I beg to move: "That an additional sum of £267,000 be granted for the year ending 31st March, 1923, for the cost of the Army." This is Vote No. 39, Army Supplementary Estimate. The amount indicated in this Estimate is immediately required for payment for purchases of munitions and other warlike stores which have recently been supplied. The vessels referred to in Sub-head S are 12 Armed Trawlers which have been acquired for the purposes of coast-watching and the prevention of gun-running. I move that Estimate.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
Should not that be in the Navy Estimate?
Will the Minister kindly tell the Dáil whether this sum of £180,000 is inclusive or exclusive of the sum which we were informed, when we were discussing the original Estimates, was a matter for contra account with the British Government; in other words, is the £180,000 additional to the arms and ammunition which have been the subject of contra account as explained by the Minister on the last occasion?
Yes, it is over and above that sum. Of course, that final distribution is not settled yet; what we call a proportion, if the decision be that such a method of arrangement should be come to. That has not yet been decided. It has not even yet been discussed.
A Chinn Chomhairle, I would like to put to you the point of order that I raised a minute ago when you were not in the Chair. We are asked to vote a sum supplementary to the amount that was voted some time ago to defray the cost of the Army. The proposal is that we should vote a sum of £267,000, additional to the sum which we voted on the last occasion. The point I desire guidance upon is, whether a motion may be made to reduce this Supplementary Estimate by any given sum and on that motion can any matter under the purview of the Army Authorities be discussed? My submission is that the matter we are concerned with strictly is a Vote to increase the amount which has already been voted to defray the cost of the Army by £267,000, and that Sub-heads 2 and 3 are merely illustrative and explanatory and do not, as a matter of fact, affect the right of Deputies to discuss any questions of Army administration in as much as we are simply asked to vote a bulk sum additional to the amount which we have already voted in bulk.
In discussing the Estimates originally it was open to Deputies to discuss any general question relating to the Department for which money was sought. In a discussion on Supplementary Estimates, it seems to me, that the debate should be restricted to the particulars contained in the Supplementary Estimate for which the grants are sought and that a motion to reduce should refer to an item of expenditure under some particular heading which appears here. The discussion on the motion to reduce the particular item should then be restricted to that particular item.
That is your ruling, and as your ruling it is accepted by each member of the Dáil, but I do suggest that it lends itself, or might in future lend itself, to very great abuse. It might be possible, for example, that a Ministry in the future—I put it out of the question at present—could put forward some original Estimate in such a form and under such considered and carefully modulated terms and conditions as to finance, that it would not leave itself open to question at all, holding back all the matters that would leave the general question of administration and policy open to question, and bringing these into a Supplementary Estimate, and so escaping censure on the general question of policy altogether.
If the Supplementary Estimate were of that particular nature, I think the discussion would be of the same nature as the Supplementary Estimate.
I submit that the Executive officers of the Army, or the Minister for Defence might be subject to criticism in the Dáil for not having made provision for the amount of money now asked for as supplementary to the Vote already passed. In that way, I submit, we are entitled to criticise the general Army administration for asking us to vote now a sum in addition to that which they at the time informed us covered the Army administration or expenses required up to the 31st March.
If the Deputy desires to discuss the alleged incapacity of the Army to make out a proper Estimate in time, he could do that in so far as he could be able to prove that incapacity. That would not carry him very far, I am afraid.
The position is, we are now in the month of March. We have prepared our Estimates for the coming year, and we find that the replenishment of stores, which we did not expect to take place until we had passed the end of this financial year, requires to be carried out now. We are applying for this money for stores before the end of the financial year, and it will simply reduce the Estimate we have prepared for the coming year.
I would hope that your decision in this matter is not final, because I can see that it is likely to deprive the Dáil of authority over the way monies are expended, and of a check upon expenditure, and of the right of criticism of a Department. Estimates are brought forward at an early stage in a Session and are passed. They may be comparatively small and slight, they may be deliberately designed to be within the mark, and a Supplementary Estimate may be brought forward—and Supplementary Estimates are brought forward in other places frequently—but these Supplementary Estimates may be very large and extensive. I submit, if the Dáil is deprived of the right of reviewing the administration of that Department, it is losing much of its control over Ministers and their work.
The Dáil is not deprived of its power to criticise the particular items for which Supplementary Estimates are presented. It is not for me to make a suggestion but if the Deputies care to move that the item for war-like stores be reduced in order to point out that the Army uses too much war-like stores, they can proceed on that basis.
