Vol. 3 No. 30
I beg to move:
"That a sum not exceeding £765,700 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1924, for expenditure in respect of public buildings, for the maintenance of certain parks and public works, for maintenance of drainage works on the river Shannon, and sundry grants in aid;" £400,000 has been voted on account already.
As regards this vote, I think a good deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed generally over the way contracts are given by the Board of Works. If my information is correct, the Board of Works places a certain number of firms on a schedule or something of that kind, and no firm outside of those scheduled can tender for those works. I do not think that such a practice lends itself to economy. Possibly the Board of Works may be of opinion that outside of those firms nobody is fitted to do the particular class of work they require. I hold, however, that all firms, either in the building or other trades, when they are capable of doing the work set out under the various contracts, should be given an opportunity of tendering. I understand that in the past only a limited number of firms have had an opportunity of tendering for many of those contracts. That state of affairs should be remedied. There are a number of small firms here and there throughout the country, perhaps in country towns, who are capable of carrying out work just as well as some of the large firms who get the contracts. It is not a good thing for any Government Department to permit a certain number of firms to tender for a particular class of work, while other firms are kept out. If my information is correct, that method has been adopted in the past in regard to several contracts. The Minister may be in a position to give us some information on the matter. I am sure when he investigates this subject he will see that any state of affairs such as I have described, if it exists, will be remedied.
I would like to endorse what Deputy Hughes has just said. I would even go further than what he proposes, and I say that any public work that requires to be done in Ireland should be open to all traders who may be free to do it, provided they can give the same securities and guarantees for carrying it out that other firms are required to give when the contracts are given them. It is a fact that up to this lists of traders in certain trades have been arranged, and contracts have been reserved to one or other of the firms on those lists. I think it is grossly unfair, in view of the record of the Board of Works, that they should continue to reserve contracts to certain contractors. I believe it is a fact that at the present moment several contracts that have been placed by the Board of Works have been carried out in such a manner that rejection after rejection of the work done has taken place. I am not making a statement that I am not prepared to prove if it is challenged. I would like to see that state of affairs ended.
The whole of the constructive work that has been done in Ireland under the control of the Board of Works should be thrown open to every man in Ireland who is willing to tender for it. Everyone should have as good a chance as everyone else to compete for this work. These tenders should be open to the whole people of the country, and I again repeat that everyone should have as good an opportunity as everyone else to get the contracts, provided he conforms to the conditions under which the contracts are placed.
I notice in the Estimates that there is nothing allowed for grants-in-aid for piers and harbours this year. There was a sum of £8,600 for this item in last year's Estimates, and there is nothing whatever this year, notwithstanding that there is an increase in the entire Estimate of £500,000. I should like to know from the Minister why he is cutting adrift those grants. Are not the piers and harbours through the country deserving of some recognition and deserving of being kept in order or improved as well as any other public service?
There is an item for the Ministry of Defence "Military Barracks and Camps":—
|
£ |
|
|
Maintenance and Supply |
195,300 |
|
Furniture, Fittings & Utensils |
44,500 |
|
Rents |
55,050 |
|
Fuel, Light, Water, Cleaning |
364,400 |
|
Total |
659,250 |
That is for 1923-24. For 1922-23 it is nil. One would almost have thought that this sum would have been included in the Defence estimates, but whether that is correct or not the sum for fuel, light, water and cleaning of military barracks and camps seems to be exorbitant. It is £364,000. I think that is a sum which should call for some explanation under that head. Presumably it is in addition to sums that are charged for under the Ministry of Defence, such as the Provision of Supplies, Cooking, etc. I think it would repay some inquiry into that estimated charge. Now, in view of all that is said about the necessity for economy, I am surprised to see that a £5,000 estimate is put in to be spent on the Governor-General's residence, and the late Chief Secretary's Lodge, for "Improvement to Lighting." That is £5,000 for this year for improvement to the lighting of the Governor-General's Lodge and the late Chief Secretary's Lodge. I wonder are we to assume that hitherto the previous occupants have been satisfied with candle light or oil lamps or have they been content to sit in darkness?
They have.
