This Appropriation Bill is an essential part of the routine of the financial system we have here in this Parliament, and generally has grown up to be of stereotyped form. It serves the two-fold purpose of authorising the issue from the Central Fund of the balance of the amount granted to meet the cost of the supply services for the current financial year, and secondly, of appropriating to the proper supply service and purposes the sums granted by Dáil Eireann. These items have been set out in the Book of Estimates and in the Vote on Account. They have been published in detail, and have been discussed fairly well in detail in the Assembly already. I do not think it is necessary, therefore, to go in any further detail into the matters, as they have already been published.
Appropriation Bill, 1940 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.
There are two matters I would like to raise, of which I have given notice. One is whether it would not be possible to issue instructions to the civil population as to their conduct in the event of hostilities. We know, in the unfortunate happenings on the Continent, how the civil population, partly, I imagine, from want of instruction, very much hampered military operations, and we also know how unauthorised action by the civil population in a moment of excitement may be visited by very heavy and unfortunate reprisals, as those who have seen the monument of the last war at Dinant may well remember. I do suggest that an essential part of our defence system is to issue clear instructions to the civil population as to what they are to do in the event of hostilities. Without these instructions, the whole of our security may be very seriously embarrassed, and these instructions, I suggest, are urgent.
Another matter which may seem rather an anti-climax in these times of crisis to which I wish to refer is the wanton damage done to public property by youths in the City of Dublin, of which I have had experience, and probably all over the country. There seems to be amongst these youths a sort of Hollywood gangster spirit which prompts them to break up everything in the way of public property on which they can lay their hands. I had two personal examples the other day. I went into a public telephone booth and found that the mouthpiece had been wrenched off. Incidentally, they got my 2d. before I discovered it; but still, I did not take it up with the Post Office authorities. When passing the booth later on, I found post officials repairing it; and I was told that this frequently happened, not so much in that particular district, but in other districts, and that it is almost a daily occurance. I also know a house which is in course of preparation for occupation, and in which a telephone had been installed. Youths came along and pulled the telephone wire off the front of the house, possibly because they wanted an aerial, or probably for reasons of wanton mischief. In certain public lavatories, fittings have been broken, obviously by some irresponsible parties.
I do not think it is any answer to say that all this is the business of the police. If it is anybody's business, it is the business of the school teachers and the parents, because this thing has to be tackled at the source. There is this extraordinarily irresponsible spirit. It may be youthful playing at gangsters, as I say, but whatever it is, it shows a very bad sort of national outlook altogether. I suggest, if I may do so, that it is rather futile taking up this question of higher studies and exploring the frontiers of knowledge, as is proposed in the Bill recently passed, when these elementary concepts of public behaviour are so little understood. I hope the Minister will convey this to the responsible authority because I think we have, all of us, knowledge of the way in which these youths and other irresponsible people are destroying public property in the city.
There is another matter which I may be allowed to refer to, as it concerns the Minister for Finance especially. It is the regret which one feels that it has not been possible to adopt some of the economies which, I understand, were recommended by the body appointed to inquire into economies shortly after the war broke out.
When the Central Fund Bill was before the House in March last, I referred to the difficulty a distinguished journalist had experienced in obtaining information regarding the salaries paid to the officers and employees of the Tourist Board out of moneys voted by the Oireachtas, and the Minister for Finance was then good enough to say in reply:—
"Senator MacLoughlin raised one question about the new Tourist Board as to salaries. If I had the information ready, I would give it to the Senator. I do not see why he should not get it. Any member of the Dáil or Seanad is, I think, entitled to any information of that kind. When money voted by the Oireachtas is being discussed and Senators ask for information as to what amount is paid to a particular individual, I certainly would not think it proper to refuse to give such information."
Heartened by that assurance, I formally applied to the Minister's Department for the required information and, in reply, I was referred to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I then applied to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who wrote me that if I raised the matter when the Appropriation Bill was before the House, the Minister would arrange to attend and give me the information. I hope he has passed on the information to the Minister for Finance, but I do not understand why he could not have passed it on directly on half a sheet of notepaper. When my journalist friend first applied for the information, as he was perfectly entitled to do as a taxpayer, he was referred from one Department to another, and eventually refused the information. When I, as a member of the Oireachtas, responsible for the voting of the moneys under the Bill, asked from my place in the House for the information, it is withheld for two months.
