Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 5 Mar 1925

Vol. 10 No. 8

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE NO. 9.—TEMPORARY COMMISSIONS.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

I move:—

Go ndeontar Suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar Sé Mhíle Cúig Céad agus Caoga Punt chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1925, mar gheall ar Chostaisí Coimisiún Sealadach, Coistí agus Fiosrúchan Speisialta.

That a Supplementary Sum not exceeding Six Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Pounds be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st March, 1925, for the Expenses of Temporary Commissions, Committees and Special Enquiries.

I think details of this Vote are given pretty fully in Part III. A good many of the extra sums are required owing to Commissions continuing longer than was anticipated.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think this is an opportunity the Minister might avail of to explain the difference between Commissions and Committees, leaving out bureaux. One would imagine that the idea of a Commission would be to raise the status of the body that is enquiring into a particular subject, as contrasted with a Committee. Certain Commissions have been set up and, no doubt, their duties will be to examine witnesses and enquire closely into the pros and cons of any proposals put before them, and make a report. Following the usual course, I take it that there will be a nine to one chance that the reports of Commissions will be shelved and that the public will have the advantage of reading the report alone, because, contrary to the usual practice when setting up Commissions, there seems to have been an objection raised against reporting, and, presumably, publishing the evidence given before these Commissions. I suggest it has been the experience—I do not intend to be cynical in this matter—that the chief value, probably, of matters of inquiry has been in the evidence adduced; the evidence being made available for people interested and made the basis of future public education on public questions, and the advocates on one side or another using for the purpose of their advocacy the evidence that was submitted. We have a right to assume that evidence submitted by responsible persons before a Commission will be evidence that will be carefully thought over. Examination of witnesses, no doubt, proves whether they are responsible and competent to give evidence of an authoritative kind.

I believe much of the value of Commissions of Inquiry would be, not in the report, but in the evidence submitted, and if this evidence is only to be made available for members of the Commission, it has lost, probably, three-fourths of its value. I know the objection. It is one of cost; and, no doubt, the cost is very heavy. But I think some arrangement should be made whereby the whole of the evidence, or a clear and carefully prepared summary of the evidence, could be submitted for consideration to the witnesses, to see if there was any misrepresentation of their views, and that it should then be made available. Of course, it is true that much of the original evidence, or evidence given in cross-examination would lead to a great deal of padding and unnecessary printing, but in the absence of verbatim reports, I think it is desirable, if a Commission is going to be of any real value that the evidence submitted should be made available, as well as the reports of the Commission. After all, it will be agreed, I think, in practice, that persons who give evidence on particular subjects are more likely to be able to give evidence based on experience, knowledge, study, and examination of the subject, than the Commission, even after it has heard all sides of the case.

The object of a Commission is going to be a very narrow one if it is only going to bring out a report, and if the evidence submitted is not going to be available for the public. I do not know what the intentions are with regard to the Liquor Commission, or whether there is to be any publication of evidence or not. I suggest that the value of that Commission would be nil —certainly not more valuable as a Commission than if it were a privately setup Departmental Committee of the Ministry—unless the evidence is published.

I understand that there has been a decision that the evidence of the Greater Dublin Commission shall not be published, and that they are trusting to the newspaper reports to educate the public. That is rather a slender reliance, because it depends entirely upon the amount of interest in other subjects that are available for a particular day how much of the evidence will be published in the newspapers. I would urge upon the Ministry the importance of considering this matter, and that with a view to the general education of the public in matters of political, social, and economic importance they should have the evidence available. While there is going to be expense in the matter, I suggest that the cost is an essential part of the setting up of the Commission.

In respect to the Boundary Commission we have a sub-head here of "Fees to counsel, etc., £800"; "Refund to British Government of one-half of the estimated cost of the Boundary Commission," and the explanation is given:

It has been agreed between the Government of Saorstát Eireann and the British Government that the salaries and expenses of the Chair man and staff of the Boundary Commission are to be divided equally between the two Governments.

