the subject of the motion are being brought in.
I am sorry if I offended but what I am trying to do is even more fundamental than discussing why it should or should not go to the Committee. I am concerned to raise the question of what should go to the Committee, which I think is pretty fundamental. We have had a statement from the Minister in this House which he has just repeated now if I understand him aright, that a matter which did not seem to me prima facie to come within the terms of the motion does so come within the terms of the motion. I simply seek clarification on that.
The Deputy will appreciate that the motion refers to moneys issued from subhead J. Vote 16.
What I am talking about now is money subscribed by the public and which the Minister stated last week would be covered by this inquiry. He has repeated this assurance here. The Chair will appreciate my dilemma when I have contradictory assurances as to the scope of the motion from the Chair and the Minister. I seek clarification on this.
The position in regard to the Chair is that this motion was put down and there was time for Members to submit amendments. This has not been done.
There is difficulty. To submit an amendment one would need to know what the motion means. I read the motion as meaning one thing and I had a solemn assurance from the Minister that it meant something different. I can only put down an amendment if I discover whether, in fact, my initial interpretation of the motion is correct or whether the Minister's assurance is correct. When that has been clarified it might be necessary to propose an amendment.
We have come to this motion in rather peculiar circumstances, circumstances in which we have been given an advance interpretation of what it would mean when it came out. It did not seem to me that the wording of it entirely justified the Minister's assurance but I did not wish to challenge his assurance by putting down amendments as if I did not accept what he said. I now seek clarification that, despite the appearance of the motion that it does not extend to moneys subscribed by the public, the Minister is right in the assurance he gave me last week and the assurance he has given me just now that the inquiry will fully extend to these moneys.
This bears out the point I made last week that you cannot take particular items in isolation and that, in practice, I would suggest that what the Deputy should do is to see the report and so on which come from my Department and he will then find something of the extent of the inquiry and, indeed, the Committee may go further than that. I think he will find that what I said is correct but if he does not he can always come back with a question.
There is a difficulty now because it is one thing to say that the reports to be submitted to the Committee will deal with other matters and it is a different thing to say that the Committee are entitled to investigate these other matters fully. I thought I had an assurance from the Minister last week and again from the Minister a couple of minutes ago that the Committee could investigate fully the disposal of these sums of money. From his last statement I have now been put in a position of some doubt because he talks of coming back if necessary. Why should it be necessary to come back if I am assured that we can, in fact, investigate these matters?
The Deputy should not put words into my mouth.
I am trying not to.
On the basis of what I said, I have contended that the Deputy will find—if as I anticipate he is a member of this Committee—its investigations covering the items to which he has referred. But if he is not satisfied that the inquiry goes as far as he wants it to go, to that extent he can come back with questions in the House.
I am in a dilemma I have never met before. I do not know how to deal with it because I have been given by the Minister assurances contrary to the view you have expressed yourself, Sir, and I do not know to whom I now appeal.
The Deputy will appreciate the position of the Chair in regard to the matter. There is an appropriate motion before the House in regard to it and this motion has been there for some time. No amendment has been proposed to it. It would have been open to any Member, before the debate in due time, to put down an amendment.
The reason why there is not an amendment down is because of an assurance the Minister gave, which he has, I think, repeated here, that this motion does, in fact, cover these other moneys, that they would be fully covered by the report, that the Committee would be able to discuss them. He has expressed then some doubt, if a difficulty arose, about a comeback by question and answer. It is a quite different thing to dealing with it by way of this Committee. I am not at all clear from the Minister's statements, which seemed to me not to have contradicted each other but to have varied in tone, and from your ruling as to whether, if I drop this matter now, the Committee will be in a position to inquire fully into the sums subscribed by the public. It is a straight question and I think I am entitled to a straight answer.
It is not possible to give a straight answer to the question the Deputy is putting. I tried to convey that to him before, because his interpretation and mine might well differ. What I am suggesting is, I think, a reasonable proposition. Let the inquiry go ahead and if the Deputy finds that, as the inquiry is going ahead, it does not appear to be covering what he thinks it should be covering, although it is covering what I was referring to, then he has a remedy.
What remedy?
He can come back and ask questions in the House.
That is precisely the trap which I am trying to avoid. We were given an assurance by the Minister last week that this inquiry would cover these moneys. He repeated that assurance to me in his first reference to this matter by way of this dialogue today. He has now changed his ground completely.
No, I have not.
He is implying that the matter may not be covered by it but, if not, then I can ask questions.
I am not. That is not what I said. I said that, if it is not covered to the extent that the Deputy thinks it should be covered but is covered to the extent that I think it should be covered, if that should be the situation, then the Deputy has a remedy.
I am sorry. I do not think there is room for disagreement between us on the extent to which it should be covered. Either the Committee has power to investigate the disposal of the moneys subscribed by the public and merged in this bank account with moneys from this fund or it has not.
It has not.
I cannot answer the Deputy because I have said what I think the position is. He does not seem to be able to accept it or to understand it.
In view of the fact that we have been misled, no doubt unintentionally, by the Minister's statement last week and that he has now changed his position and talks about our dealing with this question perhaps by way of questions in the House and not by way of this inquiry——
I did not say that. May I say it once more and will the Deputy listen this time? What I have said is that this matter will be covered by the inquiry but it may be that the Deputy will decide that the extent of the coverage by the Committee is not the full extent that he thinks it should be, in which event I will have been right in what I said and the Deputy will have been right, but he will not be left without a remedy.