If that latter was the condition that prevailed, then I am not going to object to the spending of £5,000 to light that darkness, but I am suspicious that that is not the true explanation. I cannot understand the necessity for this expenditure this year. I think the Minister could very well find a better means of spending £5,000, or what perhaps would please him better, by saving £5,000. After all, for this year at any rate, this residence will not be the scene of great State functions, and new lighting systems are hardly necessary.
We are invited also to vote a sum of £12,000 for the Oireachtas buildings. That raises the question of the housing of the Dáil and Seanad. I would like to know from the Minister where we stand in that matter? We gather that plans are being prepared, and one imagines that they are being prepared to the point of completeness. But perhaps the Minister will remember that there was a general promise given that some opportunity would be provided for the Seanad and Dáil to say what they thought about the housing of the Oireachtas in future before any decision was taken. A good deal of time, I have no doubt, has been spent by this department in the preparing of these plans. I think it would be well to let the Dáil know exactly where we stand before any further expense is involved on this department. If it is finally decided that we shall remove the Oireachtas to Kilmainham, well, then, the work can proceed. But I think, in view of the promise that was given, that the Oireachtas should have some say in the matter. I would ask the Minister to take us all into his confidence in this matter.
There is an item here, "Civic Guard Depot, Office Accommodation, £3,000." I would like to know the particulars about that. Is it to be spent here in Dublin? One would think that the barracks here in Dublin were sufficiently well equipped and in sufficiently good repair. There is also an item here from Cork, "Civic Guard, Cork—Restoration of Union Quay Barracks, £19,500." I understand that there are military barracks in Cork that would have sufficed for the Civic Guard. That is an extraordinary outlay.
I would like to support the remarks made by Mr. Doyle with respect to the piers and harbours, and why there has been no provision made for these in the present financial year. As far back as October of last year, in answer to an inquiry by myself, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that he was alive to the seriousness of the situation as far as the piers and harbours on the South East Coast were concerned, and that he was making inquiries. I think the Dáil will agree that this question of providing proper facilities for harbours in Ireland is most important. With regard to the other matters spoken of by Deputies Hughes and Cole on this question of contracts by the Board of Works, I have also complaints to make. It is pretty well known that there are certain firms scheduled and that these firms only get a chance to tender for contracts. At the moment, in the County Wexford, a contractor has been brought in who does not belong to the county at all. I do not know what the terms of his contract are. I know that he has brought in men there who are not being paid the recognised rate of wages paid in the district. They are working more hours than the number of hours that prevail in the district. That is contrary to the Board of Works regulations. That, however, is a side issue at the moment. I do say that every firm in the district should get a chance to tender for any work that is being done in that district.
There is an item here, under the heading of "Ancient Monuments Preservation," for £1,500. There is an increase in that Vote. Does that increase mean that the Ministry are taking some interest in the preservation of our ancient monuments? I would be delighted to hear that that is so, but I would like to see that Vote largely increased. Unfortunately we have had lately people operating in the other direction.
We all, I think, agree with Deputy Alton that something should be done for the preservation of ancient monuments, although some of us, also, would be delighted if some of the ancient monuments were removed as some of them have been removed recently. However, that is not the question that I want to raise. The question I want to raise comes up on page 29:—"Purchase of sites, buildings and premises for Civic Guard." There has been some complaint, in some quarters, over the delay on the part of the Board of Works in settling up in some of these cases. No doubt buildings have had to be taken possession of to instal the Civil Guard. People in these places have been dispossessed. There is not so much complaint about that, but the complaint is when it comes to a question of paying up for them. I have in mind a particular case where, although repeated promises have been made to the people concerned that their claims would be met by the Board, yet up to the present they have not been met. This means that those concerned have to carry out certain obligations that they had contracted when they took possession of these premises, and since the Civic Guard took possession of them these people have had to go on paying. They are carrying out their legal obligations, but the Board has not, so far, met the original possessors of those buildings, and there is a good deal of complaint because of that. The Board said, I think, that they would meet these obligations and that no undue burden would be thrown upon the shoulders of the people they dispossessed. I hope the Minister will look into matters like this, and will see that these complaints will be attended to immediately.
