Not alone are we going to pay £30,000 or £40,000, but if this continues we are going to have heavy expenses in connection with maintenance. These guards will have to be paid a reasonable salary. I think most of them occupy the rank of lieutenant, or have been Lieutenants or officers in the Army. In addition to a payment of at least £5 per week per man—it may be more or less—a further sum will have to be paid for their expenses. They will have to stay in hotels, and they will have to travel. The provision of accommodation and the provision of transport for them will increase the bill to a very large figure. We have not alone to consider the guards, but we have to consider the Garda Siochana. We have been told that large numbers of men have been newly assigned to the work of dealing with these organisations, which are said to exist in the country, and that a large squad is being apportioned to each police division. If that is so, the Dáil is entitled to know, before it passes this Vote—this is really only a nominal figure which does not, as I have emphasised, represent the real, ultimate cost of this adventure—how many men have been newly recruited to the special branch of the police force and distributed throughout the country. There is also the case of the Army patrol which we see cycling around the streets of Dublin in the evening. Nobody knows what is the object of these patrols. But even if a special recruitment of the Army is not necessary, we can be quite sure that special costs will arise in connection with them. Officers will have to be specially detailed, and other expenses will arise. That is one of the things which it is impossible to understand, but it is going on.
Another matter is as to the rank of those people. I suggest to the House that the ordinary rank of the officers who will be employed either as guards or otherwise will be that of a Lieutenant in the Army. I notice that in Iris Oifigiúil of the 2nd October there is a very long list of officers of the Defence Force given who have been promoted. Eight officers have been promoted from the rank of Captain to Commandant, and forty-nine other officers have been promoted from the rank of Lieutenant to that of Captain. Are we to take it that these promotions were made in anticipation of this Act; that it was found necessary to take that course in order to make these officers do this work, and that it was necessary to induce them to do this work by giving them this promotion in advance? We are quite in the dark as regards this protective service because we do not know who is responsible. The Minister for Defence is listening, and he will no doubt be able to explain to the House what Ministry is responsible. Is the Minister for Justice responsible? Are these officers who have been just promoted—I do not know whether they are on protective work or not—to work in connection with the Military Tribunal, to be under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Justice or the Minister for Defence? In the event of both Ministries having certain duties and functions to carry out in connection with the Constitution Act, how is the House to distinguish between the officers who are responsible to the Minister for Justice and those who are responsible to the Minister for Defence?
On this question of virement, as one who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have experience of that. It means that a Government Department, when it finds itself short of funds, when it finds it has spent, as in this case it undoubtedly will, the amount allocated—£5,000— under sub-head A.A., and that it requires more money will go to other sub-heads of the Army Vote upon which money is unexpended—in which so to speak, a surplus remains—and it will take that surplus or portion of it out of the sub-head to which it originally belonged and the sub-head for which the Dáil originally voted the money, and it will spend it under a sub-head the sum for which was insufficient to carry out what was deemed necessary.
For example, any other sub-head of the Army Vote where there is money available may be raided by the Minister for money to provide funds to enable him to pay expenses in connection with the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, 1931 when this £5,000 is exhausted. The principle is a well-recognised one, but so far as I understand it—I did not look up the matter recently and I am only speaking from recollection—the principle under which virement is exercised is governed largely by tradition and usage. That is to say, a Minister will not transfer money from one sub-head to another except in accordance with routine and usage, and furthermore, he will not do it in a way that would be clearly against the wishes of the Dáil when they voted the money originally.
For example, if Deputies on the opposite benches voted £1,437,041 for various purposes in connection with the Army, it may happen that they did not desire any of that money should be spent in connection with the new Military Tribunal or indeed in connection with any of the expenses under this new Act. It may happen that Deputies would be willing, and had in mind that this £1,437,000 should be spent in accordance with the Army, running as an ordinary force, in peace time and governed by the laws of this country. It may be that Deputies when they suddenly see the Army transferred to what I might call a war footing by reason of the military tribunal and patrols and whatever other activities in the way of raids, arrests and internments the Army may take upon itself—it is quite possible that Deputies who would vote money for the Army when the Vote was passed would not vote for it under the new circumstances. In any case, in my opinion the Minister has deceived the House in the first place by giving no indication whatever of what the cost may be, even the cost of the force which he knows himself they had to newly recruit up to the present, and of the expenses which he must know are incidental to this Act. Furthermore, the method of setting out this sub-head as "expenses in connection with the Constitution (Amendment No. 17) Act, 1931" might cover anything.
Anything whatever that arises, whether it be regular or irregular, whether it be in accordance with current financial usage or not the Minister may come along afterwards and say: "Well, the House passed this money. I told them over and over again that probably more than £5,000 would be necessary. Nevertheless they agreed to it. Furthermore, I told them it would be spent in a general way, that we wanted it in a general way under the general head expenses in connection with this Act, and there is nothing whatever to show that the Dáil had any other intention except to spend this £5,000 or any other sum I felt called upon to get from other sub-heads to spend it in whatever way I thought fitting and right."