I think I shall move for a reduction of expenditure on war-like stores by £100, not exactly on the ground you suggest, but on a different ground, the abuse by the Army, or rather by local commands in the Army, perhaps, of war-like stores— munitions, arms and so forth. We hear frequently in Dublin a fairly long continued kind of bombardment—not so frequent now as it used to be—still frequent enough. In the course of these bombardments it seems to ordinary plain civilians, at all events, that there is a great deal of expenditure of ammunition, so far as the public knows, the following day or the day after, with little or no result. There may be an explanation of that and it may be that ammunition is not being wasted, but as a matter of fact a regular tattoo over a district of the city may be worth while in order to bluff off some irregular who intends to have a pot at some of the Army posts. It requires explanation. There are other instances, and I have one which came to my knowledge to-day, and that is the abuse of arms by soldiers presumably acting under the orders of a military officer, in entering and removing, by virtue of their possession of arms and ammunition, of certain private property to which they were not entitled. I shall give the Minister details of the case. I refer to a raid that took place on the 7th instant on the office of Mr. Coffey, Solicitor, Dundalk. He happened to have been instructed by the parents of two young men who are minors and who are about to be tried on a charge of murder, to appear on their behalf. Three soldiers entered this gentleman's office. I do not know Mr. Coffey personally; I know nothing of his politics, and in fact I know nothing about him. That, however, does not arise. The soldiers removed a typewriter and a copy of depositions made at the inquest. The depositions were furnished to Mr. Coffey by the Coroner, I believe. Included in them was the evidence given by a soldier at the inquest, evidence on which a verdict implicating these two young men was returned by the jury. The abuse of arms comes up in rather a grave form, because I am told one of the three soldiers who participated in the raid and removed the documents which were needed by the Solicitor for the purposes of defence, was the very soldier who gave evidence at the inquest. I will not pursue that further, but where such things can happen I think there is abuse of war-like stores that are under the direction of the Army. I formally move the reduction of £100.
I desire to second the the proposal put forward by Deputy O'Shannon. In supporting it, let me say that when we realise, or try to realise, that soldiers of the National Army have been executed for having made abuse of ammunition and arms such as we are now asked to vote away another huge sum for, we can easily conclude there has been something lacking, and there have been some loopholes in regard to this whole question of arms and ammunition. I quite agree there have been very serious difficulties met with in the setting up of the Free State Army. In any ordinary, well-disciplined army the protection of arms and ammunition in any depot or barracks is a matter that has always received the serious attention of the Commanding Officers. We know that in the British Army any soldier or officer who was unable to account for arms or ammunition that were in his charge was dealt with in a very drastic way. Some short time ago, when I was down the country, a complaint was made to me by respectable people, who are supporters of the present Government, of certain things that had been happening in that area. I was given particulars about the misconduct of soldiers, and was informed of how a certain officer, supposedly through lack of opportunities from an irregular point of view, arranged to divide the men under his control into two sections, and on a certain night a sham battle took place. The affair was reported in the papers, and was put down as an attack by irregulars on the troops. My information about the division of the troops and the sham battle is reliable. You will all agree that a good deal of ammunition was uselessly expended on that occasion. I am not quite sure if I am correct in saying that the officer has since been removed and dealt with in connection with the particular incident to which I referred. That is one instance—one of many—where there appears to be no supervision over the use of ammunition or arms. In no carping spirit do I put it to the Minister that this is one of the most important things that he and the Army Council should concern themselves with when considering the question of the Army administration as a whole. If there was proper supervision over arms and ammunition, it would not be possible for soldiers of the National Army to be executed for treachery, and it would not be possible for arms and ammunition to be put into the hands of people who are against the Government—arms and ammunition that have to be paid for by the people as a whole. In a recent interview, when his attention was drawn to the subject of night-firing in Dublin, the Minister for Home Affairs said that any fool could go into a back yard and pop at the sky, or something to that effect. If that is the actual position, and if any fool can go into a back yard and start popping at random, and not directly at any barracks, it is not necessary for the soldiers in the nearest barracks to expend thousands of rounds of ammunition in dealing with an individual of that kind, whom they cannot see or locate. When the Irish people realise that it is they who will have to pay for the expenditure of ammunition and for the use of arms—and some of the ammunition is being squandered—they will wake up and do all they can to detect and prevent things of this nature occurring. This is one of the most important things that needs looking after.