I wonder are we to take it from that agreement that there is an admission that the issue as to the Boundary is one between the Saorstát Government and the British Government. Is that a reasonable and correct deduction from the terms in which this agreement has been made? A good deal will depend upon that. If the agreement between the British Government and the Saorstát Government is not that the issue is one as between these two Governments alone. and that the Northern Government has a say in the matter, then our share of the cost should not be one-half but rather one-third. Perhaps we shall have some light thrown upon the work of the Boundary Commission, the negotiations that have taken place in regard to it, and agreements that have been made in respect to the financing of it while this Vote is under discussion. I do not know whether it is reasonable to ask the Minister to tell us when he expects the Boundary Commission to conclude its labours. Is this the final Vote?

Mr. BLYTHE

No.

Mr. JOHNSON

How many more Votes are there likely to be? What are the likely estimates? Are we to look forward to a long continuous sitting of this Commission? Can we expect that the Vote that will be brought forward in, say, a month's time, will be the final Vote, or will there be another Vote in 1926, or possibly 1927, so that all the queries that may arise or have arisen will be thoroughly threshed out and decided amicably, and there need be no more fear as to the settlement that the Commission will decide upon. Seriously, I think we ought to have some indication of when this Commission is likely to conclude its labours. Since the last discussion on this question the people have been very patient. It may be that the Minister for Justice has satisfied the public the best policy in respect to this is quietness, to raise no voice in the matter, to allow things to carry on in the hope that a settlement will come by slow growth, and everybody had better remain quiet and not raise any noise or fuss. Possibly that advice of the Minister has been generally accepted. Certainly since Deputy Milroy left the House—ex-Deputy Milroy—nobody has had anything to say on this matter.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Ex-Deputy!

Mr. HEWAT

Is that a prophecy?

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not know whether Deputy Figgis expected me to be a prophet or not, but I am not going to assume that role. Perhaps we will know a little better this day week. I would like the Ministry to tell us what their views are with regard to the continuance of this Boundary Commission. Are they satisfied that it should sit for months inquiring in the way that it is now inquiring, and that there should be no limited time to the sittings?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I had intended to ask the Minister with regard to these points as to the Boundary Commission that Deputy Johnson has quite adequately covered except for one point which the Minister may throw some light upon. If we are now incurring new expenses in regard to the Boundary Commission, what precisely is the value of continuing the function of the North-East Boundary Bureau? Exactly how, administratively, are the two different bodies, one called a Bureau and the other called a Commission, situated? I would have thought that a great deal of the work that hitherto has been carried on in connection with the Boundary Bureau would in future fall under the heading of the Boundary Commission and that a great deal of the work that has hitherto been necessary in connection with the Bureau would be dispensed with now the Commission has started its sittings.

I had hoped rather that the Minister would be making some more extended reference than he did in regard to these various committees, commissions, bureaux and special inquiries. But there is one that a statement from him would be valued in respect of, and that is "L," the Commission of Inquiry into the preservation of the Gaedhealtacht. The information that has hitherto been available in connection with this very important Commission has been very slender. When is it expected to start, has it started, and how long is it proposed that it should continue? Exactly what body will be the body to which it will make its reports, because I notice some of them will be dealing with linguistic matters, some with educational matters, and some with economic matters. These are all various subjects upon which information might have been given to the Dáil. The actual announcement regarding this commission was made while the Dáil was not sitting and appeared in the public Press. I think if the Minister would take this opportunity to make a fuller statement than he yet has made in regard to the work that is going to be done by this body and the expenses that will be incurred by it, it would be useful for Deputies in regard to that particular matter.

I had intended also to have asked if we could have fuller information in regard to the Greater Dublin Commission, but I notice that the Greater Dublin Commission which was present a few minutes ago in the Dáil has now removed itself. Perhaps the Minister would, in the absence of the Commission, give the Dáil some information as to when we might expect a report from this body.