I just cannot accept that the question of the extent of the coverage could be an issue. It is a matter of fact for us to decide now in interpreting this motion as to whether this motion does or does not entitle the Committee to inquire into the disposal of funds subscribed by the public and merged in a bank account with funds from this particular account. Either it is entitled to inquire, in which case it can ask questions on oath and it can report on the matter, or it is not entitled to inquire. The question of how far it inquired is something that does not arise. The Committee adopts a procedure of questioning people and then writing a report. There is no room for disagreement.
It is not as simple as that, and the Deputy, I suggest, should wait until he sees the full report and he will know what I am talking about. It is just not as simple as a "yes" or "no".
Unfortunately, one cannot wait and see because if one sees at the end that one is not getting what one has been assured one will get one will not be permitted to come back apparently and get this motion amended to extend the inquiry. All one would be entitled to do would be to ask questions in the House. The Minister ought to appreciate that no Member of the Opposition will want to fall into that kind of trap. He may not feel he is setting a trap but it is a potential trap from our point of view.
But the Deputy was asking questions about it. I do not understand. Is his objection to asking questions about it?
No, my objection is that this is a matter in respect of which information was sought in this House by way of question. That procedure is a standard procedure and it extracts useful information. But clearly this matter cannot be adequately dealt with by that process in view of the limitations of that process and particularly in view of the fact that it extracts information only from the Minister in respect of matters for which he is directly responsible and does not extract information from other people who have been involved in this affair. Therefore, the Minister and the Government have agreed to refer this matter to the Committee of Public Accounts. Now the question arises of what is referred to that Committee. As the Minister refused to answer a question of mine in respect of these public subscriptions on the ground that the Committee's inquiry would cover it and as he has told me repeatedly here today that it will cover it, one would have thought that ended the matter. But I am in a dilemma because the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would appear to have indicated that the motion does not cover that and that, should I wish it to be covered, I should have put down an amendment; and the Minister himself has cast some doubts on the extent to which he is fully convinced that it is covered by saying that I may not be satisfied with the extent of the coverage in which case I can come back and ask further questions.
There seems to be some confusion between the Chair's and the Minister's interpretation of the scope of the motion. As it would appear that the Minister is anxious that all moneys, including that subscribed by the public, should be properly investigated, could it be resolved by all parties in the House agreeing that an amendment would be accepted that would broaden the scope?
I would be in some difficulty about that because I would not know the implications of this for the particular society concerned. However, I would suggest—it is very difficult to explain this because Deputies have not got the facts of the situation —that when Deputies do get the facts they will see that their inquiries will extend to some of the activities of this particular society. I do not want Deputy FitzGerald to say that I have misled him or misled the House afterwards and I am trying to guard against this possibility. What I am suggesting is that, if the Deputy finds that the coverage of the inquiry is not sufficient in his view, that he is not then left entirely without a remedy. In my view, as I can see the situation, the Committee will make some inquiries into moneys coming from this society.
Deputy Cluskey's suggestion is a good one. While the Minister naturally will not want to accept an amendment when he has not even heard what it is, may I put it to the Chair that in the special circumstances of the case and in view of the confusion we have got into, which is nobody's fault, a late notice amendment might be accepted along the following lines:
after 1969-70 to insert the words "and any other moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to an account to which moneys from this Vote were lodged."
That is specific and clear. It confines it to the moneys that were lodged by the Irish Red Cross Society into this same account as moneys from this Vote were lodged.
The Chair must point out that an amendment can only be accepted at this stage by universal agreement of the House.
I appreciate that. I am putting it, through the Chair, to the Minister to consider.
Surely it is in accordance with what the Minister has stated they want?
May I have a copy of it? Perhaps we could continue and I will consider it.
Certainly, I will write it down. I have written out the post-amendment. I shall repeat the details. It is to insert after the words "for 1969-70" the words:
and any other moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to an account into which moneys from this Vote were lodged.
I am open to suggestions in relation to phraseology.
"To a bank account"?
Yes, "to a bank account into which moneys from this Vote were lodged". "Were or may have been lodged" is suggested as an improvement.
Perhaps the Deputy would care to continue on whatever other points he wishes to make because I would need time to consider the implications of this in relation to that society.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulty. Naturally, he would require time to consider the amendment but I am sure he will appreciate my difficulty in that this was the last point of my remarks. However, I shall recapitulate the points I have made so that the House may see where we stand now on the various issues raised. On the power to compel attendance we have assurance from the Minister that if witnesses whose presence is required for the purpose of this inquiry fail to attend, the Government will be prepared, if the matter is brought back to the House, to take the necessary steps to ensure the attendance of such persons. The Minister has said there are two or three different ways of doing this but he has no wish to commit himself as to which one might be adopted.
We have been told by the Minister previously and during this debate that the results of the Garda investigations and any other inquiries carried out will be communicated to the Committee. That is satisfactory. The question of whether the discussion will be in public or in private is a matter that is being left to the Committee. The Minister has raised the point about the publication of names in the case of people from the North of Ireland who might be prejudiced if their names were published. At this stage I would like to make the point that if there were pub-public hearing and if this matter arose, it could be met by the way in which it was met in the court, that is, by the submission in private of a particular name and by referring to a particular person as "Mr. A" or "Mr. B". This would avoid disclosure. I make this point merely to suggest to the Minister that his objection while it is one that may have some validity is not one that should prevent the holding in public of this inquiry should it be decided by the Public Accounts Committee that the inquiry should be held in public.
The final point I made was about the power to investigate the disposal of these funds—funds that finished up in the same account but came from a different source—where there is an element of public responsibility because of the circumstances in which the account was opened and because of the circumstances in which people were asked to subscribe to this fund.