I desire to support the last few speakers in the statements they have made indicating that there has been a lot of ammunition wasted. It is hardly fair to be asking for more money to replace ammunition that is uselessly expended. Nobody objects to ammunition being expended if it is expended for a purpose. There are a couple of instances of wasteful expenditure I would like to draw attention to. Some three Sundays ago I was in Macroom, when five or six lorries of troops passed through on the way to Cork. While passing the local military barracks they saluted the troops there by firing off all the ammunition they had in their rifles. There were deafening volleys of shots for about ten or fifteen minutes. It was scarcely necessary for them to demonstrate their joy passing the local troops in such an expensive manner as that. Some time in November last one of the officers commanding troops in Cork got married, and he was going to England on his honeymoon. I, with a number of others, happened to be on the boat with the newly-married couple. A large body of troops came to see the party away. They were accompanied by a whippet, lorries, and machine guns, and they celebrated the departure by firing off three thousand rounds of ammunition. Some people say there were fully ten thousand rounds wasted. Women and children along the quays were alarmed, and they sought shelter. They did not know what was the matter, the shooting came so suddenly. The firing lasted fully half an hour. The affair had a dangerous aspect in this way: Some soldiers on the boat came to the conclusion that a Mauser was being used by an Irregular who was taking advantage of the uproar to have a pot at them, and some of them got down on the deck and fired in the direction of Montenotte. There was a possibility that some person there might be shot, and that would be more serious than the waste of ammunition. I think those few instances alone would justify us in voting against giving more money for warlike material to men who do not appear to have any control over ammunition or arms given to them.
May I raise the question of separation allowances? The hearing of the Estimates says "the amount required to defray the cost of the Army."
We have to dispose of this particular amendment first, but I do not think the question of dependents' allowances arises at all on this vote.
It is very doubtful, judging from the heading of this Estimate—"to defray the cost of the Army."
This, perhaps, will be a favourable opportunity of inviting somebody, speaking on behalf of the Army, to give the Dáil some information regarding the method of contribution for goods and war-like stores—"provision for additional arms, ammunition, etc." The question I desire to have dealt with is the Contract Department, and whether there has been any improvement in recent weeks in the method of giving out contracts for army requirements. Some time ago representations were made to the Ministry respecting many faults of the administration, in the method of giving out contracts, and we were assured that there had been set up a Contract Committee to regulate the giving out of contracts with a view to economy and efficiency. I would like the Dáil to be apprised as to whether that Contract Committee is working satisfactorily, and whether there have been any complaints recently of a serious character, whether the complaints are reducing in number, and whether the people responsible for the faults in the earlier stages have less responsibility now than they had previously for the giving out of those contracts. Perhaps if we had more time we could have stated more specific cases, but I am dealing with the matter in a general way. I invite somebody, on behalf of the Army, to reassure us that the faults of the administration in respect of the giving away of contracts for Army supplies, war-like stores, etc., have been remedied.
I should like to know if the matter of motor accessories would come under war-like stores, because it was only to-day I received a telegram from Cork complaining that certain traders had not been paid, and I should like to know from the Minister whether any of the money included in the Estimate will be used to pay those traders who have been waiting for it for a long time.
I am afraid motor accessories are not war-like stores, unless the Minister desires to include them under that heading.
That is what I would like to know.
I appreciate the healthy comment from the Labour benches. I do not like this waste of ammunition especially this firing into the air, but I do not object to the waste by firing, providing it makes men fire straight. If it does, they will be able to carry out the views of Deputy Cathal O'Shannon when he says he does not see enough results. He says he does not see enough results, or as a sportsman would put it, he wants a fairly decent bag. I take it that Deputy O'Shannon does not think the bag is big enough.
The Deputy need not take it as being anything of the sort.
Wasting ammunition to make noise is of no use at all. The Army authorities must appreciate the fact that using ammunition for making men fire straight is essential. If more is used in that way we shall not object, because we want men to be able to fire straight. That is the view of Deputy O'Shannon, I think.
It would help us to make up our minds as to whether or not we should vote for this Supplementary Estimate if the Minister would assure us that it would enable him to pay more rapidly the debts already incurred for warlike stores and other material.
I should like to ask the Minister if it is a fact that rifles are put into the hands of men and boys on the day they join up, and they are allowed to use them. I think, in view of the remarkably large number of accidents or alleged accidents that have happened to the members of the National Army that this is a matter that should be looked into immediately. Of course, it might not be possible to prevent it five or six months ago, but at the moment, when you have such a large Army, you can certainly allow time to train those men and boys who take up rifles and know nothing about them.
In the matter of making full and proper use of our stores, and not allowing waste, it would be of more assistance to me in my duty of doing that if Deputies of this Dáil coming from places around the country in which sham battles and such exhibitions as are alleged to have taken place in Cork occur, would, at the date that those things happen, write down the facts and submit a statement addressed to the Minister for Defence for our information. That being done at the time of the noticing of any of those occurrences would be much more profitable from my point of view and from the public point of view, and would be more in keeping with the responsibilities that the individual members of this Dáil have to help the Government generally. If persons who have neglected to do that care to suggest that a certain amount of ammunition or rifles should be taken out of the Army's hands because an irregularity has taken place in the raiding of a solicitor's office some place, or because an alleged excessive amount of firing is supposed to take place at night in Dublin, they are welcome to do so. Some of the imagination that has been used on some of these things might be more profitably used in considering other aspects of the Army's work.
We are not allowed.
