The next item to be dealt with is Item EE, "Compensation for Premises Commandeered by the Army."
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.—(VOTE 11 RESUMED).
In regard to Vote 11, might I ask the President if we may rightly assume that he is taking charge of the Estimates that the Minister for Finance would have taken charge of, if he had not unfortunately been taken ill?
Yes.
Before you go on with that the President, in dealing with certain points that may be raised in the Estimates particularly relating to the Department of the Ministry of Finance can plead a certain amount of ignorance. In order to get satisfaction, may I suggest that in any case of that kind it would be advisable for Deputies who wish to raise questions on these particular Estimates that they should pass a note to him beforehand where they want a proper explanation of items of which they are likely to complain.
Yes. The Minister for Finance mentioned here in an earlier discussion that Deputy Johnson had facilitated him very much in connection with the Vote on the Stationery Office by notifying him that he had to ask for some information beforehand. In his speech on that occasion he said that if he had not satisfied Deputy Johnson he had satisfied himself, as he had endeavoured to get all the information possible. There are matters, not alone in regard to the Department of Finance but other Departments in which, if definite questions are to be raised, it would be to the interest of the administration generally if as early a notice as possible were given to each Minister so that we might get through the business as quickly as possible.
I think that expression of opinion is rather to facilitate the proper discussion on both sides and does not rule out of discussion a question of which no notice has been given?
No, certainly not.
I would just like to ask the President whether he can state whether all the outstanding claims have been paid, or what progress has been made in dealing with the payment of outstanding claims for payment for commandeered premises. There were, up to some time ago, a very considerable amount of complaints with regard to delay in payment of claims for commandeered premises. I must say that for the past month or two I have not had any complaints, but perhaps the President would be in a position to say whether all these outstanding claims for premises which were commandeered in the early days of the trouble in 1922 have been cleared off.
Yes, much the same sort of history prevails in regard to this particular service as with the other claims for billeting. I mentioned that we had 18,000 billeting claims in March, and they were cleared off by March 31st, in accordance with the promise given by Deputy Mulcahy, who was then Minister for Defence. There are about 1,000 claims at present under investigation, and they are coming at the rate of about 25 a week.
Can the President give any information of the total sum claimed on these accounts up to date?
The claims amounted to about £250,000, and they were settled at £102,000.
I hope the President does not mean to assume that they have been settled to the satisfaction of the parties concerned?
Not with any manifestation of satisfaction to us, but with great satisfaction to themselves.
I think it only right to say that the individuals in the Board of Works dealing with this particular item are very fair, from my not too close knowledge in dealing with them. I am not personally concerned, but I have received communications from a number of people; on two or three occasions I had to go to the Board of Works, and I can say that the people who are dealing with this particular item have very intimate knowledge and experience with regard to the work. I have in mind cases where claims have been paid, and there is apparently a grievance on the part of the people as to whether the amounts granted were fair or not. Is there any right of appeal in these cases, and if so to whom?
I do not know that they have any right of appeal except to the Minister. There were over 2,000 claims, of which 1,044 have been settled. I observed an almost exact equation in the amounts awarded by the Board of Works and in the amounts awarded in the courts, so that I should say there is a very fair settlement, taking it generally. It is inevitable that in a particular case one might come across hardship, but I am sure in any cases where the persons have been overpaid the State will not benefit by any pricks of conscience on the part of these people.
I want to know, in the case of commandeered premises, where an officer, in 1922, made an agreement with the proprietors of hotels, if that agreement will be observed?
He had no right to make an agreement.
He was in charge of the troops down South at that time. Why was he left in charge of the troops, or who authorised him to commandeer houses?
If the Deputy gives me the name of the officer I will look into the matter. We had a great many officers in the country at that time who assumed authority which was never delegated by a superior authority.
He was a General Officer commanding the 1st Southern Division. He is now dead. Several hotels have suffered owing to his death and I would like to know as regards the people with whom he signed the agreements for so much, if the Government or the State is responsible?
I take it we will be responsible for a fair charge for the premises in question, but certainly not for the bargain he made. He had no right to make the bargain.
Will the President state if all premises commandeered by the military have been vacated or returned to the owners?
I take it it was generally understood that officers in the 1st Southern Division in the middle of June, 1922, had to take action under circumstances in which those called the authorities were not close enough in touch that they could give much assistance or guidance.