As one of the Dublin Deputies has criticised some items in regard to Cork, presumably I am entitled to make some reference to items of expenditure in connection with Dublin. There is an item here of £20,000 for Dublin Castle adaptation. I presume the people of the country would like to be informed as to whether the Castle is going to be the permanent residence of the Law Courts. If so, presumably the £20,000 asked for for the adaptation will be required to make it suitable for that purpose. If it is not to be a permanent residence for the Courts, one may submit that that £20,000 is entirely too high an estimate.
There is also an item of £10,000 for the removal of the dome and the front elevation of the Four Courts. That seems at first sight to be rather a large estimate for that purpose, and I think the Minister for Finance might give the Dáil some indication as to why this estimate had to be put down, and why it should be of this amount, and also I would like to know what the intention of the Ministry is with regard to Dublin Castle, and probably with regard to the Four Courts Buildings Also on page 31 of the Estimates we have an amount for the Governor-General's residence—including the Private Secretary's Lodge—for maintenance supplies, etc., totalling £11,442, Without details it seems to anybody that the several items connected with the upkeep of the Governor-General's establishment are very large indeed. There is one small item I notice on the same page, upon which I would like a little enlightenment. It is an item of £821 in connection with the Cork Custom House which we are told will be met by a corresponding asset. I would like an explanation of what the corresponding asset is. There is a further item for the Office, High Commissioner, in London, and from the amount of that item one would presume it is intended to erect a building there. Having no knowledge myself I see by the public Press that the High Commissioner has got an office upon a first floor. Presumably that office cannot cost an amount so large, and presumably the intention of this estimate must be to erect a public building in the City of London for the High Commissioner. From the point of view of advertising this country that expenditure may be justified, certainly, but if it is not intended to erect such a building for the purpose of advertising the country, and consequently advertising the production of the country, and as a result getting what may be called some value, then I think the expenditure would not be justified.
The Patent Office is in the Estimates, but no sum is mentioned for it, and I do not know consequently whether one can discuss it, but as one a little interested I would like some information regarding the Patent Office, and regarding the present position of patents generally in this country if it is permissible to ask for that on the discussion of an estimate which does not exist.
Before the Minister replies to these questions I might be permitted to follow up a matter that I raised earlier regarding an item for £5,000 for the improvement of the lighting of the Governor-General's residence and the late Chief Secretary's lodge, and to draw attention to the fact that there is also a sum of £11,442 required for the maintenance, furniture, fuel and light and cleaning of these two buildings. I think it necessary to ask the question whether so large a sum as £11,000 is required for these purposes. We are bound by arrangement made with England to provide suitable accommodation, I was going to say alternative accommodation, for the Governor-General, and also to pay him £10,000 per year. We provide a house in addition to the salary. I question very much whether the judgment of the people of the Saorstát will confirm the judgment of the Minister for Finance that a reasonable establishment, a suitable establishment would require a sum of £11,000 per year for maintenance in addition to salary. I would like to put the family budget of the average working man with a family and an establishment of the same size, against the year's budget asked for in this Vote. I do not want to be ungenerous or to indulge in any sarcasm, but I honestly think this amount of £11,000 for the ordinary maintenance of this establishment is altogether unnecessarily high. There are no State functions, no Balls, no Parties. We see no Court News, or anything of that kind, and I hope we never shall, and consequently we want to understand the real reason for a charge of this kind for a suitable establishment for the Governor-General who has none of these duties to perform. We have items "maintenance of supplies, £8,850; furniture, fittings, and utensils, £992; fuel, light, water and cleaning, £1,600." I think it will require a great deal of arguments to justify that, and I invite the Minister when dealing with the Vote of £5,000 for the improvement of the lighting also to justify the £11,000 for the upkeep of the establishment. That is a sum of £16,442 for the upkeep and improvement of this establishment for this year, and I think it requires a good deal to justify it, and I hope we shall hear the Minister's attempt to do so.