Mr. ESMONDE

There is one sub-head amongst those Temporary Commissions that I think the Dáil should not pass. It is sub-head (i)—Board of Assessors, Military Service Act, 1924. That Act was passed by the Dáil last summer, about June or July. After it was passed about three months were wasted, and then this Board of Assessors was set up on the 4th October, as I observe in the footnote. Now, that is about five months ago. Since then this Board has conducted its operations in a manner that has given great dissatisfaction, and in a manner that has laid it open to the charge of very gross favouritism. It has been conducted, in the opinion of a great many people, in a partisan spirit.

There is one instance of which I am myself aware. It is the case of late army officers whose certificates were handed in last November or December, and they have not yet heard anything in regard to their pensions. Others, who had friends in court, and whose certificates were sent in only last February, have already been paid pensions. As far as my information goes, officers who disagreed with the Government have been given pensions, while others, who did not adopt that attitude and whose certificates were sent in many months ago, have not yet had their cases considered.

I have heard it said that even people who fought against the State have been given pensions under this Act. I do not know if that is true, but at any rate it is stated that those people have been given pensions. There are others who actually fought for the State, who helped to establish it and who defended it afterwards and because subsequently they resigned through disagreement with the Government policy, they have not so far got any pensions. Possibly they will never get any pensions. We are asked here to pay the salary of the Secretary of this Board of Assessors, which comes to nearly £1,000 a year. One would have thought when the Act was passed that an endeavour would have been made to see that this Board of Assessors would be strictly of an impartial character. Yet the gentleman who was selected to be secretary—I have nothing whatever against him— was one of the central figures, one of the ringleaders in the vendetta which tore the army in two during the course of last year. If he has not now to adjudicate on, at any rate he has to deal with, the pensions of his late rivals.

I think this sub-head should not be passed by the Dáil. I think it is highly unpleasant that civil servants, officials, or whatever they are, should in this way be allowed, by postponement or by some other means, if not actually to block the operation of this Act, at any rate to pervert its intention and to work it in a partisan spirit and a spirit of favouritism. For that reason I propose that this sub-head be not passed.

The PRESIDENT

I should like to correct Deputy Esmonde's view of the work of this Board of Assessors. It is not true to say that the work which they are doing is done in any partisan spirit, and the selection of the Secretary to this Board was made solely because of the more intimate knowledge possessed by this particular official than by any other person in Ireland. No other person in Ireland was in possession of the same information as he had, and no person, I believe, would be done any injustice by this official in the discharge of his duties. Even if he were inclined to be in any way partisan, the other two or three members of the Board of Assessors could be relied upon to maintain absolute impartiality in discharge of their very important duties. Now, it so happens that not many cases have been passed by this Board of Assessors.

To-day I got from the Minister for Defence a return showing the number of cases dealt with. The principal cause of the delay is that persons who were given as references by the applicants for pensions have not replied to communications sent them seeking information that is needed by the Board. The work done by this Board has been done systematically and very thoroughly, and it is inevitable that there should be delay. As a matter of fact, up to date something like 150 pensions only have been passed by the Board. The Board of Assessors have had to go through various channels. I have been speaking to one of the Assessors in connection with this matter, and I know that even if the Deputy himself were one of the members of the Board of Assessors, the administration of the Act by that Board could not have been more just.

With regard to what Deputy Figgis and what Deputy Johnson said about the north-eastern boundary, I wonder what those Deputies would say if, let us say, they occupied the positions of the President and the Minister for Education—one being the President of the Executive Council and the other the person appointed by the Government of Saorstát Eireann as a member of the Boundary Commission—and they opened the paper some morning to find that while they were occupying those positions, the very question they raised here concerning this Boundary Commission had been raised in the British Parliament?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I, for one, have not done anything of the sort. I was dealing purely with the administrative question; I was dealing solely with the function of the Oireachtas in regard to moneys as between the two bodies. I was not dealing with the duties of the Boundary Commission.

The PRESIDENT

The Boundary Commission's work and the expenses incidental to its work have been brought into existence by reason of an agreement between Saorstát Eireann and the British Government. I suppose that will not be denied?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

We are pleased to hear it anyhow.