I do not understand this interDepartmental hugger-mugger, and I think it is nothing short of a scandal that the information should not be readily forthcoming when asked for. In Whitaker's Almanack, one can find information on practically all the salaries paid, directly or indirectly, in the public service of Great Britain, and, in the World Almanac published in New York, the remuneration of every grade of public employee is set out. Yet, in this State, one encounters numberless obstacles when one asks for information regarding the salaries of directors of companies under Government control and of officers of other undertakings in receipt of public moneys. I now formally ask for the information which the Minister for Finance promised me in March last, and which the Minister for Industry and Commerce promised me in a letter dated 3rd May. I hope it will now be forthcoming.
It is, I think, somewhat unfortunate, from the point of view of the Seanad, that the system to which the Minister refers means that we get the Finance Bill one week and the Appropriation Bill the following week. I find that if I were to make exactly the same speech as I made last week—the House need not be frightened; I do not propose to do so— it would be practically as suitable to the present occasion. It seems pretty plain that the situation with which we are now faced and the expenditure which the Minister naturally and inevitably, though, as he said himself, reluctantly, has had to agree to has not as yet been estimated for and probably, in the nature of events, cannot be estimated for. I have great sympathy with the charge he makes against members of this House and of the Dáil, and to which, I think, we would all probably have to plead guilty, of being particularly interested in some particular type of expenditure and that we would have a strong grievance if economies were made in the particular matter in which we were interested. I cannot help feeling, at the same time, that no matter how much it may offend members of the two Houses, the Minister may find himself in the position of having to see whether he cannot insist on economies in matters which would be otherwise desirable in order to meet what we hope is an absolutely abnormal expenditure.
There is one other matter closely allied to that raised by Senator Sir John Keane to which I wish to refer, in the hope that the Minister who is here, or some other Minister, may be able to take some steps with regard to it. I refer to the position of protection of the civil population in the event of the worst happening. To my knowledge, there is a great deal of doubt and uncertainty in the minds of responsible members of the public—such as people at the head of business—as to whether the Government consider they ought to make elaborate precautions to deal with possible air raids. During the first few months of the emergency, there was very considerable discussion on the matter and, if my memory serves me aright, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures urged people responsible to take what steps they could. It was a matter of controversy, as the circumstances then were very different from what they are now. The same public statements with regard to our danger were not being made then and, with the exception of a few wealthy firms with large sums of money, practically nothing was done.
There is a provision in the Estimates for a sum of, I think, £60,000 under the Army Vote. It is a matter of great importance that the Government should make their position perfectly clear as to whether, in their opinion, this heavy expenditure ought to be undertaken by businesses, either for the public or for their employees, or both. On the other side of the water, I think it is compulsory and I must confess that, provided there is some way of finding the finance, it would be much better—if it is to be done at all and if it is the Government's opinion that it should be done—that it should be compulsory. Trade generally is none too good and competition is keen; and it is extremely difficult for persons in responsible positions as employers, trying to keep their staffs going as long as they can and employing more than they would be justified in keeping on a strictly economic basis, to expend as much money as they might otherwise. Of course, they could employ smaller staffs and spend the money in the provision of air raid shelters.
In Section 58 of the Air Raid Precautions Act, 1939, there is a sort of provision relating to this matter. I say "a sort of provision" because, reading it in the light of present circumstances, it seems very inadequate. In, I think, February of this year the Minister concerned made an order for the interpretation of Section 58. The substance of the section is that where an employer—whether individual or company—spends a sum of money, which must be a sum approved by the Department, on the provision of an air raid shelter for employees, an allowance will be made according to a certain rate—which is set out in the order as £7 per head of the persons which the air raid shelter will cover—provided that they are actually normal employees. The Government will refund him an amount equal to an income-tax at the rate of 5/6 in the £ on the sum expended. I do not know if that has been changed: amongst the large number of papers I received, I was not able to find an order changing it, but it may be that I did not receive it or it may have been mislaid. The effect of that would be something like this. If an employer spends £400 in making provision for, say, 34 employees on the basis of £7 per head—and £7 per head would be adequate where the number is large but quite inadequate where it is small—the State would refund him at the rate of 5/6, which would be £110. He will have to spend his £400 out of his profits for the year, but, when his profits come to be assessed for income-tax purposes, the £290 would be subject to a charge at rate of 6/6, or whatever the income-tax rate is. That means that he will really receive an allowance of only £25 out of his £400. That is the encouragement he will get, provided that he erects the shelter for his own employees. If he happens to be a public-spirited individual and decides that he would like to include space for the public, he will not be allowed even this small sum. That is an absurd and utterly inadequate provision.