In regard to one point that was raised about the office for the High Commissioner in London, I am afraid the Deputy does not quite understand the circumstances of office buildings in London, if he thinks that we could put up a building in the most expensive part of the city for a sum of £5,000. This is merely a matter of renting an office on a first floor in London, and I think it is very doubtful whether we shall get such an office as we want for the sum of £5,000.
I would like to correct a misapprehension that Deputies seem to have, that I am an encyclopaedia. I would want to be one if I were to answer all the questions and reply to all the criticisms that have been made on this Vote. One matter that was mentioned was the subject of contracts. Contracts are not confined to particular firms. All large contracts are advertised in the newspapers, and all tenders sent in are considered. Where there are small contracts for £500 or so, they are not advertised, but competition is invited. This particular department has been under the supervision of my department for nearly twelve months. I am speaking now from recollection, and I say that I do not remember, during that time, having received more than one letter from a Deputy dealing with contracts. This is not the best time for criticising the work of a department, unless Party advantage, or damage to the prestige of the Ministry, is intended, and I have not had experience of anything of that since we started here.
Will the Minister say what is the object of bringing these Estimates before the Dáil if he does not invite criticism of them?
The object is to submit them for consideration and to have them passed. What I say is that the administration ought to get some assisttance during the year if, during the course of the year, some mistake occurs. That is the time to raise it, when the mistake occurs. If there be criticism of a particular contract we ought to hear about it at once. If there be occasions upon which Deputies have cause for complaint about contracts that have been given out, the time to raise it is when the thing occurs. Steps could be taken then, at the moment if a mistake has been made, to correct it for the future, but there is very little use in coming along with a general statement about contracts and saying that the policy of the Board is wrong, that certain classes of people are excluded, that certain firms are not on the list, and so on.
Is not this the time for the Dáil to deal with questions of policy and not with specific complaints? Surely this is primarily the time to deal with Departmental policy.
I think the President must not be taken as defining what we are dealing with now.
I am putting the business aspect of the case, and I presume I am entitled to do that. If the policy of the Board has been wrong during the eleven months it has been under the supervision of my department, no complaint, except one, reached me during that time. I investigated that single complaint. It was corrected, and no mistake occurred afterwards that I know of. If there be anything wrong in the policy of advertising contracts it is open to criticism. That has been the policy. Is that wrong? If it be not wrong, why is it criticised?
I do not know whether or not these questions are addressed to me, but I desire to point out that Deputies have a perfect right on these particular occasions to criticise the policy of a department which asks them for money.
I thoroughly agree. I say if they had a case for complaint, this is the place to make it. The time to make the complaint is when a mistake occurs. If a mistake occurs I think it is wrong to allow a year to pass before making the complaint. If money has been wasted, or an inefficient policy pursued, I think Deputies ought to make complaint at the time and get the matter corrected rather than wait for a year to do so. In any case, during the whole year only one Deputy raised a question. As regards the question that was raised about piers and harbours, it is not the function of the Ministry of Finance to go around the country and look for piers and harbours that people want to be reconstructed. We do not want to be spilling out money, and as far as I know no demands have come in connection with piers or harbours. At any rate I have not seen any or heard of any. Last year the sum of £8,600 was put down. That sum, or at least some of it, was included by the British Development Commission, which no longer exists, and was re-voted last year. No other demand of that sort has come in, and I hope no demand is going to come in.
Your department must be very badly informed. I know plenty of demands that were sent in.
That is your business, but I am telling you the fact that not one single application or claim has come in.
That is a different thing.
The £10,000 for the Four Courts dome includes, not alone the taking down of the dome, which, I am informed, is both difficult and expensive, but also taking down a good part of the walls which are dangerous, and repairing the front portion of the building. The asset at the Cork Custom House is in respect of rent paid by the Cork Harbour Board for part of the offices. The other matter mentioned was, I think, in connection with the Governor General's residence. The lighting is defective and it is proposed to expend a certain capital sum which would relieve Votes in the future of a good deal of the expense. This is only a rough estimate, and no details have been provided in connection with it. No money in respect of that head has been yet spent and care will be taken to see that it is economically spent, if it is expended. The total cost of upkeep during the last years of the occupation by Lords Lieutenants out of the Vice-regal Lodge was £12,500 a year, and that, I think, did not include fuel and light, and it is on that estimate that this particular one is framed. The other items which are for the Army might, properly speaking, be put down to the Army Vote. The Office of Works has charge of the work and is dealing with it, but in the same way as the items in various other Estimates might be included in the particular Ministries, the Office of Works, doing this particular work, being responsible for it and answerable for the expenditure under this head, that item is included in the Board of Works Vote though, properly speaking, it should be under the Army Vote. I examined that Estimate at the time that it was prepared. It is, I think, a penny per head per day of the Army less than the British Estimate, that is the Estimate that is made up by the British Army.