The only thing that the opposing of this Supplementary Estimate will do will be not to give us the 12 vessels that are mentioned, and the additional war-like stores. Whether there be any by-products of activity on the line of dependents' allowances, or motor car payments, or bill payments of other kinds, it is for the Dáil to say, but these different matters are being satisfactorily dealt with. I deny that there is at the present moment, or has been for some time past, anything that could be called an excessive amount of expenditure amongst the troops from the use of firearms. On the question of contracts, a Contracts Committee was set up by the Government. As far as the Army is concerned, these purchases are not being made through the Contracts Committee. They are purchases of a type that it is more economical in every way to deal with the British Government as an agent for them, and we have used the British War Office as an agent for the purchasing of these vessels and the stores here.
I would like to understand whether we are dealing with the vessels at all; I thought we were only dealing with the one item, war-like stores. Is that so?
I am taking an Amendment to reduce sub-head (q) War-like Stores by £100, in order to call attention to the abuse of these stores by the Army.
Mr. BYRNE
The Minister, in his reply, has made reference to the question of the vessels.
If Deputy Byrne allows this amendment to be disposed of, he will have the right to intervene on later items, of course.
One does not know whether the Red Cross Department is included in war-like stores, but I assume that it is.
Is it?
No.
You have the assurance that it is not.
Would the Minister tell us in what item in the original Estimate the Red Cross is included?
If the Red Cross items are not included in this Estimate, I think that disposes of the matter.
I would just like to say that the Minister was rather displeased, according to the wording of his reply, that some of the Deputies do not take advantage of sending him information on questions of fact rather than raising such matters in the Dáil. Personally I have tried to do that as far as possible, but when one has to face the fact, and wait for an explanation some time or another, and is continually receiving requests to repeat what he has sent in connection with the matter, I take it that is not a satisfactory way of drawing his attention to it personally. I take it also that when any individual member of the Dáil draws the attention of a Colonel, who is a responsible officer in the Army Council, to certain matters that it is the duty of that Colonel to convey such complaints if he thinks fit, to the Commander-in-Chief. On one or two occasions I sent in complaints that I regarded as of a very serious nature, and in one particular instance the aggrieved parties were prepared to come and swear as to the reliability of the evidence they were giving me. I was subsequently definitely informed that the charges in this particular instance were incorrect. When one is faced with a position of that kind one feels that little satisfaction is to be gained by taking the matter up with a Colonel of the Army, or even the Commander-in-Chief himself.
Amendment put and negatived.
On the next question, that of vessels, might I ask the Minister whether these vessels have been purchased outright or whether they have been only hired, and if they have not been purchased outright, whether he could not see his way to hire them, and at a later date have built in Dublin the ships required for the Irish Government use.
In Dublin?
Mr. BYRNE
Well, in Ireland. In Dublin at present, unfortunately, we have our two ship-building yards closed down for want of work. I am satisfied that the Minister has done the right thing and done it exceptionally well, but could this matter be arranged so that those ships he proposed to get from the British Government or charter from companies should not be purchased outright, but only hired, and later on get the vessels required built in Ireland?
The vessels in question have been purchased outright, and in doing so we had full regard for every aspect of the matter, and this was the best economy.
I would like, not to criticise, but to make a suggestion to the Minister, arising out of complaints which I have received regarding the personnel of the crews of some of the vessels. I happen to live in a seaside resort where there are a considerable number of complaints from men who have served, and served well, in the Republican Army during the troubled times. I have not any particular individual in mind now, but there are complaints that men there are getting no look in whatsoever with regard to appointments on these particular vessels. I suggest to the Minister that for any new vessels that may be acquired consideration, where individuals have the qualifications, should be given to men who have done very good and useful service during the Anglo-Irish war. I submit that suggestion because of the number of complaints that I have received in an area that I do not represent.
Well, in the absence of anything like detailed information on that point, I am fully satisfied that every consideration is being given to that aspect of the matter in enlisting crews for these vessels. If there are any particular people who think that they have a claim to be considered in the recruiting of these crews because of past services, I would be very glad to have a statement of their claims sent to me.
On this question I think it well to say that the suggestion made by Deputy Davin is not in regard to particular people, and it is not our desire to put forward the names of particular people as suitable for crews, but rather that localities which are inhabited by men who have experience of the sea and the kind of service that is required, should have some consideration in the appointment of crews. The claim that we put forward—and I am sure that every member on these Benches will agree—is that there should be some distribution of patronage—if it is to be called patronage; at least that the crews shall be drawn from different areas, and not confined to one or two places. Certain representations have been made to the Minister in this regard, and I am sure they are being considered and attended to.
I have investigated the matter, and I find that there is practically no foundation for the suggestion that a special distribution of patronage to one particular area or county has been made. I have ascertained that that is not so.
Motion put and agreed to.