Vol. 63 No. 6
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £13,300 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1937, chun Seirbhíse Seicréidighe.
That a sum not exceeding £13,300 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Secret Service.
Is the Vote agreed to?
Oh, no, Sir. We want to find out something about secret service. I understood when the National Government came into office there would be no more secret service —that it would not be wanted. I remember Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, working himself into a lather of fury every year over the Secret Service Vote.
I suppose the Deputy has the quotation there?
No, I am like the Minister—I do not care for reading the Minister's oratorical or poetic effusions.
I can understand the Deputy not wishing to read the latter but considering that he is such a master of forensic oratory I thought——
I want to know what this £20,000 is for?
Secret service.
For spying on whom?
That is a matter that does not concern the Deputy.
Of course this House is voting the money and I would be interested to know how it is to be spent. I think the members of the Fianna Fáil Party would also be interested to know on what this money is being spent. I remember in the old days how very interested the members of the Fianna Fáil Party would be in knowing on what was this money going to be spent. Deputy Murphy from Cork would be interested in what it was being spent, so would Deputy Corkery and I am sure Deputy Mrs. Concannon if then in opposition would be up in arms against this libel on the people of Ireland. Why does she not administer that interrogatory to the Minister now? If the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party want to know on what this money is being spent they might have felt when they were in opposition that it was fruitless to ask. But they may now compel the Minister to answer them, and if he does not answer them they can vote against giving him this money. They have him where they want him and they can get the information which we are now unable to get. Surely Deputy Corkery, who feels so strongly on national matters will call to our aid the cohorts of West Cork to extract this information from the Minister. All the Deputy has to do is to ask for it and he will get it. I look to him, as an independent-minded public man, to do his duty.
I should like to ask the Minister how much money was spent on secret service in 1935-6, because in the second year of Fianna Fáil administration they spent £3,856 more in secret service than in their first year; and in the third year, they spent £9,923 more than they did in the first year. I should like to know how the expenditure on secret service went in the fourth year of Fianna Fáil administration and what is the explanation of the rise in the expenditure in the successive years of Fianna Fáil administration?
I am afraid the Deputy will have to wait until we get the Appropriation Accounts for 1935-6.
Does the Minister ask the House to vote £20,000 for secret service for 1936-7 and say that he is not going to tell the House what he knows—the amount expended on secret service in the year which ended in March, 1936?
I have told the Deputy that if he wants information on points like that the way to get it is by Parliamentary question. If he wants what he is asking for he will have to wait until the Appropriation Accounts are forthcoming, and they ought to be available at any time now.
I take it that when the Minister moves an Estimate for £20,000 in July, 1936——
On the 1st July.
I take it that when on the 1st July, 1936, three months after the completion of the last financial year, he asks the House to vote such a remarkable sum as £20,000 for secret service, he does know, and we ought to hear from him what was the amount expended on this service in the 12 months which ended in March last. It is particularly important that he should give us this information when we realise the substantial increases in the expenditure under this heading that there have been in the successive years of Fianna Fáil administration. As I say, in their second year it was £3,856 over the first year, and in the third year it was £9,921 over the first year.
Could not the Deputy give us the exact figures for each year?
I am asking the Minister to give us any figures that he has. I am asking him to give us the figure for last year. The Minister has the figure for the previous year and he can give it to us. I am giving the Minister the figures that strike me and that dictate to me that the House ought to have the other figure that I am asking for, that is, the total expenditure on secret service in the year which ended on 31st March last, a figure that the Minister has.
I again say that I have not yet received the Appropriation Accounts from the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and I cannot give the exact figure or anything like it, and the Deputy knows that.
Nonsense!
Why should the Deputy, with his experience, get up and try to mislead the House? He knows that when the Appropriation Accounts become available the final figures will be found there. If he wanted to give me an opportunity of giving information to the House he could, as I have said often before, take the trouble of putting down a Parliamentary Question. This is not the way to get it. The Deputy read out figures to show that in a certain year the expenditure was so much more than in the preceding year.
Does the Minister deny it?
I do not. The Deputy could easily have given the figures for these years, because he had them.
I have given the figures.
He could have given them in a form which would not mislead the House.