The PRESIDENT

That is very good. Those two parties agreed to the setting up of this particular body, and it is those two parties who will apportion between them the cost incidental to the administration of the work. I myself would consider it rather an impertinence to ask that body, even if the two parties were agreed on asking them, how soon this particular operation they are engaged in would be likely to finish. I do not think it would be good business to do it. I do not think anybody should raise the question. Suppose, for instance, a case were going on in court and was lasting over a week. I would like Deputies to realise what the position would be if a member of the Dáil asked the Minister for Justice how long the case was going to go on in court and if he could not see his way to have it expedited.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The President ought to look at Deputy Johnson and not at me.

The PRESIDENT

The point raised by Deputy Figgis was probably with regard to the North-East Bureau. That is work incidental to the Commission which must be brought before the Boundary Commission on behalf of those anxious to be brought into the area of jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann. It justifies itself.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Under the heading Boundary Commission we have an item of £800 for fees to counsel. The brief for counsel, whom we have quite rightly appointed, will be prepared from information at the disposal of the Boundary Bureau. Why, then, divide it into two heads, when it ought to be put under one head, in order to get more quickly at the expense of the tribunal?

The PRESIDENT

I thought that the Deputy was rather aesthetic in the presentation of accounts. That would be a nice hotch-potch arrangement—to include within the term, "Boundary Commission," the costs incidental to the preparation of statistics and other matters required. This is information that has got to be acquired, and the expense of counsel and other expenses of that sort is quite naturally put in a compartment by itself. It ought not to be mixed up with the items which appeared in our estimates before, and which would not be proper to include under the heading, "Boundary Commission." As regards the larger question raised by Deputy Johnson, I am not altogether in agreement with him that very great public service can be rendered by the publication of evidence. I remember on one occasion reading the evidence taken at a housing inquiry in Dublin. It was published in the form of a Blue-Book, and there was closely printed matter probably an inch deep. I think that, outside myself and the members of the Commission, nobody else read it. I think that, in order to get an exact picture of evidence given, it would be necessary to read the whole of the evidence presented at any commission of inquiry. To take out one particular individual, or range of individuals, and to read that evidence only, and close one's eyes to the evidence given by other parties—perhaps not in agreement with them, or perhaps in agreement to some extent with them— does not give a really true picture. There are people to whom the whole of the evidence is a matter of vital consideration, and these are the people engaged in compiling the report. Reading through evidence of that sort is rather wearisome, but, as I have said, it is essential, to form a correct judgement. It is certainly necessary to read it if one is going to analyse the report issued in connection with it.

Personally, I am not satisfied that there is a case made for the publication of evidence. I recollect in the particular case in question that the index, which was otherwise very accurate, had omitted one particular item, and I had to inform counsel employed by one side in what part of the evidence he would find the information he was looking for. Even in that case, where counsel was employed in connection with an inquiry on which this previous inquiry had a bearing, the evidence was so exhaustive and took such a considerable time to read. counsel was not able to recollect in what part of the report the precise information looked for was to be found.

With regard to the Gaeltacht Commission, it opened its first session this morning at 11 o'clock. I think Deputies, generally, will not be inclined to criticise either the length of its sittings or the length of time it will take to make up its report if that report be a good one. We are satisfied from the personnel of the Commission that the report will be a good one. If unusual time be absorbed in doing its work, anybody who has any experience of that subject must realise that if the wisest men in the world were placed on that Commission, with the best intentions, it would take probably some generations to solve all the problems connected with the Gaeltacht and to get from it for the rest of the country the advantages which ought to be derived.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Are we to infer from the President that this Commission will be sitting for some generations?

The PRESIDENT

No, I did not intend the Deputy to draw any such incorrect conclusion from what I said. Having got the report and the solution from it, I would advise patience in its working out, and, even if it be the best report possible, it will take a long time to effect the real purpose which the Commission has in mind, the preservation of the language.

Mr. GOOD

I want to say a word on the Boundary Commission from quite a different point of view to that touched upon by previous speakers. I think we all realise that the work of this Commission is work of very great importance, and also that it is work which will take a considerable amount of time. That being so, I think it is exceedingly unfair that our representative on that Commission should also have to carry the many responsibilities of the Minister for Education. I seriously suggest to the Executive Council, through the Ministers present, that that particular aspect of the question ought to have their attention, because I feel it is detrimental to the work of the Boundary Commission that our representative there should have to carry burthens other than the difficult burthen which he has to bear in his capacity as our representative.