These, then, are the points I wish to make and I wish to reiterate what I said at the outset that it is important that this matter should be debated here and by the Public Accounts Committee in a non-partisan atmosphere. One of the disadvantages of Question Time is that when one puts down a question one does not always receive a reply that might be regarded as satisfactory. Further, in the ensuing to and fro, there can be generated more heat than light and it may appear to the observer that there is a partisan atmosphere even though one is trying to obtain information in an objective manner. Because of the way in which the Committee has operated heretofore, this difficulty does not arise.
As far as I am concerned, this amendment is acceptable because, as I endeavoured to indicate, this is what we contemplated would happen. If the House is happier to have this amendment inserted, I have no objection to its being inserted. However, for the record, I should point out that under Standing Order No. 127 the Committee of Public Accounts examine sums granted by the Dáil to meet public expenditure. I do not think that covers what is here. As far as I am concerned and in so far as the Government are concerned we are not raising any objection but I am merely drawing formal attention to that point. We are prepared to accept the amendment. I would add that the word "other" in relation to moneys should be left out so that the amendment would read:
and any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which moneys from this Vote were or may have been lodged.
I accept that as an improvement but I wish to point out that the point raised by the Minister in relation to the Public Accounts Committee is not one which should concern us. In this instance we are not simply handing over to the Public Accounts Committee a matter that they must consider as a part of their normal duties. We are specifically referring particular matters to a Committee of the House which, for this purpose, is being asked to do things which they would not normally do. If we were not doing that, the motion would not be necessary but since there is a special motion we are entitled to request the Committee to consider a matter that is outside their normal duty.
I thank the Minister for accepting this amendment and for the way in which, through this method of dialogue we have been able, I hope, to ensure that a full and impartial inquiry will be carried out.
Is this amendment being accepted unanimously by the House?
It is not. Certainly, it is not being accepted by this party.
I understand that the Labour Party were unhappy that this matter was being referred at all to the Committee of Public Accounts. That is a position which might lead them to take a certain course of action in the division lobbies, but it does not necessarily mean that they might not win that division but it need not lead them to oppose a particular amendment that would not be in accordance with the normal method of dealing with amendments in relation to Bills and motions. I submit that, constructively I hope, to Deputy Dr. O'Donovan.
We do not believe that the Public Accounts Committee are properly equipped to do this kind of work. We base our belief on the very nature of the Committee and on the results that they have achieved during the past 40 years. The results have been deplorable.
On a point of explanation, while I suggested that the difficulty being experienced by Deputy FitzGerald and the Minister might be overcome by an amendment, I wish to point out that as far as we are concerned, we will accept the amendment without prejudice to our position regarding the motion as such.
That is fair enough.
Can we take it, then, that the amendment to the motion is accepted?
If this motion should be accepted by the House subsequently——
But the amendment is being accepted at the moment.
Motion amended, by leave, by the insertion after the figures "1969-70" of the words:
"and any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which moneys from this Vote were or may have been lodged."
I rise to amplify what has been said briefly by my colleague, Deputy O'Donovan. My period of experience on the Committee of Public Accounts is a brief one—it is the period of the life of the Dáil. However, during that time I have become acutely aware of the inadequacy of the Committee even in dealing with the routine matters that come before us. Time and again we have been cut off at the point where inquiries were only becoming interesting. I have never been satisfied with the degree of availability of information. In trying to equip myself a little to function on that Committee I have read back through some of their reports. I have not done this as closely or over as many years as I ought to have done, but from what I have read I have noticed the sense of inadequacy that not only applies to my own immediate experience but that seems to apply to all the functioning of the Committee with which I have acquainted myself.
Therefore, though I am touched by the appeal of the Minister for Finance that we maintain this debate on what he chooses to call the high level on which it has been conducted, may I say, that while I hope we can continue to be patient and reasonable, what I have to say is a good deal more disapproving of this motion than have been the speeches of my colleagues from the Fine Gael Party. I say this because I cannot help noticing the structure of the debate on this motion so far.
This is a very important motion but it was moved without any introductory speech by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, which is perfectly proper, but it is interesting that he should have chosen to do that. Then, though the Minister for Finance was here, and obviously was very well briefed—the extent to which has been shown by what he had to say—we very nearly had the situation in which the Parliamentary Secretary closed up the whole debate again quite quickly. I feel inclined to look a little at some of the things we have been told in the light of the interesting structure of this debate, which did not perhaps evolve as was intended, although it very nearly did. Had we not clarified that the Parliamentary Secretary was making an interjection rather than a closing speech the whole matter would have been settled by now and a great many things which obviously the Minister for Finance was prepared to say, and came briefed to say, would not have been said. This strikes me as interesting.
The Parliamentary Secretary assured the House that he was not trying to stifle debate on this motion. This was an interesting form of words particularly in view of the form the debate has taken. The Parliamentary Secretary said further: "We do not want to make this a political matter". My reaction at that moment was to interject. Perhaps it was as well that I did not because we often get more said more effectively if we maintain a less partisan manner but there is no way by which anybody in this House can persuade me that this is not a political matter. It very obviously is a political matter.
We are faced with the difficulty that over and over again Deputies have tried to use the mechanism of a parliamentary question to elicit information but they have been swept aside and treated with contempt in a profoundly, political way by Ministers. Although not all of his colleagues do this the Minister knows that what I say is a fair criticism of the mechanism of the parliamentary question as I have experienced it during my period in the House.