I do not know the position all over Great Britain, but I know that in London and in some of the other towns in which I have been, if you walk along the main thoroughfares you will find quite a number of shops bearing notices "Air Raid Shelter" and you can go into those shops to the shelter, which is quite frequently at the back. I may be wrong, but I believe that, if satisfactory financial provision could be made, many shops in Dublin and other towns would be willing to provide shelters for a number of persons in addition to their own employees. That would be a saving to the State, assuming that it is the Government's opinion that these shelters should be provided. If instructions were given, one or two shops in each street would provide proper air raid shelters at the back, but the present financial provision will not be sufficient for that.
If a company has to pay out of its profits for a shelter and is not even allowed the amount of such expenditure, it cannot carry out such work unless it happens to be a very large company with large reserves, and, unfortunately, there are very few such in this country. On the other hand, if machinery could be found for a loan free of interest for five years for the actual cost of the air raid shelter, provided it was double that necessary for the employees—as I think the provision ought to be, instead of the reverse —quite a number of firms would be willing to undertake the work. Although I took a figure of £400, which is a small one, it would mean paying £80 a year out of profits. That is a thing which could be faced, and though it would mean that the State would have to find some money at the moment, it would be much less expensive than providing a very large number of public shelters.
It may be that the Government has decided that it is not necessary to take these precautions. I rather thought that that was the view, until I saw a report of the speech by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures. However, the newspapers only gave a passing reference to air raid shelters—one gave only three lines and another about five; it just read like a hint and could not be read by any member of the public into a statement of what was or was not Government policy. I do not know exactly what this £60,000 is intended to cover, but I imagine it is for the refund of 5/6 income-tax. It may be that it is to cover certain other matters, as there is provision for what are called essential undertakings. This is a matter of very considerable concern to many employers and a clear statement should be made. If the matter is regarded definitely as urgent in the areas provided in that particular Bill to which I have referred, it may be necessary to make it compulsory. The expenditure of this money will require some care and some sort of statement should be made at the earliest possible date. Although the question of the 5/6 is a matter for the Minister for Finance, he may not be able to make that statement to-day, but it seems to me to be proper to bring it forward now. Private individuals would like some guidance, but that is a matter for themselves. Where you are dealing with the question of providing for the public, guidance must be given.
There is another small point I wish to make. An announcement was made the other day that, on account of the censorship provisions, one must use twice as much paper in writing to England as was used previously. I have been wondering if that is necessary. If, because of the censorship you must write on one side of the paper only, it means using twice as much notepaper for ordinary correspondence to England. When you have a shortage of paper—I am glad to see that the Government Departments are using economy envelopes, I got one of them myself this morning—it does seem rather absurd to force that provision on the public. If very thin paper were used, I suppose it might be difficult to read it if it were written on both sides of the paper, but the provision that it must be legible surely covers that. That, however, is only a small point.
It seems to me that, as far as the future of this country is concerned, it would be quite useless for us to attempt a detailed examination of a critical character of the Estimates. My reasons for saying so are exactly the same as those which I gave last week when dealing with the Finance Bill. I believe that in the present time, small, detailed criticism, except of a helpful character or for the purpose of putting forward matters having relation to the emergency situation, would not serve any useful purpose. I think, at the same time, that the attitude adopted by certain Senators, and to some extent by the Minister, towards the suggestion of a national Government showed that they did not understand the object of some of us, at any rate, in making that suggestion. For my part, I am not at all impressed by the idea that you can get the best Government by getting together the best type of brains. It might be that if you could get the best prophets together, to tell you what was likely to happen to the country, there might be something to be said for a Government of that description. My feeling is that the very nature of the circumstances means that detailed Parliamentary criticism is impracticable, and that decisions on behalf of the whole State, and which all sections of the community will willingly accept, will have to be made in the emergency. The knowledge that they are made, not by one Party, but by a Government representing all the Parties we have here, would leave no excuse whatever for not accepting these decisions with just the same authority as if they were made by Parliament.
I think there was a good deal of misunderstanding of the motive which actuated the suggestion. Some Senators seem to have the idea that the opportunity was being utilised to make an attack on the particular group you have in power at the moment. There is, of course, no foundation for that suggestion, but I do not think that the present Government was elected to deal with a situation such as confronts the country at present. What we want now is a Government to deal with the emergency, a government by people who are leaders of all Parties, and whom the people generally will follow. No matter how good a Government may be, the very fact that it is a Party Government, many of us feel, will make it impossible for it to carry through certain measures. For instance, it may be necessary, no matter how unpopular it might be with the people generally, to cut out certain expenditure for the next year or two. I do not see how any one Party would be ready or willing to do that, and I do not think it would be fair to ask them to do so. That is a responsibility that should be shared not alone by the two great Parties, but by the Labour Party also. I do not think that can be done if matters are viewed from a Party standpoint. I am against detailed Parliamentary discussion at present, because it is almost impossible to discuss items of expenditure in the Estimates without touching upon matters on which there would be acute differences of opinion.