Per man?
Per man, yes; per man, per day.
What are the relative strengths?
I could not answer that, but it is per man. It would not affect the issue. If the British Army were ten times as large then the Vote would be ten times as large. I forget what the precise amount was, but I think the item amounted to £350,000 for fuel and light in barracks, and so on. It would amount to £7 or £10 per man per year. In any case, I tried to explain that it is, properly speaking, chargeable to the Army Vote, but in view of its administration being by the Board of Works, it is put down there.
With regard to the Civic Guard Barracks, the Civic Guard now use the old R.I.C. Depot in the Phoenix Park, to gether with Marlborough Barracks, adjoining, as their headquarters. Originally the offices of the R.I.C. were in Dublin Castle, but they were transferred to the Depôt, and it was estimated that £3,000 would be required. That is only an estimate. It is not expected that the whole, or nearly the whole, will be expended on the necessary alterations that are being made. There is the restoration of Union Quay Barracks in Cork, which was owned by the British Government during their occupation here. It was destroyed by fire in August of last year, and it is necessary to restore it at once for fifty men, and ultimately as the headquarters for the Civic Guard in Cork. It is at first proposed to carry out only a partial restoration, for which a vote of £10,000 is required. In Galway it is proposed to restore the barracks in Eglinton Street, or part of them. Part of the work has been put in hands already. There is also the restoration of No. 1 Barracks for the Civic Guard in Sligo, a Government building held free of rent. It is proposed to restore the barracks at Ennis. It is a Government-owned barracks, which was destroyed in August, and under the terms of the lease the Government, as tenants, are bound to restore it, and the restoration, or part of it at least, is immediately necessary to accommodate the Civic Guard. It is also necessary in several other cases either to rent new premises or to restore some of the old ones that have been demolished, and that is responsible for whatever other sum there is in the Vote.
The Deputy inquires whether the Courts are to be kept in the Castle or not. I cannot answer that question. The Castle premises have been reconstructed to suit the Courts. Even though it be not intended to keep the Courts there, the works that have been undertaken, although they were at pretty considerable expense, were necessary for the Courts. Nothing has been done except what was absolutely essential. I do not know that it is at all likely that you will have any money available for rebuilding the Courts, even if you were so inclined, for very many years, and I take it that these premises are fairly suitable for the Courts—very suitable, as a matter of fact—and that in any case, whether or not it is intended in the future to rebuild, the Courts will be there for twenty years. It is a large sum of money to have to expend in one year, but spread over the time I think it is fair value. That matter has not gone further than the continued preparation of plans and consideration. It is not proposed to take any step without complying with all the undertakings that I have given. When the matter is ready it will be brought to the notice of the Oireachtas and no step will be taken to commit the Oireachtas without their express approval.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair at this stage.