I cannot say if all the premises have been vacated, but they are being gradually vacated.
I want to draw attention to a case where compensation has been refused, and there may be many other cases of the same kind. It is a case where the premises were commandeered by the military. It was a shop in a certain village in the constituency I represent or mis-represent if you like. In this case the claim was dealt with, and the Board of Works people came to the decision to pay a certain amount for the use of the premises during the period of occupation. Subsequently the military authorities came, and for some reason unknown to me, without justification, instructed the Board of Works not to pay this amount because of the alleged association of the parties concerned with the Irregulars. I made representations both to the Board of Works and to the authorities regarding this particular case, but up to the present without any particular result. We should not be unjust in these matters. President Cosgrave, in dealing with these questions in the Indemnity Bill, said we could afford to be generous. Where compensation has been granted by the Board of Works people should be paid. If we want to get back to a peaceful state of affairs there should be no petty spleen in dealing with parties who suffered as a result of commandeered premises. I raise that question here because there has been no justification whatever for the attitude adopted except that the officer in this particular quarter up to a certain time has apparently come out on top. I have never made charges against an officer that I had not justification for, and I did complain of the conduct of this particular officer in regard to other matters, and I think his advice should not be relied upon in the case I have mentioned.
It is the first time I heard of any bar regarding a person whose property was taken, that there was any delay or holding up because of Irregular activity, but if the Deputy provides me with particulars I will enquire into it.
The next item is, G—Phoenix Park National School.
There is a small vote under "G" to which I call attention as another illustration of the point I referred to earlier in the Vote. The Vote appears to be misplaced. I would like an explanation of it. The Phoenix Park School is referred to, but if we pay for education in a national school we pay for it under the Educational Vote. Here we are voting an absurdly small sum. Would the Minister explain why that is under this head?
I agree with Deputy Thrift. The Board of Works employs all sorts of strange people— divers, upholsterers, housemaids, and even propagators, whatever they may be, but I do not see why they employ schoolmistresses, and if they do why they should not pay them properly. I do not think even Deputy Gorey would complain that a schoolmistress should be paid only £35 a year.
Is it possible for the President, remembering past years, to explain why this Vote has gone up? It is nearly £30 more than it was last year.
I think I may be able to throw some little light on this. There are many schools which were built by landlords, or attached to an estate, and the estate was responsible for keeping up the school, maintaining the buildings, providing fuel, and giving small sums for prizes. Also, in some cases—there are very few cases now, indeed—a certain grant was given to the teachers by way of what is called local aid. This was not part of the ordinary salary which they received under the Education Vote, and I take it that if this school is built in the Phoenix Park, it comes under that particular class, and that this small sum which is voted for the salaries is really by way of local aid, in addition to the ordinary salaries which the teachers receive. That is the explanation, I take it.
The Commissioners of Public Works are patrons of this school, and these sums are simply in addition to the ordinary teachers' salaries which are paid under the Education Board.
I thought it probably would turn out to be local aid, but I thought it was the case that most local aid assistance to salaries had ceased since the new scale of salaries came in.
That is the point I wish to make, that there should be no local aid. I withdrew my local aid when Lord Killanin led the teachers into the promised land, and I think the State would be well advised when a vacancy occurs in this school to consider the situation. I would not like to create ill-feeling among existing occupants.
May I ask has Deputy Cooper restored his local aid, seeing that the Minister for Finance is driving them out again?
In connection with the River Shannon works, I do not think that the £77 that has been saved by the reduction of the Estimate in this case is justified. It may be justified from the point of view of the Minister for Finance, but certainly not from the point of view of those who are acquainted with the present conditions of the Shannon Navigation. I had occasion, about nine or twelve months ago, to travel on a liner from Limerick to Killaloe——
A lighter.
