Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1924

Vol. 6 No. 31

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. BLYTHE

I beg to move:

"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,280, be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for the salaries and expenses of the President and Office of the Executive Council."

The details are given fairly fully in this Estimate and I do not think that I need add much to them. The change which took place when the President ceased to be also Minister for Finance led to a division of staff and a division of expenditure which had not been observed so closely before, and led to matters being charged to the Executive Council Vote which had been charged to the Vote of the Ministry of Finance.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I want to raise one or two matters on this Estimate. I had hoped that the introductory statement of the Minister would have rendered some questions unnecessary. I do not want to deal with this Estimate, which raises a number of somewhat contentious matters, in any spirit of carping criticism. But I think that there is room for a great deal fuller explanation in regard to certain items than the Dáil has already received. I take, for example, the question of the various Parliamentary Secretaries raised here. The first item is:—"Parliamentary Secretary to the Executive Council from the 6th December, 1922, to——." That is to say, from the outset of the foundation of the Free State there has been such a Parliamentary Secretary. That information has not been in any documentary form before the Dáil until now. When the Ministers and Secretaries Bill was introduced, the Dáil—I will not say was led, but certainly was given reason to infer that Parliamentary Secretaries were to be created for the first time. More proper still is this question. Has the Parliamentary Secretary to the Executive Council, of whose existence we now learn upon this Supplementary Vote for the first time, been paid, as we presume he has been paid, month by month since the 6th December, 1922? If the person acting in that capacity has since that date been paid, by what authority has that payment been made? Further, if the payment has been made, has the authority been conferred—and I want to draw special attention to this question—in any other form in any earlier Vote by this Dáil by which it has not been apparent that the money has been conferred for the sustenance and maintenance of an Office of which the Dáil did not know until the money is now being asked?

Questions of that kind apply to each case of a Parliamentary Secretary. I notice, further, that the rate of payment given in this Supplementary Estimate is considerably higher than the rate that would be authorised when the Ministers and Secretaries Bill will have become law. I think we should look rightly for some information on that end of the subject. I want to say in raising this matter that I think every Deputy will recognise that we have been dealing during the past two years with quite an exceptional period in the history of this State. Certain irregularities have occurred which, I think, might not necessarily have occurred during that period, but which I hope will not occur in future, and it is unnecessary to give any undue stress to the fact that such irregularities have been in existence. But the only way in which they can properly be ended is by the fullest and completest information when the matter that is so dealt with in an irregular fashion is subsequently rectified and regularised. This is the regularisation of something that has been done for the past 18 months. I do urge the Minister for Finance or the President to state quite fully and candidly what has been the procedure adopted until the present moment; if these payments have been made, on what authority they have been made, and in what form the Dáil has conferred such authority, if such authority has been conferred. In that case the whole information will be before the Dáil, and I think that the matter that has been apparently dealt with in some other form hitherto will be regularised for the future, and undue stress need not be paid to it.

Major COOPER

There are several points I want to raise supplementary to those of Deputy Figgis. The first is the A.D.C's. to the President. There is, in this estimate, one A.D.C. to the President, salary £500, increasing by £20.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Would it not be better to take the points as they come in the Estimate and dispose of them, rather than go through them in different directions?

Major COOPER

As regards Parliamentary Secretaries I have very little to add to Deputy Figgis's argument, which I endorse in the main. The only thing I should like to say is that I do think it absolutely necessary for the conduct of business in the Dáil that there should be somebody—call him a Parliamentary Secretary or what you like—who is able to act as Chief Whip of the Government, and devote his whole time to the work. That is for the convenience of all parties, and not only for the convenience of the Government. It would be almost impossible to carry on business unless there was somebody charged with that responsibility. I do not want to stir up troubled waters again, but I think it is only fair to say that Deputy McCarthy has endeared himself to every party in the Dáil by his accessibility and readiness to take the views of everybody into consideration. There must be somebody of that kind.

I do not quarrel with the Government seeking a salary for him, but they should seek authority for it. I asked the question on the 12th February on this matter, and the President said that these two Parliamentary Secretaries acted as Parliamentary Secretaries during the last Dáil. As the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President only dates from the beginning of this Dáil, presumably he acted in the last Dáil without salary. The salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Executive Council dates back to the 6th December, 1922. The salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President only dates from September, 1923. If he was acting in the last Dáil I do not know by what authority he was acting. If he was acting in the last Dáil he was apparently acting without salary.