I want to express my astonishment at the extraordinary doctrine that the Minister had laid down respecting the duty of Deputies to make complaints during the year regarding specific matters, or, having failed to do that, to hold their peace when dealing with estimates and departmental policy, as projected and prepared for in the estimates. I think that it is a pity that the Minister should lead the Dáil in that way. If there is any opportunity given to the Dáil to consider and to criticise the policy of a Department it is on the Estimates, and even though they may have no complaints to make on any specific item in the past they have a perfect right to come forward and demand an improvement or a change in policy in respect of any item for the forthcoming year. Further, for the Minister to say that it is not the business of the Department responsible for Public Works to make representations regarding the condition of public works under their charge is most extraordinary to me. To say that it is not the business of the Ministry, or Department under the Ministry, to look after the piers and harbours, but that it is the business of the members of the Dáil to make these representations, is a most extraordinary doctrine. The Minister has given us an explanation in regard to the £5,000 for the Governor-General's residence, and the improvement of lighting therein. He says that the lighting is defective and therefore £5,000 has to be spent this year in improving it. I think that is not a sufficient explanation in view of the condition of the National finances, nor is it a sufficient explanation of the £11,442 to say that that is based upon estimates of the occupants of the Vice-regal Lodge in the past. I think the explanations are so unsatisfactory that I am going to ask the Dáil to agree to a motion to reduce this Estimate by £5,000 so that the £11,000 which will be left will have to suffice not only for maintenance, but for the improvement of the lighting. I beg therefore to move that the Estimate be reduced by the sum of £5,000.
I wish to second that. I certainly would not be a party to such a sum as that being expended on the Governor-General's residence. Some time ago I initiated a discussion here with regard to the housing of the working classes generally. I was told then there was no money available for that purpose, and here we have £5,000 about to be laid out for light for one individual.
There is a sum of £700,000 in the Estimates for the housing of the working classes, and as far as I know the Deputy has got his whack out of that for his town.
I am not going to vote for the motion proposed by Deputy Johnson, but I wish to make it clear to the Minister and to the Dáil that in raising the question of contracts it was not for the purpose of going back on any contracts that may have been given or work that may have been done, but in order that that state of affairs may be remedied in the coming year. I do know that facilities were not given to contractors within 5 or 6 months past that might have been given to them. I will give you an instance of where three large contracts were to be given, and one specification was left at the office representing the Board of Works in that particular area, and anyone wanting to tender on that specification had to go in and sit down for two or three days and make all the calculations on that. I hold that the Board of Works, like every other corporation, when they have tender to give out, should get their specification printed and supplied to intending contractors. To say that a contractor or his servants should go in and sit down and wait their turn to examine a specification is not enough. It was for that reason, and to remedy that state of affairs in the future, that I criticise the system giving contracts by the Board of Works.
With reference to the office of the High Commissioner in London, the Rents Restrictions Act does not apply in London when, according to the papers, on one floor or flat it is necessary to expend the sum of £5,000 in one year. Surely rents are not so high even in the centre of London that one flat would cost £5,000. I think the explanation is quite unsatisfactory. The total amount given here is £13,000——
I would like to intervene for a moment. I felt rather hurt about the criticisms on contracts, because I have had many complaints, not alone from members of the Dáil, but from business people outside. I was anxious to prove these, and anxious to find out where the leakage or corruption was, if any. During the whole year I could only get one case in which there was a specific complaint. That one was dealt with, and Deputies must be aware of the fact that there is a limit to human endurance and that continued complaints, such as saying "There is no improvement; you are just the same as the people who went before you," and that sort of thing, especially when you ask for specific information and do not get it, are not fair. If there be a case in which anything of that sort has occurred and we have not taken action, then we should be indicted here, but at least we are entitled to get the information which will enable us to see that a Department is properly and efficiently run in the public interest.
I move that the question be now put.
Sul a cuirtear an Vóta iomlán, is mian liom freagra d'fháil o'n Aire—níl sé annso anois— ar cheist a cuir mé cuige mar gheall ar Bille don Ghárda Síotchána (Áitreabh do Sholáthar). I regret that the Minister for Finance is not here now, because I should like him to answer a question put by me a while ago with reference to the compensation of people who have been dispossessed, sometimes at a very short notice, by the Civic Guard, who took over their premises.
On Friday we will have the Second Reading of the Bill, which asks for the Board of Works, compulsory powers to acquire accommodation for the Civic Guard. That Bill will be retroactive in its effect, and will cover cases in which there has been something little short of commandeering in the past. There have been cases in which the military took premises, and after a delay which some people might describe as a decent interval handed them over to the Civic Guard. The explanation of that lies in the fact that the military were charged with restoration of order in the country, and in many places they considered that the most potent factor in the establishment of order would be the establishment of a Civic Guard post. They thought themselves right and justified in commandeering certain premises, looking always, I submit, to where the least hardship lay. After occupying the premises for some time they left them in favour of the Civic Guard. There have been cases of that kind, and the Bill to be discussed on Friday will be retroactive in its effect. It will be retroactive also in its provisions with regard to rent, and the machinery by which it is proposed to adjust the rent.