When the Minister for Finance assures us that if certain things do not work out to our satisfaction we have the protection that we can come back into the House and ask parliamentary questions, I can only say that my experience convinces me that we will be treated in a cavalier, party-political and perhaps offensive way and swept aside by Ministers. If Ministers had not been doing this for the past 18 months we might be disposed to accept that assurance. It is nicer to be able to have reasonable and frank relations with people, even with members of different political parties. I cannot accept this because it does not correspond with my experience. This is the price you pay for treating the mechanism of the parliamentary question with such contempt. Perhaps this has been going on for longer than my time in this House.
The Minister said to Deputy FitzGerald: "The Deputy should wait until he sees the full report". If we had had a period since last May when we could have had some trust and frankness this would be a reasonable thing. I interjected the remark in the closing moments of the confidence debate in early May: "We have been told nothing". We have had the same situation ever since, including the treatment of Deputy FitzGerald's questions, to which some reference was made by both Deputy FitzGerald and the Minister for Finance. Therefore we do not have a situation in which we can be legitimately called on to extend the normal trust and confidence. This has not operated over the last six months.
Let me turn to the motion itself. It is extraordinarily brief. This may not be an exact quotation because I do not write shorthand—if I am misrepresenting the Minister he can correct me— but I believe he said: "It is our intention to take such steps as are necessary to make a full investigation possible." If this is the Government's intention why did they not do this in this motion? As Deputy Cosgrave pointed out the Committee of Public Accounts do not possess the power to carry out a full investigation. He pointed out, unanswerably, the ways in which they did not possess the power. The Minister has given us some partial assurances about this but if the Government really wanted to carry out the Minister's words: "It is our intention to take such steps as are necessary to make a full investigation possible" then why this motion in this form? If there are no doubts there is no basis for the motion at all. We all know, however, that there are doubts and this is why the Government have introduced this motion.
The Government have introduced a very weak and a very limited motion It is a motion which is not half strong enough to cover the situation. The course proposed is not an adequate one. This party did not at any stage call for the handing of this matter to the Committee of Public Accounts because we do not believe the Committee of Public Accounts have the power to deal with it.
The Minister talks about the steps necessary to ensure that all relevant information will be produced. In order to do that we would be going to and from the Committee of Public Accounts and the floor of the House over and over again. Why not write the necessary mechanisms into the motion now, giving the required power to the Committee of Public Accounts? This might be a messy way and might involve a major violation of the tradition which that Committee have evolved. Why not choose another mechanism of investigation which would possess the power to get persons and documents, if the intention is really to make a full investigation possible? I accept the assurances, although we might quibble about the interpretation, of the Minister for Finance that it is his wish that a full investigation should be possible. I am bound to say I do not accept it for the whole Government. I do not accept it for the reason that we have seen what has been happening since this crisis began.
We would be fools to accept that they want a full investigation. Many of them have shown very good reasons for not wanting a full investigation. In the case of others who do want a full investigation we may have our private suspicions as to why they want it. Of course this is a political issue and we are being treated as if it could be dealt with by, in the phrase the Minister for Finance used over and over again, these normal procedures of the Committee of Public Accounts. He said we should not anticipate difficulties in regard to the Committee of Public Accounts. Of course we should anticipate difficulties because it is as plain as a pikestaff that they will arise.
One interesting thing about this is that plenty of time will pass. The members of the Committee of Public Accounts would be failing in their responsibility to the public if they did not pursue this question to the limit of the powers they possess. In that sense this motion is redundant. In that sense it does not need to be said at all. Of course the Committee of Public Accounts will do it.
They would not. They could not in the normal way because it is a Grant-in-Aid.
If you have not given them the power to get over that difficulty——
I was only dealing with the point the Deputy made that they would do it in the normal course. They would not in the normal course.
They would go as far as they could in the normal course of events, but they would come smack up against this precise situation that it is a Grant-in-Aid and they could go no further. Though we are urged to do so and directed by this motion to do so in the Public Accounts Committee, the mechanism for obtaining the persons and the documents is not built in. There would be need to come back to the floor of the House over and over and ask the House to direct that X, Y or Z should attend.
There are other ways of dealing with it.
I agree there are other ways of dealing with it but let me come to that. The Minister says in reference to this matter : "We would have the attendance of witnesses if the attendance was necessary." But who judges when it is necessary? In that case it would be the Dáil that would be judging when it was necessary. The decision of the Dáil would be taken by the Government majority of the Dáil, so that the decision as to whether attendance was necessary would in fact be taken by the Government and in reality by a very few people in the Government. Therefore, that would be a question of interpretation and it would be interpretation by the people who had a profound interest in a political matter, and I repeat it is a political matter. That assurance about the availability of witnesses to the Committee of Public Accounts does not satisfy me the least little bit. Neither do assurances about the availability of documentation-perhaps, we are back in the "perhaps" world again.
Our attitude on this is that the Committee of Public Accounts, governed as they are not just by Standing Orders but by a body of tradition and evolved behaviour, are not a suitable body to deal with this. The exhortation to make a separate report as soon as possible is an exhortation that has very little meaning in reality. A very considerable amount of time would elapse before the report was made. Then there is the elegant possibilities of ping-pong in relation to putting down parliamentary questions because you do not think the matter has been adequately investigated. Then you get the sort of treatment of parliamentary questions I have seen here; I hope it was not always so, but it certainly has been so in my period in the Dáil. Then we try to reopen it if we are dissatisfied with the way the parliamentary questions have been dealt with, and by this time, 12 or 18 months on, everybody is sick to death of the sordid affair. As time passes, it recedes into the distance and it is bundled out of the way without ever having been fully investigated.