The other point to which I would like to refer is that in the Ministers and Secretaries Bill the salary of these Parliamentary Secretaries is fixed at £1,200 a year. In this Estimate it is at the rate of £1,500 a year. It seems unfair to those who were disposed to criticise the Ministers and Secretaries Bill that for every day occupied in discussing it the Exchequer was at a loss. Until the Bill passed these gentlemen were drawing salaries of £1,500 yearly. When the Bill passes they will only draw salaries of £1,200 a year. That is not quite a fair position to place the Oireachtas in. I pass from that and going straight down the list I come to the Secretary of the Executive Council.

Mr. WILSON

On a point of order, if you permit the Deputy to deal with these items seriatim, will other Deputies be permitted to go back to the Parliamentary Secretaries?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I think it will be better to deal with the Parliamentary Secretaries first.

Major COOPER

This is on (a) salaries and allowances. We have discussed sub-heads. Other Deputies can return to it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I would like to establish some finality, and we can establish it best, I think, by taking the question of Parliamentary Secretaries first.

Major COOPER

There are four points I want to raise, and I shall only have an opportunity of speaking three times.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy will have an opportunity of speaking three times on each item.

Major COOPER

On each item?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Mr. WILSON

I beg to move, to reduce the amount in sub-head (a) by £1,981 on the ground that it is expenditure which has not been authorised by the Dáil. There is no use in going over the arguments that have been put forward, but I wish to say that my reason for moving the reduction is that we cannot be a party to allowing irregularities to occur in this way. The sense of the Dáil should be taken on an item such as this.

The PRESIDENT

I should say that the Parliamentary Secretary had been formerly a Minister without portfolio. On the 6th December, owing to the passing of the Constitution, he could no longer hold that office, but he continued to do the work, or practically the same work, as he was appointed to do by the Dáil somewhere about the middle of September, 1922. The reason why this particular item has not appeared up to this is that we anticipated that the Ministers and Secretaries Bill would have been passed into law long before the date even of its introduction into the Dáil. I think I explained at the time, that the Ministers and Secretaries Bill was rather an important measure which would take very careful consideration, and which, in a sense, was not far removed in its importance from that of the Constitution. It established the framework and so on of the future machinery of Government, and, as such, it naturally absorbed more time than was originally contemplated when it was under consideration. As a matter of fact, it was not introduced even in the last Dáil, but these officers were doing duty. The authority for paying them was the Executive Council. The Executive Council was under no misapprehension about it. It was not a regular procedure, but a procedure of a peculiar order. They were doing the work. As far as the first one is concerned, the one in which the Deputy proposes to reduce the estimate by £1,981, in a sense the Dáil was in possession of the facts of the appointment. Quite recently, I think on the introduction of the Ministers and Secretaries Bill, I mentioned that there were two Parliamentary Secretaries, and that one had formerly been a Minister without portfolio. I think Deputies who were in the last Dáil will bear me out in that. Practically the same class of work has been done by this particular Parliamentary Secretary. The only reason the item was not brought in before was, as I said already, the delay in introducing the Ministers and Secretaries Bill which was not wilful but occurred only in the order of circumstances.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I would like to congratulate the President, if I may, on the deftness of his defence. Really he evades the questions that were put to him. I am not supporting the amendment that the subtraction be made from the Supplementary Vote. I do think that the circumstances can be met at the present moment by regularising this and by the fullest statement of all that has occurred during a period of upset in which certain irregularities have occurred, which need not have occurred, in my judgment, and which can now be regularised. My point is that from December 6th, 1922, indeed until the present moment, certain sums have been paid, presumably month by month. Let me put it this way. They were paid from December 6th, 1922, to the 31st March, 1923. That is the end of the last financial year. That is to say, we cannot now authorise expenditure made in a financial year that has concluded and that is not within our purview at the present moment. During that period, from December 6th, 1922, to March 31st, 1923, certain sums have been paid. Are those sums going to be ruled as out of order by the Comptroller and Auditor General or not? He cannot take cognisance——