I do not think I could usefully add anything to the remarks I made last week on the subject of a change in the form of Government. What I said then still represents my viewpoint. The matters raised by Senator Sir John Keane and by Senator Douglas in regard to the construction of air-raid shelters, I shall have brought to the attention of the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence. So far as the subject of air-raid shelters is concerned, I am afraid I must confess that I was responsible for some of the slowing down and the slacking-off in the arrangements that were contemplated and to some extent carried out in Dublin and elsewhere. I may have had considerable responsibility for that. At that time, last September and October, I was unconvinced of the immediate necessity for making preparations to protect people from air raids and, as Minister for Finance, I did everything I could to try to stop expenditure on air-raid precautions. I was not wholly successful.
Remarkably so.
I would not say remarkably so. I was successful to some extent. In recent times, I have had reason to change my mind, unfortunately from the Exchequer point of view. When, some time ago, it was proposed that the campaign should be re-started, and that people, and local authorities in particular, should be encouraged to go ahead with the plans for the construction of air-raid shelters and forms of protection for the civil population, I was obliged to consent as it appeared to me that the expenditure was useful and necessary. Arrangements are being made, I think, or are in operation at present to encourage essential undertakings, private individuals and local authorities to go ahead as much as possible with the construction of air-raid shelters.
Can the Minister say if any further expenditure than that provided for in Section 58 has been authorised?
That is as much as has been provided for, or arranged for financially, up to the present. Of course further expenditure may be necessary and that would have to come before the Dáil in the way of Supplementary Estimates at a later date. With regard to the other point raised by Senator Sir John Keane—the wanton damage carried out by youths to public property—I do not think the Minister for Finance has any particular responsibility, except that, like everybody else, as a citizen, he is ready to do his utmost to discourage the indulgence of youths in any kind of horseplay that leads to the destruction of public property. I do not know whether our youths, as some people used to say, have a double dose of original sin. I wonder if our youths are any worse than those in any other country. I do not want to make any excuse for that kind of conduct at all. I remember long ago as a member of the Dublin Corporation the horror with which I used to read the reports of the then town clerk, presented to the corporation, on the destruction of trees and other public property when I and some others were responsible for getting the Dublin Corporation to provide a great deal of money with a view to beautifying the city.
The destruction is still going on.
It is still going on. I wonder will it ever completely end? I am glad that Senator Sir John Keane has raised the matter. I think it is useful to have it raised in every representative and public assembly, so that the frequent mention of the subject may induce parents of children responsible for this destruction to take steps to have it stopped. I sometimes wonder if it is children that are always responsible. I know I came across a number of years ago some cases where people who were anything but children cut down trees, so that it is not always children who are to blame. I think it is useful to raise the matter here, and in other assemblies of a public kind, so as to get it firmly fixed in the minds of our citizens that this kind of destruction is bad citizenship. If parents and those responsible in the country for the education, guidance and general up-bringing of children were to do everything they could to encourage children to respect public property, in fact, to respect all forms of property, continuous propaganda of that kind would eventually have the effect of stopping a lot of the destruction. I do not suppose we will ever see that destruction completely stopped.
With regard to the point raised by Senator MacLoughlin, I have only to repeat what I said to him on the last day he raised the subject. The view I expressed then I still stand by. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, I understand, said, in a letter to Senator MacLoughlin, that if the matter were raised again here he would answer it, but as, when I got this note, he expected to be held up in the Dáil, he gave me the information to give Senator MacLoughlin. He has no objection whatever to that information being given, but he wanted it asked for, as the Senator was anxious to have it given here, judging by his question. The Minister was quite prepared to come here and answer the question at the earliest opportunity. The note is as follows: "The chairman and managing director of the Tourist Development Board has a salary of £1,500 per annum, plus travelling expenses and subsistence allowances; other members of the board are paid £200 per annum."
Are those the total salaries?
That is as far as my information goes. They are the salaries of the chairman, the managing director and the other members of the board.
The Minister mentioned the chairman and managing director, and members of the board.
Yes.
Is the chairman and managing director one person, or are there two persons?
I understand that the chairman and managing director is one person.
And nobody else gets anything but £200 per annum?
Yes. The chairman and managing director is one person, and he is also secretary of the board. There are, I think, three other members of the board, and they get £200 a year. I think, Sir, that I have answered all the points that were raised.