I am satisfied from every point of view that it is exceedingly bad for the education of the country at this particular crisis that it is without a head. We had an example of that here this afternoon. We were considering important matters in connection with education, questions of policy, and other things on the Vote taken to-day. Yet we had to keep silent on some of these questions, because the responsible Minister was not present, and there was nobody here to speak on his behalf. That, to my mind, is an exceedingly unfortunate state of affairs. We have been pressing for improved measures in connection with some aspects of education—school attendance and others. We had several promises from the Minister that Bills would reach us in the past session, but these Bills never reached the Dáil and, so far as I see, there is very little likelihood of these important measures being brought before the Dáil this session. That is not as it should be. I urge that no more important matter should engage the attention of this House at present than the question of educational policy. That seems to me to be the one question of which one never hears. I hope the Ministry, or the Executive Council, will consider this aspect of the question and free the present Minister for Education from his other responsibilities, while he has to discharge the very important work which he is at present discharging as our representative on the Boundary Commission. I hope that somebody will be appointed who will be able to give information to the Dáil and discuss these important questions which arise on educational policy.

There is another matter I would like to raise. It is in regard to (e)—the second Vote on the list that has been supplied to us. It deals with the Winding-Up Commission in connection with the Dáil Eireann Courts. We have recently been dealing with questions affecting judges who presided over those courts. Does this Vote include any portion of the pensions or salaries of the judges who acted in connection with those courts? Apparently the original Vote was for a period of six months. To run this Commission for the first six months of the year required £5,982. Deputies will see, in the detailed information supplied that it was the intention when the Vote was passed that this Commission should have its work completed by September. It has now been found necessary to carry on the work of the Commission until the end of the financial year—that is, for a further period of six months. While it cost £5,982 to carry on the work of the Commission for the first six months of the year, it is to carry on its labours for the other six months at a cost of £1,668. I take it there has been some very considerable reduction in the staff and in the amount of work. That being so, how comes it that the travelling expenses for the first six months amounted only to £750, and for a smaller staff for the second six months they amount to £730? I would like an explanation from the Minister on that matter.

Mr. BLYTHE

A large number of the points raised have been dealt with by the President. Up to the present we have not been very clear as to the difference between a Commission and a Committee. Quite recently, in discussing the Liquor Commission, it was suggested that for the future we should confine the use of the term "Commission" to a body which would sit and hear its evidence in public and that a body which heard its evidence in private should be called a Committee. It is intended that the Liquor Commission shall sit and hear evidence in public. I agree that there are special cases in which it would be worth publishing the minutes of evidence in their entirety, but those cases would be few. If a body sits in public, you will get a moderately-fair summary of the most important evidence in the newspapers. Typescript reports of the evidence will have to be prepared for members of the Commission, and I think it would suffice, in most cases, if some of those typescript copies of the evidence were deposited in, say, the National Library, where they might be consulted by any interested member of the public, who would get a clue to the evidence from the newspaper reports, or from inquiries he might make, or from references in the report of the Commission itself. To make available typescript copies of the evidence, would be a middle course between printing the entire evidence and having no official report available at all. In a great many cases I think the typescript would suffice. I would agree with Deputy Johnson that there are cases where the issues would be so important that even though a small number of people might read the report, it would be of value to have it available for consideration and to have it on record.

Mr. MORRISSEY

In view of what the Minister has said as to the difference between "commission" and "committee," are we to take it that the Old Age Pension Commission, which is described as a "Committee" here on the Estimates, will not hear the evidence in public?

Mr. BLYTHE

There was no intention that that body should hear evidence in public. I think very few people would be able to conduct that inquiry in public without giving way to the natural inclination to make political capital out of the inquiry and to play up to a certain audience. I think that is the sort of inquiry which can be more properly conducted in private than in public.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Surely the Minister is aware that this body was set up as a Commission? The invitations which the members received are invitations from the "Secretary of the Old Age Pensions Commission."