The PRESIDENT

I should say not.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

He cannot take cognisance of our passing this Supplementary Vote at the present moment in respect of that expenditure for a financial year that has closed, if I have any knowledge whatever of the procedure that would prevail. These accounts have been closed. What I am now asking is this—I specifically wish to press this question—whether these sums have appeared in any unspecified form in any previous Vote? Either they have or they have not. If they have, we ought to be told that they have, and under what Vote. If they have not so appeared we ought to be told that they have not so appeared, in which case we ought to know under what authority the Comptroller and Auditor-General, from December 6th, 1922, to March 31st, 1923, passed such sums for a financial year the accounts of which have been closed.

Mr. WILSON

That is just my point. I cannot understand why last year the expenditure which had been paid from the December period up to March was not returned in some Vote. As a matter of fact, I scrutinised every Vote to see could I place those Parliamentary Secretaries under any head, and except they came under "Secret Service" I do not know where they came. That is the only heading under which I thought they could come, and now I think I am quite justified in bringing forward this amendment.

The PRESIDENT

I should say no amounts were paid in respect of these two services from the 6th December, 1922, to the 31st March, 1923. Later in the year it was found that the Ministers Bill could not come into operation in time. These men having given something like 6 or 8 months service, the Executive Council came to the conclusion that they could not longer ask them to give their services without some remuneration.

Mr. WILSON

Are we to assume that they were not paid until after the last financial year closed?

The PRESIDENT

No, not until June, July, or August last. I cannot remember which.

Mr. WILSON

Having regard to that explanation, with the permission of the Dáil, I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. JOHNSON

On the point: Secretary to the Executive Council, £1,200 —this officer was shown in the original estimate as in receipt of an inclusive salary of £600, with an allowance of £20 a month. The present rate is in substitution thereof and has been made retrospective to the 1st April, 1922. It is not inclusive, and I take it, is at the rate of £1,200 plus bonus. I do not know what rate of bonus is now being paid, but basing it upon the figure in the last estimate, which probably has been somewhat reduced, it would mean that the Secretary to the Executive Council is now being paid at the rate of £1,200 plus bonus, which would have amounted to something like £630. On that basis it makes the rate of remuneration higher than that of the Ministers. I may have made a mistake in the calculation, but perhaps the Minister will correct it.

The PRESIDENT

About £240 or £250.

Mr. JOHNSON

I know there has been a reduction. That is what I am trying to arrive at. I want to get the Minister to make the correction, and I want to know exactly what the payment is. It is very nice to say some of those are inclusive, and then we know exactly what they are receiving. Some are not inclusive. I think it would be well to have a little more light thrown on the actual amounts paid to these higher officers. I draw attention to that because I notice, if the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to refer to payment for temporary clerks and typists, that the payments are inclusive down to the rate of about 30/- a week. I cannot see quite the consistency. My desire in raising this point is to try to find out from the Minister what is the actual rate for this month to be paid to the Secretary of the Executive Council, and the Assistant Secretary to the Executive Council, neither of which salaries, as stated on the estimate, is to be inclusive.

Mr. WILSON

The Vote is £720 over and above what had been originally agreed upon. I take it the Secretary's salary is therefore £600, plus £240, or £20 a month, plus this excess of £720, making £1,560 a year, or £130 a month. I do not think anyone can say that those figures are wrong. There is £720 over what was originally voted.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The figure is £1,448.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is more.

Mr. WILSON

It is £1,560.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is exactly £1,463 7s.

Mr. WILSON

They are asking for too much so. The original Vote was £600 a year plus £20 a month. That is £840. Now they want a supplementary estimate of £720. Add the two together. They amount to £1,560.

Major COOPER

I am not so much disposed to quarrel with the amount of the Supplementary Estimate, because I realise this is a very important function, and you must have a very valuable Civil Servant for it. What I do quarrel most emphatically with is putting down in the footnote that this rate has been made retrospective from the 1st April, 1922. That is not a businesslike way of doing things, to double an official's salary, and to put it down here as retrospective for the last two years.