The Minister has just referred to the question of a Bill which is coming up in the next couple of days to make provision for premises hitherto occupied by the military authorities and now taken over compulsorily or otherwise by the Civic Guard. Is that so?
I said that there had been cases in the past where a certain degree of compulsion was used in establishing Civic Guard posts, and the Bill, which proposes to give for the future compulsory power to the Board of Works, will be retroactive in its effect in the case of premises of that kind that have been occupied.
I have had a number of cases in hand for some time where the military authorities, on very short notice commandeered private property of individual citizens as long ago as twelve months and in one particular instance made no compensation to the people who were pushed out of their house at very short notice. That particular house in the past week has been handed over to the Civic Guard without making any allowance to the people. who occupied it formerly, for the period of occupation by the military authorities. In this case the military authorities gave four hours' notice to two elderly ladies to leave their house, which was well furnished. They took over the premises and assured the people who were being pushed out that they could take up accommodation in a hotel or elsewhere and that they would be amply compensated in a short time for the inconvenience cause to them by being dispossessed on such short notice. About 10 days ago I met these two ladies, upon whose behalf I went to the Board of Works on at least three or four occasions. I think it is very unfair that the Board of Works, who are responsible to an extent in this case with the military authorities, should deprive any citizens of rent due to them during occupation of the premises as well as compensation for the damage, done during military occupation, to the property that was taken over.
I know of cases, and this is only one, where property was acquired by the military, and where very valuable furniture was used by the military authorities to put houses into a state of defence. I think that was extravagance, to say the least of it. In addition to that, all this time has passed and nothing has been done to compensate for the destruction of the property or loss of the rent to which they were rightly entitled, and which they would be entitled to if taken by anyone else under such circumstances. I have also a case in mind where premises were acquired by the military authorities from the Black and Tans, where a similar thing has happened. Compensation has been claimed for the destruction of the premises, which in this instance was a licensed premises. The claim for compensation was declined, on the grounds that the damage done was fair wear and tear. I saw the premises last Sunday week. The floors are torn up, the windows blown out and the sills of the windows are torn down, and all kinds of destruction has taken place. The report of an Inspector from the Board of Works was that the condition of the premises was due to fair wear and tear. If the pulling down of premises—the tearing out of windows, the pulling up of floors—is considered fair wear and tear, I can readily understand why the Government is going to ignore many of the reasonable claims made on them in cases of this kind. I suggested to the responsible Officer of the Board of Works that the man who made the report in this case must have been riding through this particular town in a train without seeing the premises where the destruction occurred. It is not a fair argument, nor is it reasonable, that fair claims should be ignored and turned down, and I suggest that there is something radically wrong when an Inspector or anyone acting for the Government could take the view that was taken in this particular instance.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the failure of the Board of Works or the Military Authorities to make reasonable provision within a reasonable time to meet the reasonable and legitimate claims of the people who have suffered as a result of the commandeering of private property. I understand that there are many cases outstanding of this particular class, and that many people who have overdrafts from the bank await payment of compensation which is long over-due. I would like some explanation, at any rate, from the Minister as to the present position of claims of that kind, and when it is the intention of the Government to clear up all outstanding cases.
Would I be in order to move the adjournment of the Dáil at this stage?
I am entitled to an answer from the Minister before you do so.
If the Deputy means that the commandeering by the Board of Works is taking place, I would like to correct that. It is not. Commandeering takes place by the military. If the charge be against the Board of Works I have not got the books here, and I am not in a position to answer any question regarding any account. If the Deputy communicates with me I will get an answer for him.
I have asked questions in the Dáil several times in connection with this matter. I did not like troubling the Minister, but I was ultimately informed that such matters were dealt with by a Joint Committee composed of representatives of the Ministry of Defence and of the Board of Works. I know that such a Committee is in existence, but I submit their failure to deal with legitimate claims, extending over a period of twelve months, is a thing that requires explanation from the Minister responsible.