Mr. BLYTHE

I think I said it was only in the past few days that there had been any discussion, to my knowledge, of the distinction between "Committee" and "Commission," and the suggestion was made that for the future the name "Commission" should be confined to a body sitting and hearing evidence in public, and that the name "`Committee" should be given to a body sitting and hearing evidence in private. That would not apply to the past, since in the past we simply slung names on to these bodies by chance.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Does the Minister think that a Committee or Commission, which is dealing with a problem which affects a large number of people and which creates a large amount of feeling in the country, will be helped in the good work it is hoped it will do if it is prevented from having public sittings, should the members of the body think it is desirable to have such sittings?

Mr. BLYTHE

I can only say that I do not agree with the Deputy. I do not think I need supplement what the President said about the North-Eastern Boundary Bureau. The Bureau has to do with the collection and preparation of evidence and matters that are not within the purview of the Boundary Commission, which is itself a Judicial Tribunal. Deputy Johnson asked whether the issue was between the British and the Saorstát Governments. At any rate, the Treaty is between the British Government and ourselves, and the duty of carrying out the Treaty lies between the British Government and ourselves. There are only two Governments really participating in the Commission. The Northern Government refused to participate, and it was felt that as this is an international tribunal, we ought pay our full share, as one of the participating Governments.

The Gaeltacht Commission will report to the Executive Council. I think that appears in the Terms of Reference.

I might supplement slightly what the President said with regard to the Board of Assessors.

As a matter of fact, I do know that the Board of Assessors have granted, or recommended, certificates to people who resigned last March. So that the charge that the Board of Assessors was pursuing a vendetta against anybody or that they were discriminating against anybody is not correct.

Mr. OSMOND ESMONDE

I did want to say that certain applications were sent in for pensions, and that applications that came in long after them from others who were not concerned in the events of last March, have been dealt with, and that not a single officer who resigned because of his disapproval of Government policy has been paid a pension.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not know who resigned because of his disapproval of Government policy. I do not want to go into the question of why they resigned. No good can come of pursuing that now. As a matter of fact, I do know myself one officer who resigned last March and who has got a pension. I have seen his papers and I know he has got a pension. I do not want to mention his name. There might be others who have also got pensions.

With regard to the Winding-Up Commission, I think there were at one time four Commissioners working. Now there is only one. The number has been reduced. The amount that occurs in the Vote in the matter of travelling expenses does not necessarily relate to this later period. I cannot say definitely at the moment. It may be that if the Commission had ended on the 30th September as originally intended, there might be some deficiency in expenses and something might have to be taken out. Perhaps there might be a saving in salaries that would enable the travelling expenses to be paid. I do not think that the extra money, apart from travelling expenses, relates entirely to the second period. As to whether the pensions proposed to be given to the Dáil Eíreann Supreme Court Judges are included in this amount, I would say that one of the judges of the Dáil Eíreann Supreme Court was for a time one of these Commissioners. He is the only one who can be regarded as very likely to get a pension under the Bill. There is another possibly. The only one who is likely to get a pension under this Pensions Bill was for a time a member of the Commission, and for the time he was a member of the Commission no pension will be payable. The pension will be included in the salary.

Mr. GOOD

On the point with regard to the Minister for Education, I observe that the Minister for Finance has not given us very much information. Are we still to go on in the future as in the past with education starved?

Mr. BLYTHE

I would just say with reference to that, that it is only very recently that the Minister for Education has had to go so much away to deal with the working of the Boundary Commission. Certain papers and documents have been coming along for some time, but it is only recently that the Minister has been much away. I do not antncipate that the sittings of the Boundary Commission will extend for a very long period. The type of evidence that will be given can be given within a very short period. Any Minister might be absent from his post for a time, and the work of the Government would have to be carried on and the administration of his department would have to be carried on. I was absent, the President was absent, and I remember the Minister for Lands and Agriculture was absent. Various Ministers have fallen ill and been absent for a period of a month or two, and their departments have carried on. I think we must look upon this absence of the Minister for Education in much the same light as we would look upon a short temporary absence which causes a certain amount of inconvenience, but which is not worse than the inconvenience that would occur if the Minister got ill.