If that is a harsh judgment or a political judgment, the Government have brought it on themselves by the way in which they behave towards full disclosure since these events erupted. With whatever provisos we are promised, the Committee of Public Accounts does not have the power. If it was the intention to give the Committee that power, then it should have been incorporated in the formulation of the motion. This cannot have been done in haste. If we see a form of words on a very sensitive and crucial point we have the right to assume that a great deal of thought has gone into the drafting of these words. When we see what are to me enormous omissions —we have had from the Minister promises open to multiple interpretations covering these omissions—we must assume the omissions are for a very good reason. As far as I am concerned the situation is quite simple. The reason for the omission is that the Government wish to choose to investigate this matter a structure, the Committee of Public Accounts, which does not possess the power to do so, which cannot be given the power to do so, which will take some time in failing to do so and which will generally confuse the situation. Therefore there will be a sense of impatience and disgust at the whole thing and it will be permitted ultimately to be bundled out of the way without full disclosure taking place.
That is absolutely in line with the attitude revealed by the Government since rumours first started to circulate at the end of April, rumours of a more explicit sort; of course the other sort of rumours had been circulated for very much longer. It seems to me an effort to frustrate the right of the public to know; it also seems to me an effort to renege on promises that were given in this House that full investigation, full disclosure, would be made.
Therefore, to propose referring this matter for a speedy report to the Committee of Public Accounts is to me, speaking for the Labour Party, an entirely unsatisfactory, trivial and evasive way of dealing with what is a profoundly serious matter which ought to be dealt with differently, more deeply and more fully.
I do not know how serious a matter this is but I take the quite specific view that it is a political matter. I agree entirely and completely independently—we did not discuss the matter—with my colleague, Deputy Keating, that the Public Accounts Committee is not a suitable place to discuss this matter. I can give a variety of reasons for that, but before I do so I should like to thank the leader of the main Opposition party, Deputy Cosgrave, for the clear exposition he gave of a certain aspect of the matter. The dialogue which subsequently took place between the Minister for Finance and Deputy FitzGerald did anything but clarify the matter. They went into various side issues which were not germane to the main issue in this matter.
I am sure we both stand rebuked.
The Deputy and the Minister did not clarify the real issue very well.
I thought we clarified the motion.
The Deputy and the Minister exchanged a great deal of obiter dicta on various aspects of the matter but certainly nothing was clarified. Deputy Corish and Deputy Cosgrave got to the heart of the matter but only in a certain way.
I want to tell the House why I do not regard the Public Accounts Committee as adequate. When the Fianna Fáil Party first came into the Dáil and Mr. MacEntee was chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, it was a worthwhile body; but with the passage of time it has almost fallen into desuetude. The first worthwhile comment I have heard from it in years on any subject was one I heard a few weeks ago that the standard of people taken into the Civil Service had gone down very much.
A Special Committee of the House should have been appointed to deal with this matter. We have had inquiries of various kinds this year and perhaps the Government are heartily sick of inquiries. They may well have said to themselves, "Let us give this to the Public Accounts Committee". I am not making any allegations against the Government in relation to the manner in which this was handled; all I am saying is that it is a completely inadequate procedure.
Let me give an example. Some time about 1950 a body named An Bord Fógra Fáilte was set up as an additional body to Bord Fáilte. I take it from its title that it was concerned with advertising in connection with tourism and it wanted to get into action. The Department of Finance was asked whether it would allow a sum of £20,000 to be paid from the contingency fund for the financing of An Bord Fógra Fáilte pending the moneys being voted by Dáil Éireann. I remember quite well the reply, because it subsequently came up at the Committee of Public Accounts.
It was: "You cannot pay that amount from the contingency fund." It was an excellent reply. It came up before the Committee of Public Accounts because the £20,000 was paid from the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce. It was paid out by the then secretary who did not care two-pence about the Department of Finance; he just paid the £20,000 out of the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce. Any Deputy interested in that affair can read about it in the pusillanimous report of the Public Accounts Committee. There was no question of threatening or surcharging the accounting officer, although the House had not voted the money. This is an example of what the Public Accounts Committee is worth in this context.
My colleague, Deputy Keating, touched on the next point I am going to make. Let us suppose the Irish Red Cross Society say to the Public Accounts Committee, "Look, you have nothing to do with us. Go and take a jump in the Liffey". All the Public Accounts Committee can say to them is, "Dear sirs, you are not being very co-operative in relation to our investigations. You are not being helpful. We, as a Committee of Dáil Éireann, regret that you should behave like this." If they are spending moneys subscribed for relief and distress in Northern Ireland, which they handed over to this bank account, they would be quite within their rights to say to the Public Accounts Committee "Go and take a jump in the Liffey".
There is much more to it than that. Quite apart from the serious point raised by Deputy Cosgrave that by tradition the Public Accounts Committee have no right to investigate Grants-in-Aid there is the point, and I quote from the motion: "That the Committee of Public Accounts shall examine specially...". The word "specially" might mean it was to take this examination out of order; in other words, before other matters. It could be argued that is all it meant. The next time they meet they might well say "Right, we shall go ahead with this." The motion goes on to say, "and shall furnish a separate report".
I am not making any allegation. I believe what the Minister has told us that he and his Department are going to help out all they can in this matter and put all the information they have before the Public Accounts Committee. The fact of the matter is that by long tradition the Public Accounts Committee have no power to query the reasons for an administrative decision. At any stage the accounting officer concerned can say to the Public Accounts Committee "Now, look, that decision is an administrative matter. I am not prepared to answer it", and that is the end of that. No more can be said about it.
I have said all I want to say on this matter.
I should just like to make three brief remarks. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to get in and get this concluded.
Not at all. I have no reason not to want other people to speak on this matter. I have no special anxiety to get in.