The PRESIDENT

I should like to explain that. Owing to absence on other service this particular officer's case did not come before us for consideration. The Deputy, I think, understands exactly what is meant by a combination of old Dáil servants and the Civil Service. Now, this particular officer might be said to be the senior officer of all the Dáil servants. He was Secretary of the old Cabinet of Dáil Eireann and Secretary of the Dáil itself. At the time we started business here he was away on military duties and was so engaged until some time last summer. His case came up for consideration after the Estimates had been passed and when practically every other officer who had been in the service of the old Dáil had had his case settled and considered, by reason of the fact that he was there on the spot to have his case considered. While it appears on the face of it to have been an extraordinary act, the only thing extraordinary about it is that he ought to have been the first officer to be considered, and I think he was perhaps the last.

Major COOPER

I am grateful for the President's explanation, and I do not want to make any unfair comment. At the same time, it is rather remarkable that he was not remembered by those whom he served so well, and consequently it seems undesirable that he should have been paid this increased salary for the time that he was not on the work, and was absent on military service.

The PRESIDENT

May I interrupt the Deputy again to explain the matter. He was actually engaged from January, 1919, in the first instance, in the service of the Dáil and the Cabinet of the Dáil, and in April, 1922, was actually in the service of the Cabinet. When hostilities started here he was put into another position, as others also were. But we did not allow that fact to prejudice them in considering their services afterwards.

Major COOPER

I quite understand we were then living in abnormal times. Am I right in thinking that he received this salary, and received no military pay?

The PRESIDENT

Yes.

Major COOPER

In that case, I withdraw my objection. Otherwise I should have objected to a man receiving an increased salary and military pay at the same time.

If that point is finished, I want to draw attention to the allowance for Private Secretary to the President. This is a comparatively small point, but, again, I have to call attention to the footnote: "The position of Private Secretary is at present held by the Assistant Clerk of the Dáil, and the allowance is payable as from the 1st December, 1922." I am not going to quarrel with the allowance. I recognise that we have been living in abnormal times, when combined arrangements of this kind sprang up very easily. If a reliable man was wanted, and he was filling another post, it was found very easy to combine the two positions. But I venture to think it is an undesirable arrangement, which should be terminated as soon as possible. Officials of the Dáil ought to be servants of the Dáil, and not servants of the Executive Council. I think as a matter of principle it is sound that they should have an undivided allegiance. We all remember, about three weeks ago, the deplorable incident, when it was suggested that you, a Chinn Comhairle, had acted under the direction of the Executive Council. That was immediately repudiated here on all sides. An arrangement such as this, whereby our Assistant Clerk is also Private Secretary to the President, does tend to lend colour to suggestions regarding the relations of the Executive with the House. I do not believe that our officials are anything but officials of the Dáil. I think they would give us their first allegiance; but, in my opinion, this is an undesirable arrangement, and should be terminated as soon as may be.

The PRESIDENT

I will undertake to have this matter settled by 1st May. I thought I would have been able to do it sooner.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I want to raise one point, arising out of what the President has just said in answer to Deputy Bryan Cooper. Is it not a fact that the Assistant Clerk of the Dáil, or the gentleman holding that title, is actually doing work as Secretary to the President? Is it not a fact that he is practically doing no work as Assistant Clerk of the Dáil at present, except when the House is actually in session?

The PRESIDENT

If the Ceann Comhairle were not present, I would regard that as a fairly dangerous question. In view of his being here, I regard it as a highly dangerous question.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is one of my grievances against the President. I agree that it is a particularly bad arrangement, but the particular officer who acts as Private Secretary to the President, acted previously as Private Secretary to General Collins, when he was Chairman of the Provisional Government. He came over here as Assistant Clerk of the Dáil, and he had qualifications and abilities which made me very anxious that he should remain Assistant Clerk of the Dáil. There were circumstances from, I think, September, 1922, onwards, which made it very difficult to take from the service of the President such an officer, who had already in his hands the threads of a great deal of confidential work for the President's predecessor, as Chairman of the Provisional Government. I consented to the arrangement then, very unwillingly, as the President will tell you. If it concludes now, we may, perhaps, be satisfied.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The only reason I asked the question was—if I may put it in a personal form—that we have a certain jealousy in this matter, because we can quite conceive the President wanting this particular officer as his Private Secretary, because he is an exceedingly efficient officer. For that very reason, it is all the more desirable that we should cleave on to him and let the President look elsewhere, rather than let the Dáil look elsewhere.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

My proposal is that the President should look elsewhere. I felt, in the circumstances, that arose last year, it was impossible for me to insist and I did not insist. The President has intimated that the arrangement will end by the 1st of May. He promised me that it would end on the 1st April the last time I was talking to him on the subject.