Mr. GOOD

While the other Ministers were away the work of their departments was done by others, but it is not so in the case of the Minister for Education. I need only remind the Minister for Finance that we were actually promised a Bill by the Minister for Education. He promised us a Bill last session which never appeared. This session we have not seen the Bill and we have scarcely seen the Minister himself. I want some enquiry into this matter. Education, as I have said, and, as I think, the Deputies agree, has not got its due measure of attention, and I want to have enquiries made by the Executive Council to find out whether the demands on the Minister in the future are likely to be large, and, if so, whether they could not make some arrangement whereby the important duties of that department will be carried on.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think that the Minister for Education has been absent more than seven or eight days on the work of the Boundary Commission. It is not the same as if he had gone away for some time and been absent continuously for a long period. He has made occasional trips to London that have only lasted two or three days. With regard to the Bill for compulsory attendance of school children, I want to say that the work of the Boundary Commission has nothing to do with delaying that Bill. That is a Bill which involves not only the Ministry of Education but Local Government and the Department of Justice. The proposed suggestions of using the Gárda Síochána for the carrying out of the duties under that Bill may have caused difficulties as to the giving of a decision as to the exact form the Bill should take and as to the exact machinery that should be set up to carry it out.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want just to state a point of view regarding the question raised by Deputy Esmonde. I think that there has been tactlessness in the appointment of the Secretary of this Board of Assessors. I do not attribute, nor have I the slightest thought that there is, any prejudice arising against any of the claimants through the personality of the Secretary. But we must bear in mind incidents which led up to the change in the Secretary's position. A certain number of the officers of the Army resigned. A certain number of other officers were, in fact, dismissed. The two sides had a quarrel. A large number of other officers were implicated in that quarrel. Many of them were demobilised afterwards, and many of them resigned. I do not know whether there are going to be any grievances or not. It would be strange to hear of a Board of Assessors that did not create grievances. But knowing that surely it was certainly an undesirable thing to appoint as chief officer of that board, as secretary of that board, one of the men who was a party to that controversy and one of the men who was called upon to resign. As a matter of fact, he was practically dismissed. If there is dissatisfaction with regard to the assessors, whether there is occasion for it or not, and whether there is justice in it or not, it is as certain as anything can be that these charges of prejudice will be due to the appointment as secretary of one who was an old-time comrade, but a recenttime enemy. On that ground alone it seems to me that there has been a lack of tactfulness in the selection of the secretary, notwithstanding the fact that he might be, as the President truly said, the one man above all others for the position. He might know the records of the careers and the facts regarding the services of the people applying for pensions. That would be true in ordinary circumstances, but one might ask was he the right man for the place in view of the circumstances surrounding the resignations, surrounding the quarrels that occurred, being, as he was, a party who was so closely implicated in that quarrel. As I have said, it seems to be entirely tactless, and likely to lead to a great deal of heart-burning and dissatisfaction.

Mr. BLYTHE

Certain certificates were made out, and certain pensions forwarded for sanction to the Department of Finance. The great majority of those have been sanctioned and got through. A certain small number of the others have been held up for consideration by the Executive Council. These relate to a certain number of men who went out last March, but about whose present good behaviour, looking at it from the point of view of the State, the Executive Council is not satisfied. Deputies will remember that before Christmas certain action had to be taken by the Executive Council, because they discovered that an attempt was being made to set up new trouble in the army—to organise a conspiracy. Certain officers, non-commissioned officers and men were removed from the army. Our information was that certain of those officers who resigned last March were connected with that, and in consequence a small number of pensions—four or five—that had gone through the preliminary stages, have been held up for consideration by the Executive Council. That consideration has not yet been given to them. Of the other officers who resigned last March, I know the name of one, but I believe there are more than one, about whose conduct since there has been no ground for complaint, and who, in the words of Deputy McGrath, has quit, and his pension went through. We understood these men were quitting then, and as a result they got demobilisation pay, and supplemental grants. It appeared to us, from information which was good and perfectly sound, and it was carefully examined, that a certain number had not quit, and were still acting in a way that was not right. It was not considered that men like these should get their pensions as a matter of course, and have money to go on and be active against the State. It was decided, therefore, that their pensions should be held up at the last stage before they would be paid, that is the stage of financial sanction, with a view to having them examined by the Executive Council.