I am not suggesting the Parliamentary Secretary has any ulterior motives but, like everyone else, he would like to get his tea.
My lunch, actually.
My sympathies are with the Parliamentary Secretary on that particular point. First, I do not think the Public Accounts Committee, by any stretch of the imagination, can be the right body to deal with this matter. If it were the right body some proviso should be written into the Dáil regulations that matters like this would normally go before the Public Accounts Committee. This is an exceptional thing.
I do not know what to make of people who try to make out that this is not a political matter. Of course, it is a political matter. It is something which, no matter how we try to dodge it, must be treated on a political basis.
I do not think the Public Accounts Committee are the right body to deal with this for another reason. We all know the internecine strife which has occurred in Fianna Fáil and is still going on. Certain people in Fianna Fáil, disappointed at the way the courts dealt with one aspect of it and the way it turned out, may now feel they can at another time have another "go" at the people concerned. For this reason I do not think that those on the Fianna Fáil side of the House who want this matter put before the Committee of Public Accounts want it put before that Committee for the same reason. Some want that procedure because it is an easy way out: the report may not come out, as it normally does not, until next September or October when everything will have been conveniently forgotten. Others are very anxious that it should go before the Committee of Public Accounts because they feel this is one way of having a "go" at the people concerned and they will be able —I think this is the word that was used before—to "shop" them on this particular issue. That being so, it is difficult to understand how we will get agreement from the Government on what exactly they want. I know what the public want. As someone said to me the other day, the public have one hundred thousand reasons for this particular matter to be discussed and debated openly, and cleared up finally, once and for all. I do not think it is doing anybody any good to have this sort of thing dragging along month after month.
I do not know—it is very difficult to find out—who is innocent and who is guilty, but it does appear as if there is guilt somewhere and, if there is, then that guilt should be brought out into the open as quickly as possible. It is quite possible, as has been said, that certain people who have been dismissed from the Cabinet, dragged through the courts and put in a very awkward position may be entirely innocent: if they are, surely any fairminded person must have an urge to see they have their names cleared as quickly as possible? If, on the other hand, they are not as innocent as they say, then the matter should be put right so that all may know. If there is one thing more than anything else that leaves a stigma it is a suggestion that someone is fiddling with funds and, if the funds arc public funds, that makes the situation all the more damaging. For that very reason, if for no other reason, and in order to give these people an opportunity of clearing themselves, this matter should be investigated as quickly as possible.
Deputy Corish suggested—the suggestion was repeated today—that this should be decided by a Special Committee of this House, a Special Committee which would be given the authority to bring before it the witnesses necessary, either to clear the matter up once and for all or find out if there is anything to be cleared up.
Hear, hear.
It is ridiculous for a Minister like the Minister for Finance to come in here and say: "If we find there is any difficulty about bringing these people and getting this evidence we could make the necessary regulations." I hope I am not misquoting the Minister. He is always accusing me of misquoting him; he says stupid things and, when they are repeated, he complains he is misquoted. He said that we could send for witnesses. Deputy Dr. O'Donovan asked how could one ask the Red Cross to come in if they did not want to come in. Again, the suggestion made by Fine Gael, and I can see an argument against the suggestion, that the matter should go to the Committee of Public Accounts as quickly as possible does not meet the situation because, if there was a discussion and investigation, and if finally there was an even vote, then the matter drops.
May I interrupt? Deputy Tully said we suggested it should go to the Committee of Public Accounts. I do not think this is quite accurate. This motion came before the House in the normal way.
I am aware of that. Deputy FitzGerald apologised to the Minister for Finance and said that if he had been aware the matter was being referred to the Committee of Public Accounts then the hee-haw kicked up last week would not have been kicked up and he was very sorry for the way in which the matter had been handled then. He felt a Public Accounts Committee discussion would probably be the best way to deal with the matter. I was rather surprised at that and I am not surprised that the Fine Gael Whip seems to be taken at a disadvantage now. This is what I am referring to. I honestly believe this is a matter which should go before a Special Committee of this House— a committee of 17. I believe this is the way to deal with it. It could be dealt with very quickly in that way and everybody's mind could be set at rest.
One of the things irritating people at the moment is the fact that, while this thing is dragging on, there does not appear to be any sense of urgency on the part of the Government; they do not seem to be doing anything at all. They seem to be going around in circles wondering what is to be the next move and which is the best political move they can make. When I hear the Minister for Finance say that this is not a political matter I wonder does he realise exactly what he is saying. I think this matter could be dealt with very, very briefly. It is not something which should drag on for 90 days, until next autumn, as it may do if it goes to the Committee of Public Accounts. Since there is at present no body set up to deal with matters of this kind, I believe there should be a body specifically set up now to deal with it and it should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
The Minister for Finance has already dealt with the main points raised by the leader of the Fine Gael Party and the leader of the Labour Party. Other speakers who intervened, with all due respect to them, made somewhat similar points. I suggested earlier that there might not be much merit in discussing this matter until the full facts were made available through the deliberations of the Committee of Public Accounts and, when the Committee had finalised their deliberations, the matter would then be referred back to the Dáil. I was suggesting that there might be some repetition. At this point of time we are more or less discussing the matter in vacuo. Deputy Cosgrave was correct when he said the public were entitled to know the actual workings of the Committee of Public Accounts in relation to this specific item which is to go before it. Of course, the public are entitled to know and they are entitled to have the answers to the questions put to the House by both Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Corish. The Minister for Finance dealt in depth with the matters raised by these two Deputies.