Major COOPER

You know the value to be attached to promises for the 1st April. I would like to raise a question as to the A.D.C's attached to the President. There is an A.D.C. with a salary of £500, rising to £700. There are three more A.D.C's who get army pay, in addition to an allowance, which altogether comes to another £550. Does the President need to be surrounded by all this pomp and circumstance? There was once a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, and he thought it would enhance his chances if he surrounded himself with an elaborate bodyguard, commanded by a Hungarian Prince. But it is a matter of history that General Fremont was not elected to the Presidency, the people of the United States preferring a plain man of the people. If I may say so, without making him blush, I think our President has more in common with Abraham Lincoln than with General Fremont. It may have been necessary in the past that the President should have somebody around him who would be swift to protect him. But I hope those times are gone, or, at any rate, that they are going, and that instead of A.D.C.'s the President may require some more Secretaries, if he can obtain them without depleting the staff of the Dáil too far. It is not quite consistent with the general framework of our exceedingly democratic State that the President should find it necessary to go on the Estimates for over £1,000 for the salaries of A.D.C's. I admit that if the A.D.C's were paid at the same rate as those of the Governor-General, it would be a much more serious item. But I hope the President will indicate to us that he will be able in time to shed some of these officers, and that he will not require such a resplendent trail behind him when he goes down to inspect new bridges or waterworks, or when he goes voyaging in aeroplanes.

The PRESIDENT

I think my military establishment will be reduced at least fifty per cent. by the 1st April.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not think that that answer really satisfies the question put forward by Deputy Bryan Cooper. I would like to know why they are called Aides-de-Camp? Surely, that in itself rather suggests a military President. I am sure it is not the intention of the President to put himself in the position of being a military President. Are we to understand that these persons, described as Aides-de-Camp, are not Aides-de-Camp, but rather protectors or body guards? If so, let us describe them as such. After all, those papers will probably go down to posterity, and the character of this period will be written up from the estimates, because the tendency amongst historians is to go into very close research, and they will see not the broad generalisation that is talked about, but they will look into the intricacies and details of those things, and they will see down here an Aide-de-Camp, and they will say: “Ah, this describes the character of the President of that period.” Please let us know something more about these officers.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I was rather anxious to know how the President intends to reduce his staff of Aides-de-Camp by 50 per cent. seeing that there are three?

The PRESIDENT

Deputy Heffernan forgets the principal. There is one over that.

Mr. WILSON

Seeing that the President is now Minister for Defence, perhaps it would be necessary for him to continue those officers.

Mr. CORISH

It will not be necessary for him to continue it long.

Mr. WILSON

I believe it is reasonable to expect that a Vote like this should come before us, and under the circumstances it is only in keeping with the times.

Mr. OSMONDE ESMOND

I think the Deputies should realise that this estimate was printed, in the first place, before the raid on Devlin's public-house; and, secondly, Deputies should realise the position which our President has occupied during the last two years—a very dangerous position. This is a Supplementary Estimate not dealing with the year 1924-1925, but dealing with the year 1923-1924. It is not a question of the future, but it is a question of the year coming to an end. I think the Deputy should remember the very dangerous times through which the President has had to pass during that period, and also, quite apart from that, I think it is important that Deputies should remember the actual position of the President in the State which, to a certain extent, is different from the position of an ordinary Prime Minister, in that the position of President is the highest office in the patronage of the Irish Nation. The Seanaschal, who also has got Aides-de-Camp, is here in Ireland the representative of the Commonwealth of Nations of which this nation is a part; but the President is actually the highest officer in the State. I would most strongly object to any attempt to lower the dignity of the President in the State, and in any case I would remind the Deputies that this is referring to very dangerous and difficult times during which the President has passed in the last 12 months.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The point that Deputy Esmonde has raised is one that the majority of Deputies would remember. It is for the year that is passing that this estimate is in respect of and when this protection was required. I saw the other day a story of the gentleman who is now Premier of England. He went on a visit to Scotland, and he saw people spying at him from around a stone wall when he was out walking. He sent to inquire who they were, and he learned that they were his protectors. They were protectors, and such protectors have been much more necessary in Ireland during the past year for the head of the State than they are in the neighbouring country, disturbed though that country very frequently is. The emphasis I wish to make here is: I feel that some protection is required, but if it is required, let it be provided in a civil form and not in a military form.