Mr. DAVIN

Will the Minister say whether the cases he has referred to as having passed the Board of Assessors, and now held up by the Executive Council, concern men whose resignations were accepted by the Executive Council, but who were dismissed by the order of the Executive Council?

Mr. BLYTHE

I cannot say exactly at the moment. I think the position is that people who went out in March are regarded as having resigned.

Mr. DAVIN

Would the Minister say if it is possible for a man who did wrong against the State and was dismissed, to receive a pension under the existing regulations?

Mr. BLYTHE

I would say it was impossible. We think of nothing but the present dispositions of the men. If men were content to leave things so and not to bother with the Army that they cleared out of, whatever political activities they want to go in for is a matter for themselves. If they leave the Army alone the question of holding up their pensions would not be considered.

Mr. McCULLOUGH

I desire to ask the Minister for Finance with regard to a certain number of these men whose cases have been held in suspense awaiting a final award, whether, if the Executive Council decides in favour of awarding pensions, these pensions will be made retrospective. I have heard complaints that men who have given very good service to the Government, and had actually suffered wounds in giving that service, but who unhappily were mixed up in the events that took place last March have not been paid pensions, while other men who fought against the Government have been paid pensions. I cannot say whether that is correct or not. I am merely mentioning a matter of hearsay, but I would be anxious to know that these men should not be in any worse position if the Executive Council eventually decided to pay their pensions by reason of the time that these pensions were held in suspense.

Mr. BLYTHE

If the pensions are eventually paid they would be paid from the start. With regard to the wound pensions, we have given wound pensions to all who suffered wounds, even to people who got wounds pre-Truce and who were afterwards irregulars and fought against the State. I would mention the case of Dan Breen, who was given a pension—I do not know whether he actively fought against the State, but he was associated with those who did. I do not think he had much part in fighting against the State.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

With reference to the Committee of the National Health Insurance, it is stated in a footnote that the Committee would complete its labours about the 9th July. It has been at work since May, 1924, and many societies are desirous of knowing exactly what form National Health Insurance is likely to take in future. Would the Minister tell us whether he is likely to present any report before the Committee completes its labour?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. BLYTHE

I received an interim report last night, but I have not yet read it, and I cannot tell the Deputy what is in it.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will that be published?

Mr. BLYTHE

I have not read it yet. I am not the only Minister concerned in the matter, and I must have an opportunity of consulting with others before answering the question.

Mr. DAVIN

With regard to the Board of Assessors, where evidence of pre-Truce service is required, and where no evidence is forthcoming from an officer who is in a position to give it, but who simply, because he has gone to the other side, was not available, am I to understand that proof of service has to be established before a sworn inquiry? I have come across two cases where service in the I.R.A. was claimed from 1917. As far as I am aware, one individual had no pre-Truce service, and in the other case the man had only about two months' service. What steps, I would like to know, are taken where a false claim is made?

Mr. BLYTHE

I am afraid that I could not answer the question at the moment. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the procedure to answer it. I know that various types of people are given as a reference, and that evidence from all sorts of people is taken. I am not aware of any case where evidence has been taken on oath. I know that I was asked myself to give a certificate as to a man's service at a certain period. I gave that certificate as an ordinary member of the public, but I was not asked to testify on oath. My certificate in writing was taken.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

It would be better for the Deputy to put a question on the Order Paper, when the Minister could give a considered answer after having consulted the Board.

Question put, and agreed to.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Last evening the President made an arrangement that Deputy Connor Hogan would be allowed to raise a question on a motion for the adjournment at 7.30. That question will be taken now. The remaining Votes will come on to-morrow.

Mr. BLYTHE

I beg to move to report Progress.