I was glad, as a former member of the Committee of Public Accounts, to hear Deputy FitzGerald state that this matter should be discussed in the House in a non-political fashion. The Labour Party saw it differently. As far as they were concerned, this was a political matter. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it.
With all due respect, I think it was the Minister for Finance who was glad it was being discussed in a non-political way. We discussed it very much in a non-political way, but what we said was that it was a political matter. Of course it is a political matter. I even said I did not know whether it was serious at all or not.
Being a former member of the Committee of Public Accounts I was glad Deputy FitzGerald made that point. It is reasonable to expect that the normal procedure will be followed. It is important to stress that the Committee of Public Accounts is an all-Party Committee of the Dáil; it is made up of 12 members, six from the Government Party and six from the Opposition parties. The chairman is always a member of the Opposition. It is just as well to stress this.
Has he a casting vote?
This is a matter on which the Minister has given an undertaking. If there is a situation that there is a tie of votes the result would be taken as a negative and the Minister has dealt with this point in a most specific manner.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would clarify that point? What assurance did the Minister give on this matter?
More or less that the publication of the report will not be frustrated for party political purposes. I think that was a fair and reasonable undertaking by the Minister, having regard to the allegations made by other Members of the House, not specifically the Deputy.
I do not want to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary but that is not good enough. The Minister could say with fairness: "This is not for political reasons; it is just because there was a tie, with six for one and six for the other."
Deputy Tully would not be without resources in such an event.
I should not have to call on my resources. It should be possible to have the matter finalised without having to do this.
I, too, am not very happy about this point.
Deputy FitzGerald might like to clarify the position with the Minister when I have dealt with a few other points. The terms of this motion have been criticised for their brevity and lack of clarity. The motion calls for a separate report so that the usual yearly delay in submitting the final report will be avoided. Any suggestion that there would be any hold-up in publication is erroneous. The matter will be dealt with expeditiously.
Why did it not mention a report within, say, three months?
In view of the many questions asked of the Minister, it would take perhaps three or four pages of the Order Paper to explain exactly what the motion meant.
Why not say a report within two months?
It could be less than that.
I have already explained that it would take three or four pages to set out exactly all the terms of the motion.
I heard the Minister speak and I understood what he said.
There would not be a delay of one year at any rate. The report for 1969-70 will be available shortly.
No.
The Committee will be sitting in the next three or four months for these accounts.
In the normal way the report would not be in. As a matter of fact, the report for the previous year only came in a week or two ago.
In relation to the question of visitors. Deputy FitzGerald was correct when he quoted Standing Order No. 75. It is worth putting this on the records of the House :
Visitors may be introduced by members to such places as may be reserved for them by the Ceann Comhairle, and authorised representatives of the Press may be present at sittings of the Dáil, or of a Committee of the whole Dáil; but no persons other than members shall, except by leave of a Select or Special Committee, be present during any of the proceedings of such Select or Special Committee.
This is a matter for the Committee of Public Accounts to decide and Deputy FitzGerald was correct in his statement.
On a point of fact, it was not I who quoted it. It may have been Deputy Cosgrave.
The Deputy made the point but he did not quote the Standing Order.
I do not wish to be given credit for something I did not do.
The Deputy is too modest.
There seems to be some doubt in the minds of Members of the Labour Party on the question of witnesses. I will reiterate what the Minister for Finance stated, that we should not anticipate difficulties that may arise in the future. If and when difficulties arise we will meet them. The manner in which this debate has been conducted, particularly having regard to the fashion in which the motion was put on the Order Paper and the fact that the Minister for Finance willingly met the amendment by Fine Gael, shows that Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are of one mind on this motion——
It is not for the first time.
I have said "on this motion". The Deputy should not draw me into any talk about coalitions. I wish to keep this discussion on an even keel. As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee I consider we should discuss this matter in a civilised manner.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that we do not have civilised discussion in this House?
Sometimes one wonders.
It is proper that this discussion should be conducted in a civilised fashion and, in the main, that has been the case. In fairness to Deputy Cosgrave I should state that at column 341, volume 249 of the Official Report, he asked the Minister for Finance:
if, in view of the growing public disquiet at the disclosure of irregular expenditure of money voted by Dáil Éireann being applied for purposes other than those covered by the Vote of the Dáil, he will refer the matter for special investigation by the Committee of Public Accounts as a matter of urgency.
We are meeting that point and I think we have been more than co-operative in meeting the amendment put to the Minister in a fair fashion by Deputy FitzGerald. In turn, this was met in fair fashion by the Minister, and Deputy FitzGerald has conceded this.
I have heard that kind of arrangement called a "straw".
I am sure the Deputy has heard it called all kinds of things.
It is a case of a person grabbing at a straw.
There is no question of grabbing at straws. This has been the correct approach. Other committees have been called for by the Labour Party but it would be a reflection on this most esteemed and respected all-party Committee of Dáil Éireann, namely, the Committee of Public Accounts, if it were not to be entrusted with the functions which it is now being asked to exercise. The Committee should be allowed to deal with this matter in the manner requested by the Government. Are we to suggest that 17 members of some other type of committee——
——would have authority to send for persons and papers? This House could give them any authority they want.
That is the problem.
A special committee would have authority.
The Labour Party will be pleasantly surprised to see the way in which the Public Accounts Committee deal with the matter. I cannot stress the respect and esteem in the minds of the public for the Public Accounts Committee, no matter what Deputy O'Donovan may say. By his remarks the Deputy may have done the Public Accounts Committee irreparable harm——
Who is making political points now?
I am not making a political point.
Not half.
I am making the point that it is an all-party Committee, comprising members of Deputy O'Donovan's party.