If the Deputy likes to call it so. It was in connection with my work on the Canal Commission. I noticed and one could not fail to notice, that every lock on this Navigation was of a different size. I believe that is due to the fact that different engineers were employed as every lock was constructed, and for some enginneering reason that is not quite clear to an ordinary lay man, the locks are all of different sizes, with the result that boats which should be carrying 100 tons, with consequent relief to the people who send their goods by them, can only carry 60 or 70 tons at present. I understand good reasons were put forward as to why locks should be reconstructed, which would enable goods to be carried from Limerick up to Lough Allen, and coal back from the Arigna coalfields at considerably reduced rates. I think that if the Government ever intends to proceed to do useful work that would give employment and a return in kind to the State, that could best be done by carrying out improvements of this kind. I have not a knowledge of engineering, but three very prominent engineers associated with this Commission made recommendations which I think can be justified. Instead of saving £77, which may appear big to the Minister for Finance, I think the Government might proceed to carry out the works that were recommended by the Commission and make the Shannon Navigation navigable for boats carrying 100 to 120 tons. The President, I am sure, could see what the effect of that would be in the nature of a reduction in rates. I raise the matter now simply because I saw the thing for myself. I have only the ordinary layman's view of the matter, but I think that the Report might be looked up and that the views on this question given by the engineers might be taken into consideration by the Government when they propose to take up any work of a useful nature.
I think that it is on Vote No. 10—the immediately preceding Vote—that this question of the Shannon Navigation would arise. As far as this particular item of £500 under Subhead (H) is concerned, it is for the maintenance of works which are intended to improve the drainage rather than the navigation. These particular works were carried out at Government expense in the years 1879 to 1883, and consisted of the insertion of sluices in the drainage weirs at different points on the river. The works were successful in diminishing floods.
I should like to ask with regard to this item of telephones, which appears in the Estimate for the first time, whether the Board of Works have only just discovered the telephone. It did not appear in the previous year, and now it is £335. I should like further to ask when are they going to discover the telegraph, because every other Estimate—the Estimate of the Minister for Agriculture, the Estimate of the Minister for Local Government, and so on, has telephones and telegraphs. This has only telephones. I cannot help thinking that some of their operations would be facilitated if they made more use of the achievements of modern science, even if it were wireless.
It should read "telegraphs and telephones" or "telephones and telegrams," as the case may be. This is a new method of arranging the Estimates, and I think in future it will appear in that, and it is fairer that it should be so rather than at the expense of the Postmaster-General, who wants to show a balance on the right side.
Are we to gather, then, that the Postmaster-General's balance is largely a fictitious balance?
He has claimed so himself, and we want to prove the contrary to him.
You will remember that on the last occasion when this matter was brought forward we decided that we should take the subheads item by item and then the general question could be raised, and I gave notice then that I was proposing to move for a reduction in the Vote. I desire to move: "That the amount be reduced by the sum of £10,000, being the sum of £5,000 estimated to be required for improvement of lighting the Governor-General's residence and the late Chief Secretary's Lodge, together with £5,000, a reduction of the sum estimated as required for the maintenance and supplies in respect of the Governor-General's residence." The sums on this particular Vote estimated in this respect are £5,000 for improving the lighting, which is the sum re-voted. A similar sum was voted last year and apparently not spent. Then there is a sum of £10,000 asked for other maintenance, repairs and other current charges of the Governor-General's residence, including the Private Secretary's Lodge. It is necessary in discussing this matter to draw attention to the fact that in addition to these two sums on this Vote that on Vote No. 1 is a footnote. We have the information that, including £10,000 drawn out of the Central Fund as the salary of the Governor-General, there is £35,111 which may be added to this £15,000 on this Vote, totalling £50,111 as a charge upon the State for this State officer.
The £15,000 is included in the £35,000.
No; I beg your pardon; the £15,000 is office accommodation.
That is Vote 11.
"Buildings, furniture, fuel and light." It may be that this maintenance is for office accommodation, if that is so, it is not made clear that it is office accommodation, and one must assume, or are we to assume, that there are no charges against this Vote for the maintenance of the residence. Are we to assume that the £15,000 includes £10,000 for the maintenance of the residence and £5,000 for the improvement and lighting? Is this the £15,000 referred to in this footnote? I think it is not so. I think it is £15,000 additional to the £15,000 referred to. The evidence of these estimates points to £15,111 as the sum which is called for as required for the accommodation, including salary.
Do I take Deputy Johnson to say £50,000?
£50,111.
That is wrong. The sum is £25,000. The footnote means the total expenditure.