Their "failure" to deal with particular claims is an extravagant way of putting it. It is not a question of "failure," it is a question of a huge number of claims from all parts of the country, some certified by people no longer living, others in dispute, others where extravagant claims have been made and so on. If the case be that we are supposed to clear off all these, regardless of expense, then I say you are going to be disappointed. We are not going to do that. It will take time to settle these accounts. They are being dealt with as rapidly as possible. There was a very large number of them, but the number is being reduced—to what extent I cannot say. The Deputy has not raised the question with me before.
Does the Minister suggest that there is any great difficulty about the payment of the rent of premises occupied by the military authorities, apart from any other considerations which may be involved?
It very much depends on the question of what the claim for rent is—whether it is £5 or £100 or £1,000—and if it is a fair claim. You cannot expect me to answer a hypothetical question. If it be a reasonable claim, there will be no delay; if it is an extravagant claim there will be delay until people come to their senses.
I think the principal complaint is that people are continually writing to the Ministry of Finance in connection with these claims, and cannot get even an acknowledgement. They would be satisfied, I think, if they got an acknowledgment that the Government would accept some liability, or at least keep the liability off them.
I would like to mention one case in which I interested myself. It is a case of Mr. Coughlan, of Buttevant, whose premises were taken over by the military. I understand the married quarters of the old barracks were being put into repair for the Civic Guard, but the military got in before the Civic Guard got there. I interviewed the Minister for Defence, and learned that the Board of Works were dealing with such cases. I then saw the Secretary of the Board of Works and he promised to send an inspector to visit the premises and make a report. I heard since from Mr. Coughlan that an inspector did arrive there and made an investigation, and he is supposed to have sent in a report to the Board of Works. This happened two months ago. Since then Mr. Coughlan has not heard anything from the Board of Works. I submit that it is not unreasonable, two months after an inspector has visited the premises and made a report, for this man to expect that some settlement of his claim would be made. I understood the Minister for Home Affairs to suggest, when he spoke before Deputy Davin, that these cases will not be dealt with until after the Civic Guards Acquisition of Premises Bill is passed. I would like to know from the Minister for Home Affairs or from the Minister for Defence if I am right in that assumption.
Do you mean houses which the Civic Guard are now occupying?
Yes.
The Dáil will provide machinery for arriving at a fair rent in respect of these premises, and I take it that not until such machinery is provided can rent be estimated. Where, in the general interest, it is found necessary to take particular premises for the accommodation of the Civic Guard, there are proposals in the Bill providing machinery by which the rent can be estimated and such rent will be paid.
Do I understand that in this particular case, and in all such cases, no compensation and no rent whatsoever will be paid until after the passing of the Civic Guard Acquisition of Premises Bill?
I take it that compensation for the period of military occupation will be a matter for the Ministry of Defence. The rent to be paid by the Civic Guard will be provided for in the Bill.
Might I say, by way of explanation, that I think the Minister has taken an unreasonable view of the case to which I referred. That was a case in which the premises required for military purposes were licensed premises. I do not care at any time to go to the Minister responsible if I can get access to the offices which deal with such cases. I went to the Board of Works twice in connection with that case, and pointed out that although the military had left the premises they had never handed over legal possession to the owner. The question arose as to whether a licence could be got for the premises after they had been evacuated by the military, and the Minister for Home Affairs no doubt knows that a licence could not be granted except possession was proven to have been handed over. The Ministry of Defence or the Board of Works refused to hand over the key of the premises. I take it that they will have to accept liability for rent, although the premises were evacuated some time ago. It is for the responsible authorities—the Board of Works or the Ministry of Defence—to hand over legal possession. Although I asked several questions in the Dáil regarding this case, and went to the Board of Works, I did not go to the Minister because I did not like to trouble him. There is something radically wrong with the machinery of a Department when a liability of that kind is carried on, and this would not be so if people in responsible positions did their work in the ordinary way.
If the Deputy gives me particulars of that case and of any other such cases I will see they are investigated without delay.