It has no power.
Of course it has power. This is the point the Minister has been making. I am glad the Deputy sees the point of my entering the debate. I am trying to be as pleasant as possible and the Deputy seems to be taking another angle. There is no point in repeating what the Minister for Finance has stated. The Minister has met the points made. Some of the points were constructive, particularly those made by the Fine Gael Party. The Minister has tried to meet the demands or requests of the Labour Party, but, apparently, no matter what answers are given, they are totally unacceptable to them.
We have every right to resent the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with our remarks.
We cannot have a debate on this. The Deputy may put a question.
I do not want to indulge in this sort of chit-chat.
May I ask a question? Was the Parliamentary Secretary in the House when I spoke?
I certainly was.
Did the Parliamentary Secretary hear me saying, first of all, that I did not know whether this was a matter of importance and, secondly, that I thought it was a political matter?
I certainly did.
What, in my remarks, did the Parliamentary Secretary resent?
We are not going into this at this point of time.
The Parliamentary Secretary made some nasty remarks about this party.
The Deputy should not be so sensitive.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a few questions? I wish to ask him, or through him the Minister, if I understood from both of them that they are concerned to have this matter dealt with as expeditiously and effectively as possible? We have accepted, in this part of the House, the Minister's assurance that if problems arise about compelling witnesses to attend, the Government will be prepared to take the necessary action. There is a difficulty which I would like to mention. The Committee will, I am sure, deal with this matter expeditiously. A period of two months which has been mentioned seems to be too long. I am sure the Committee will wish to get through their work and report very quickly. They could find themselves dealing with this job within the next couple of weeks after the Dáil has adjourned. The Dáil may not resume until the middle of February. If difficulty arose about compelling witnesses to attend I take it, from the concern of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, that this might be dealt with expeditiously and that the Dáil would be recalled to prepare the necessary legislation for this purpose. I think the situation would require legislation. It is important that we should have that assurance. It would be very unsatisfactory if, through any confusion here, we got into a position that as soon as the Committee started work that work was immediately frustrated and the Committee had to wait for two months for a meeting of the Dáil to enable them to continue the work. I am clear that that is not the intention of the Minister. I thought it proper to raise this matter at this point so that there would be no doubt and no hold-up of any kind in the work of the Committee through any such defect in procedure.
I cannot undertake on behalf of the Taoiseach, without consultation with him, to say that he would recall the Dáil but I can reiterate that the general approach of the Government is to ensure, in so far as the Government and the Dáil can ensure it, that the inquiry which is conducted into this matter is effective. The possible circumstances visualised by Deputy Dr. FitzGerald may not arise. Different situations could arise. Some situations might call for what the Deputy visualises. Other situations might be dealt with in some other way. I cannot give a specific undertaking that the House would be recalled in any circumstances that would arise. I certainly would not rule out the possibility of such happening if the circumstances could not be dealt with in any other way.
Would the Minister tell us whether he considers it reasonable to say that it would not be possible to have the report from the Committee of Public Accounts, no matter how fast they work, before the Dáil reassembles at the end of February? It would be unreasonable to expect them to bring in a report in view of the fact that we are only a few weeks from Christmas and the Dáil will be in recess until the end of February.
We could work in the Committee with the Dáil in recess.
Maybe Deputy FitzGerald believes in working on Christmas Day.
We could skip Christmas Day and St. Stephen's Day and work on the other days.
The matter may turn out to be more complicated than Deputies think at the moment. I would not like to give the impression that the Committee will bring in a lightning report. I do not think they will find it possible to do that. It will be too complicated. The sooner they can do it the better, so far as I am concerned.
Can the Minister say whether the Garda inquiries have been completed?
I cannot say whether they are positively completed. There may be loose ends being tied up still. In so far as that is happening, the further results becoming available will be given to the Committee.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulties about giving an assurance in the absence of the Taoiseach. If this problem arose and the only solution to it were legislation—I appreciate that the Minister would want to adopt a less drastic expedient —I appreciate that the Minister would be prepared to recommend to the Taoiseach that the Dáil should be recalled for that purpose.
If I were satisfied that there was no other way of dealing with the matter I would be prepared to recommend it.
I accept that. I want to refer to the possibility of the Committee's work being frustrated by the negativing of the report by certain members of the Committee. Much stress was laid on the party political reasons. This makes me wonder are we talking about the same thing. I am talking about a situation where the evidence has been heard and the chairman of the Committee—who, the Minister knows, is a distinguished Parliamentarian who has acquitted himself well in that office—drafts a report—and we can rely on his judgment to draft a fair report—and this report is debated in the Committee, amendments are considered and taken where appropriate. We fear that this report might be frustrated at any stage by negativing. I seek an assurance that that would not happen. Have I got that assurance or is it being hedged round by the intrusion of the words "party political practices"?
It would be going much too far to ask me before the inquiry has even started to undertake on behalf of members of the Committee— and I am not a member myself—that they will accept a report. I have tried to indicate the general approach of the Government and of this party to the matter, which is one which will ensure that if a fair report is presented to the Committee there will be no obstruction by members of my party.
I think we can guarantee there will be a fair report.
I am putting the motion as amended by the insertion of the words, after 1969-70, and I quote:
any other moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which moneys from this Vote were or may have been lodged.
Before you put the motion, a Cheann Comhairle, did you say "any other moneys" or "any moneys"?
We deleted the word "other" by agreement.
I am sorry. That is the copy I received. It should read "into which moneys".
"any moneys".
"any moneys transferred by the Irish Red Cross Society to a bank account into which moneys from this Vote were or may have been lodged."
