In looking through the items of this Vote I began to wonder whether there was any one of the expenses that the ordinary individual has to meet from his salary met by the Governor-General from his salary of £10,000 a year. Certainly the expenses of a house have not to be met by him out of it; expenses of rates have not to be met; the expense of lighting has not to be met; the expenses of his servants have not to be met. Taking it all round, it seems to me that this Vote is characteristic of the general policy of the Government in connection with financial matters. He has not even to pay his doctor nor to pay his dues, for he has a chaplain. He has not to pay his chauffeurs, or for any single thing that the ordinary man has to pay out of his salary. Compare, for example, this total expenditure of £28,000 with one single item here—relief schemes £32,000. We spend on an absolutely useless office a sum of £28,000 a year, whereas this year, when everybody knows the conditions of unemployment, the only thing we can find for the relief schemes is a sum of £32,000. It seems to me this whole Vote is indefensible.
The Minister for Finance gave Article 60 of the Constitution as a reason for this expenditure. He says that by the Constitution the salary shall be of like amount to that now payable to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, and shall be charged upon the public funds of the Irish Free State, and suitable provision shall be made out of those funds for the maintenance of his official residence and establishment. It is not permissible for me to criticise, in this particular debate, that Article of the Constitution. But certainly when we have seen the Constitution scrapped in a number of particulars recently, we might have thought that when a pressing burden is being placed upon the taxpayers of this country those anxious to lighten that burden might have thought it advisable to scrap that particular Article. The Treaty does not make such an Article necessary at all. And even in accordance with the Constitution "suitable provision" does not imply that over and above the salary of £10,000 we should spend £18,000 in maintaining a suitable establishment.
Now what would be suitable in a case of that kind? Our attitude towards it is quite well known, but, even taking the position that is taken, I understand, by the Executive Council in that matter, what does "suitable" connote in the present condition of this country? Compare the whole cost of that establishment with the cost of the President's own establishment. I am not satisfied, for instance, that a reduction could not be made in the President's establishment, but, at least, we know that the President has some work to do, that there is some work to be done by that Department. But what work is being done by the Governor-General? I cannot see any. I cannot see any reason whatever for the maintenance of this establishment. The Irish people do not want it.
I was looking up some of the old debates to see what justification the Minister for Finance had for it, and what view he took of the establishment, and it seems to me he wanted it to be a respectable office, a highly respectable office, the centre of a new court life or something of that kind. Now no money that you can give will ever make that office respectable in the eyes of the Irish people. We all know perfectly well that the Irish people, if they were allowed freely to vote, would not want any such office. Even if we take the Treaty there is no reason whatever why such work as the Governor-General does—it means merely a signature—could not be done very well, for example, by the Chief Justice. If he has to sign laws there is no reason why that could not be done by the Chief Justice. We were also told that the reason for this excessive cost is that the Viceregal Lodge is a very expensive establishment to keep up, and the excuse for not going away from it a few years ago was that they did not wish to evict the then occupant. But an opportunity arose not very long ago for them to change to a less expensive establishment, and they did not do it.
I would like to know why it is that, instead of trying to diminish the costs, they are increasing them. I had the Appropriation Accounts looked up. We have not got the actual Accounts for last year, and we can only take the Estimates for last year and this year, but taking the Accounts that were available we find that, for example, in the year 1926-7 the establishment cost a total of £26,650; in the year 1925-6 it cost £26,219—these are actual costs, not estimates, and as far as we were able to make allowances for any refunds to any of the Votes, we have done so—in the year 1924-5 it cost £29,000. The total cost for 1922-3 and 1923-4 could not be got with the same certainty because of the fact that there was a change in the form in which the Estimates were presented, and in which the Votes were arranged, but taking the average, we find that the amount for these years would have been over £30,000, and taking the actual Votes that were passed—those other Supplementary Votes that were affected by the establishment—we find that there was over £30,000, including the salary, in 1923-4, and very nearly the same amount in 1922-3. Adding it all up, we find that it has cost us every year on an average over £28,000. Again I ask what is the justification for it?
Compare this with some of the other Votes. I have already compared it with the Vote for the President's establishment. The President's establishment costs a little over £12,000. Therefore the Governor-General's establishment is costing us about two- and-one-third times as much. The Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department, which audits and checks all the public accounts, costs about £20,000. The General Registry Office costs us £26,000, and, as I have said, to cap it all, the amount put down for relief this year is £32,000, while the Governor-General's establishment is £28,000.
It would be well worth the while of Deputies to go through these items carefully, and see how every possible kind of expense that could be incurred is provided for. All the Governor-General's official work is provided for, and, as I have said, he seems to have very little official work to do now—at least we are told by the Executive Council that he is not to be regarded in any sense as the representative of a foreign Power, that he must do everything he is told, and that his official work, in the long run, amounts to nothing more than signing Bills. For all that he must have a comptroller of the household who gets £600, a chaplain £250, a medical attendant £100, a private secretary £350, an assistant private secretary £350, a clerk to the comptroller £3 a week, a typist and telephonist and two aides-de-camp, who cost on the Army Vote £1,073 and on this Vote £300. Even the National Health and Unemployment Insurance is paid for him.