We had an example at the Public Accounts Committee last year where this principle of virement was transgressed, in the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee which is supposed to be a judicial body. I know there are Ministers who do not consider it a judicial body, who consider it a body which ought to be abolished because it has the temerity to support the Comptroller and Auditor-General, whose function it is under the Constitution to see that all public money is rightfully and properly spent and that it has the sanction and authority of the Dáil behind it to see that it is being spent. On that Committee we are generally all of one mind when we are discussing these financial questions and the Committee unanimously reported against a certain transaction which took place where the Minister took advantage of this principle of virement. He was granted a comparatively small sum of money from the Dáil, £12,000, for Army gratuities under a specific sub-head which is exactly the same as the Dáil by its majority will probably pass this £5,000 here. When the Comptroller and Auditor-General examined the account subsequently he found that not alone was £12,000 spent but £216,000 more was spent. That is £228,000 in all. We stated that the spending of that £216,000, although officials of the Department of Finance or the Minister or anybody else might argue it was justifiable and in the exercise of this power of virement, was contrary to the intentions of the Dáil.
I remember that the Minister stated it was on the grounds of policy that he did not declare to the House that a further sum, a very much larger sum than the £12,000, would be necessary. Is it on the grounds of policy that the Minister now refuses to give the House any information whatever as to the expenses he has incurred up to the present, or is likely to incur, or as to what the total cost of this measure is likely to be? Even if the Minister gave a full and accurate account of the expenditure which he foresees in connection with this Act, he cannot expect support from the Fianna Fáil Party, at any rate, in giving him any financial facilities whatever.
So long as we are satisfied that the ordinary law is there, and that we are spending well over £3,000,000 in the maintenance of an Army and the maintenance of a highly efficient police force, and that money is already being spent, there is no reason whatever why we should spend a further sum on the creation of special forces and special tribunals and the pursuance of special activities.
There are one or two points I think it would be well to refer to again in connection with this Tribunal. In the first place we were treated to a great deal of lectures, particularly on religious matters, by Ministers on the opposite side and by Deputy Mulcahy, the Minister for Local Government, whom nobody will accuse of having created any sensational social revolution during his period of administration of the important office he now holds. He actually took it on himself to lecture the Labour Party as to how they should word their phrases when referring to social discontent in this country. I quote from Vol. 40, No. 1, Col. 151, of the Official Reports:—
We have that body to-day at a time of financial and economic depression and social unrest, at a time when the Deputies on the far side do not know what politically or economically they want, at a time when so little of the Deputies on the Labour Benches know what socially or economically they want, that they are almost slipping into borrowing words from the Constitution of Saor Eire.
It seems to me from my recollection that what the Minister said was that the Labour Party were using the same words. What is that but felon setting the Labour Party, trying to create the impression in this country that the Labour Party no matter how they might pretend otherwise—we believe them to be a thoroughly respectable set of men indeed—trying to pretend to the country that the Labour movement is in some way irreligious, that they are some way connected with this dreadful organisation that is trying to upset the country and create a social revolution. Whatever right the Government Party have to badger the Fianna Fáil Deputies with regard to our actions in the past they have no right to badger the Labour Party who, as soon as this Dáil was set up, tried to carry out the Constitution as they saw it. When in 1922 money was being voted for purposes somewhat similar to the purposes this money is being voted for Deputy Johnson stated then "It is an extraordinary thing that although we cannot get money to remedy social evils we can get plenty of money to carry on wars." That is the extraordinary thing in this present situation, that no matter what money the Government may require, whether it be £5,000, £50,000 or £500,000 it is assured that money will be forthcoming. Once you start the ball rolling you do not know where it is to stop, but these people have the temerity to tell the country that they cannot get money to deal with the problems of the slums or of the Gaeltacht or any other problem crying out for solution, when, as Deputies pointed out, so long as they do exist unsolved, they must remain the breeding ground for the discontent they are trying to put down with a strong hand under this Act.
I say also that it is a thoroughly dangerous practice for politicians, no matter how devout they may be, no matter how holy they may be, no matter how often they may have the word of God on their lips, to mix up religion with their own views. Religion will, I hope, continue in this country when we are all dead and gone, and when possibly the policies we stand for are gone with us. Is this to help the cause of religion? If you suggest, as has been suggested, that it is necessary, in defence of that cause, to carry out this Act and put people to death, it can afterwards be justly declared that when the Act was being put into operation it was put into operation with the intention of making the people of this country believe that it was necessary to carry it out in order to save religion.
Could anything be more foolish or preposterous? Look at the associations they have banned. Some of them I, at any rate, never heard of, and I am sure the vast majority of Deputies in this House never heard of them. As to those who, we are told, are connected with Russia and revolution, even including Saor Eire, how many are in all these organisations? It has been stated that the same individuals are in several of the organisations, but I say if all the individuals in all the organisations— outside the I.R.A. at any rate—were put together it is very doubtful if they would form more than a few hundred people. If what I am saying can be controverted, let the Ministry produce the evidence. They have refused to show us where these revolutionary groups are going on, to show their numbers, or to say what the subversive doctrines are that are being preached, and above all to show that they are trying by force of arms to upset the existing social order. We have no proof whatever of this, and when we see a highly responsible Deputy like Deputy Davin coming into this House full up with scare rumours that rifles have been landed in Kerry, and that hundreds of men have been drilling on the public squares of certain villages throughout the country, we know what a sedulous Press campaign is capable of doing. It cannot make the people of Donegal believe that there is a serious situation in Donegal. It cannot make the people of Kerry believe that there is a serious situation or a state of armed rebellion in Kerry or in any other county, but it can by false rumours and by lying reports and by suggestion pretend that there is an undercurrent going on all over the country, and that in counties other than the counties in which the people who are reading the papers live, there are dreadful conditions. The people of the Midlands believe that the South of Ireland is in a terrible condition of unrest, and the people of the West think that the City of Dublin, which is on the eve of the Eucharistic Congress, is in a condition something approximating to what Petrograd was in 1919 or 1920.