The note at the foot of Vote 1 says £15,000 for office accommodation (buildings, furniture, fuel and light), etc. That is all in parenthesis as applicable to office accommodation. I cannot understand this sum of £5,000 for the improvement of lighting re-voted and £10,000 for maintenance of the residence. However, it makes a matter of £15,000 difference, if the estimate, as presented, is wrong. The fault lies with the presentation of the estimate. There is a sum of £35,000 voted as a total, £10,000 for the maintenance, repairs and other current charges, and £5,000 for improvements of lighting. The £5,000 was voted last year and was not expended. My desire is it should not be voted this year and consequently should not be expended this year. I think that £5,000 can be spent to better advantage. It cannot be said to be necessary, but surely it is not going to be said that the relighting of the Governor-General's residence, and of the late Chief Secretary's Lodge must be done this year. It may be desirable, some day, to economise on one form of lighting over another. I do not know what kind of lighting there is there now. It may be lit by Deputy Bryan Cooper's candles, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce's paraffin, or it may be electric light or gas, I do not know, but it seems to me there is no justification for the expenditure of £5,000 this year any more than there was last year, and that we ought not to vote it. In regard to the cost of maintenance, £10,000 is voted, last year—£11,442. I do not know how much was spent, but I am convinced notwithstanding the statements made about the cost of managing such an establishment that we ought not to spend as much as £10,000 on that maintenance. I am quite sure that it would be maintained for £5,000. It may not be maintained as satisfactorily or as luxuriously as some people would like, but it can be maintained for £5,000, and taking the two together we would have a reduction of £10,000 on this vote. The Minister for Finance said this matter was brought up before for political purposes and not in the interests of economy. I wonder whether the President will justify the contention which seems to be implied in that statement that to save any sum of money from a vote has a political purpose, and whether it is not a justifiable purpose to expend such money, as is available where the best results for the common good will be obtained. That is decidedly a political purpose and that is decidedly my object in moving this motion, that we should save this £10,000 from this vote and spend it to better advantage for the common good. We are told on every hand that there is need for economy. I agree, but again I maintain that economy lies in wise and beneficent expenditure, and not merely in the saving of expenditure. I say this £10,000 if it is to be spent can be better spent than spending it in the relighting of those two residences or in the maintenance of the Governor-General's residence and the Private Secretary's lodge at a rate which involves an expenditure of £10,000 per annum.
I wish to support Deputy Johnson. I speak with a good deal of hesitation on the matter for the reason that it may be put down to political motives. I am not speaking from political motives. I am speaking from the point of view of economy and I agree with Deputy Johnson. The important thing about this vote is the example which is set to the country. There has been a tremendous amount of comment about the expense of the upkeep of the Governor-General's establishment. A great deal of the comment has been unwarranted and a great deal has been misinformed. At the same time looking over those estimates I have seen this amount and I think it is not a wise or a suitable thing that this year when we hear so much about the necessity for economy and where efforts have been made to enforce economy in one way or another that an opportunity should be taken to expend £5,000 in the relighting of the Governor-General's establishment. Looking at this from the commonsense point of view it seems to me that the lighting which has lasted during the period of the late Lord Lieutenant should be good enough until we are in a position to pay for the expenditure necessary or otherwise. The same thing applies to the amounts voted for the expenses of the upkeep of the Governor-General's establishment. I personally cannot see that such a large amount is required and I am confident that if the Governor-General's establishment were to enforce the economy which other establishments have been asked to enforce within the past few years the expenses would be cut down very considerably.
It is generally acknowledged that the salary of the Governor-General is an ample one, and I do not think it would be unreasonable to ask him to pay a considerable portion of the up-keep of his own establishment. That is what the ordinary inhabitants of the country have to do out of their salaries, and it would not be unreasonable to expect the Governor-General to do the same thing. The financial capabilities of this country should be taken into account when considering those Votes. Still more so should the example we are setting be taken into account. It is impossible for any Deputy to vote for the reduction in old age pensions and teachers' salaries and other things, and not vote for a reduction of this particular estimate. It would not be consistent.