Mr. ALTON

Is it necessary that an aide-de-camp should be a military man? I do not know the history of this, but I think it is questionable.

Mr. HEWAT

Are you going to take the whole estimate?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Yes.

Mr. HEWAT

I have not felt at liberty to review the number of items in this No. 3 because many of them——

Mr. JOHNSON

Before we get on to the general estimate, I would like to have some further enlightenment as to the items that I touched upon earlier of the Clerks. There are two temporary Clerks, £173 inclusive, no bonus, and two temporary shorthand typists, £159 inclusive, no bonus. Now, is that the rate that we are proposing to pay clerks and typists? Is that the rate we have been paying? I maintain it is not likely to evoke the kind of service that we should get, and it is not likely to ensure the kind of, shall I say loyalty, in the office of the Executive Council. You are not going to get a good quality of clerk to come and do shorthand typing for 30s. a week, and we ought to be ashamed to suggest that we are going to pay shorthand typists at this time such a salary.

The PRESIDENT

It is possible the Deputy is making a misinterpretation of this particular Vote. This estimate has been separated from that of the Ministry of Finance, with which I was previously connected. The separation took place on the 21st September, and the Vote came off the Ministry of Finance. They are both now in the same Department, and I think the sum here is from the 21st September to the 31st March.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I take it then that there is no rate fixed for these clerks?

The PRESIDENT

Yes.

Mr. FIGGIS

Perhaps the President will state what the weekly or annual rate of pay of these clerks is?

The PRESIDENT

I should say that roughly it would be £180 for the female clerks for the six months; it would be between £3 and £3 10s. a week.

Mr. WILSON

Under the Vote of the Minister for Finance last year the salaries of two female clerks were set up at £3 14s. 2d. and £2 15s. 8d. per week, inclusive.

Major COOPER

Those clerks are in the Paymaster-General's Office. The Ministry of Finance has not fixed any definite salaries, wages or allowances. Deputy Wilson is referring to the Paymaster-General's Office. He will find more in the Teachers' Pension Office.

Mr. WILSON

You are right.

The PRESIDENT

There was a bulk sum put in last year, and it is in respect of that bulk sum it was charged.

Mr. HEWAT

I would like to express what I feel about this Supplementary Estimate as a whole. Included in this are items which really go back to history, and which I cannot, as an individual Deputy, criticise as having come within my purview in any shape or form. Looking at the whole Estimate, I find the original sum was £5,349, the revised Estimate, £12,129, and the additional sums required £6,780. On the face of it, without the explanations, that have been either satisfactory, or have at all events been given, I must look at it as very bad budgeting in the first instance. Raising questions throughout the whole of the items may be excusable under present circumstances, but they are inexcusable as a business proposition.

To say that the travelling expenses are estimated at £500, and the revised Estimate at £1,000, would seem to me, as a business man, to require a great deal of explanation. I am not prepared to call for that at present for the reason that I have stated, but I would not be discharging my duty if I did not say that, taken as a whole, this position is quite unsatisfactory. It may be that we are emerging from a period, as some Deputies have indicated, when these things will cease; but at all events I, for one, say that whatever excuse there may have been in the past, this Dáil ought not to excuse a repetition of any of these proceedings in the future.

The PRESIDENT

As far as travelling expenses are concerned, it is utterly impossible to hit upon the exact amount that would be required in the year. If the other complaint be that instead of taking one officer in September last year I had taken two, it would have saved a good deal of the trouble in connection with this Estimate; at present I have two, and I do not guarantee that after a couple of months I may be able to get rid of one. If the Minister for Finance has to bring up a Supplementary Estimate it would be rather hard on him if through any fault of mine I would not discharge the two officers and the Minister would get the blame.

Question put and agreed to.