I hope the President will acquit me of having any personal animus or ill-feeling against the Governor-General. I always had the deepest respect for him, and he was one out of the four men whom I would leave a meal to listen to in the House of Commons. Still, I believe a reduction ought to be made, though I am not sure that the reduction Deputy Johnson proposes is not too much. I think it is somewhat on the large side. A reduction ought to be made in the interests of the Government. This is the stone that is flung at the Government from every platform —the enormous cost of the Governor-General's establishment. In some respects it is undoubtedly high. I think the suggestion of a new system of lighting might well be postponed until financial conditions were more favourable, and the cost of fuel, light and water could conceivably be reduced. Most people now living in houses the size of the Viceregal Lodge have had to cut down their fuel bill very considerably. A great many rooms cannot have fires, and in a great many rooms they have to have wood fires. There must be a great deal of wood in the Phoenix Park which could be utilised for this purpose—falling trees and so on.
So they would have fires?
If they had fires at all. If they would have fires they must have wood. People who burn other people's coal are always better warmed and more comfortable than those who have to pay their own coal bill. I am not arguing that the Governor-General should not be kept warm, but there should be some reduction. There should also be reduction in the matter of maintenance and supplies. That might be met to some extent out of the £3,000 allowed for personal expenses. I do not think it is wise to make a sudden cut. A cut of 50 per cent. is not reasonable; it is too much. I do not see how the Board of Works could reduce the figure to £5,000 in one year. The cut should, if possible, be more gradual. I do not think I can vote for Deputy Johnson's amendment, though I am in entire agreement with the sentiments that prompted it.
I was not here at the beginning of the discussion on this matter. I would now like to ask can the President explain why we have this figure of £7,500 down for the maintenance on this vote, and that we have another sum of £3,000, which is described under a note as "provision for the maintenance of the Governor-General's official residence." I do not think that he explained why there are two votes for the same purpose.
We are now discussing the amendment by Deputy Johnson that the amount be reduced by £10,000.
That is the point— that we find in these estimates an item of £10,000, of which £7,500 is spent on maintenance of the Governor-General's establishment, and yet although we are not discussing that vote, still it is within the knowledge of the Deputies here that there is another vote, and it is put down as a sum of £3,000, which is expressly described as maintenance of the official residence of the Governor-General.
I think it is a different vote.
No; it is put down in a note in page 2 as "provision for the maintenance of the official residence of the establishment of the Governor-General, £3,000." I think the Dáil deserves some explanation of these two votes.
The vote that we are discussing at the present moment is Public Works (Vote 11). But in order to trace what the liability is on the State in respect of the office of Governor-General we approach page 1 and we see there the total vote on the Governor-General's establishment. Now as to this £5,000 which was on the estimates for last year, some reason for it appears under sub-head (f). That item is for fuel, light, water, heating and cleaning, and is a very considerable amount. The cost of light is a little out of proportion to what the cost of ordinary lighting might be. And the £5,000 put in this particular estimate will certainly benefit more than that particular establishment. At present there is a supply of gas down. That works the engine for the manufacture of electricity, and that is an expensive and unsatisfactory method of lighting this establishment. But there are other establishments that might be lighted if this cable were laid from the North Circular Road connecting up the Viceregal Lodge with other institutions, including the Gárda Síochána Depot in the Phoenix Park.
With regard to the other items, I think the Deputies will see that the amounts of these are relatively less than last year. It is an expensive establishment, but it was even more expensive during the periods of the Lords Lieutenant. The average cost in the time of the Lord Lieutenant was £12,500 a year. Even in these estimates there is a considerable reduction in last year's vote, but in the circumstances, unless we can get a less expensive residence for the Governor-General, we have, I take it, to carry out our bargain and provide him with an establishment.
Will the President describe the difference between the two votes for maintenance 1 and 11?
I do not understand what the Deputy means.
In page two, item (b) the note says: "provision for maintenance," that is the £3,000 for the maintenance of the establishment of the Governor-General.
That vote does not to come into this Estimate 11. We will discuss that when we come to discuss 1. It deals with the servants and the officials who are supplied for the use of that particular office of the Governor-General.
Would the President say what the £7,500 for maintenance in Vote 11 is for?
Buildings, and so on.
Does that include the maintenance of the garden and its upkeep?
Yes.
Would it not be simpler if the question of maintenance in respect of one establishment of this kind were covered under one head, entitled "maintenance"?
Are you proposing to report Progress?
Very well.
We have a half-minute yet in which to put the vote.
There may be others to speak on it.
On your invitation I move to report Progress.