The Minister can give any figures he likes.
I can give the figures which are available. In 1932-33 the sum expended out of this Vote was £952; it was £4,808 in 1933-34, and £10,675 for the year 1934-35. As to the expenditure for 1935-36, I am not in a position to give that.
The Minister knows it.
You are spending is great style out of the Secret Service Vote.
Certainly. The Dáil expects us to spend what is necessary for the protection of this country. We are doing what every other Government is doing. The purpose of the Vote is to obtain information which is requisite for the security of this country and which cannot be obtained openly, and we are not doing anything except what other Governments are doing. There has been an increase in expenditure upon the secret service elsewhere. We are not blind to the situation; we are not blind to what has been going on here and elsewhere. We are perfectly willing, if we cannot get the necessary information in any other way, to get it by means of the secret service. It is our duty to get it. If this information is going to help to make this country more secure, it is our duty to get it in this way, if we cannot get it in any other way. The very title of the Vote shows what it is for. The need for a Vote of this kind has been recognised everywhere. So hall-marked has been that recognition that the Dáil has expressly waived its right to the explanations which it might expect to get in regard to other Votes. Particular precautions are taken in dealing with this Vote, because it is clearly recognised that it is not in the public interest that the sort of debates which have taken place year after year on the Secret Service Vote should occur. The comparatively trivial amount expended on secret service is, I think, a guarantee that there is no abuse.
I again wish to make it clear that in every year since we came into office the Dáil has given, us authority to expend very considerable sums of money on the secret service and that in no single instance has more money been spent in securing this information than the responsible members of the Government deemed was absolutely necessary for the public security.
I would not wish the Minister to misunderstand the position, because I think it is right that he should know that we have not the slightest prejudice against the prudent expenditure of the money, but I do say that we are a little shocked by the imprudence with which he has laid it out. I remember that a couple of years ago we had a decent man on the headquarters staff of our organisation. He came to us one day and asked if we had any objection to his continuing to draw £4 a week from the secret service fund. We said: "Not at all." We understood that there were a couple more' in the office drawing money out of the secret service fund. So far as we were concerned we looked on it that they were just supplementing their wages in that way, and that they were very welcome to it.
The question under discussion is the Vote for this year.
But the Minister has refused to tell us what he spent last year.
I take leave to doubt this unsubstantiated statement of Deputy Dillon's.
Is Deputy Dillon not entitled to point out to the Minister that he is spending money foolishly if he pays £4 a week to a man on the staff of their organisation?
I would point out to Deputy Norton that the Minister is denying that he is paying such money to anybody. Deputy Dillon has made a statement in the House which I challenge him to substantiate by producing the gentleman to whom he has referred. Naturally, because of the way the money has to be expended, anybody can get up here and say that so-and-so told him that he was receiving such-and-such an amount from the secret service, but let the Deputy produce the recipient of the money. Possibly that person was trying to get a rise from Fine Gael. He was certainly taking a "rise" out of the Deputy.
He did not ask for any advance of salary. He was getting a comfortable income out of this money, and we said that we did not object. It appeared to be well understood that there were a couple more drawing money. I am entitled to raise this matter, because I say that I am entitled to direct the attention of the House to this: that some of this money is being improvidently spent. If the Government are going to pay spies then they ought to send their spies to places where there is something to be found out. They have sent a couple of spies into our headquarters, and if they want to send more to-morrow they will be heartily welcome.
I do not think the Minister is responsible.
Someone must be responsible. The House is responsible for voting the money, and I am putting it that if we are going to spend money on spies then let us get value for the money. I implore the Minister not to be part-paying the permanent staff of rival political organisations in this country out of the secret service fund. If I heard that there were clerks in Deputy Norton's office getting 30/- a week from Deputy Norton and £2 a week from the Minister for Finance I would resent it, because I do not think it is any part of the business of this House to pay the clerks in Deputy Norton's office. In the same way Deputy Norton is entitled to protest here when clerks on the headquarters staff of our political organisation are getting half their wages out of the secret service fund.
Being subsidised.
Yes. I say it is a waste of public money. The Minister is quite free to come in and inspect our records, to send in the police any time he likes to do so, but there is no necessity to pay anyone to spend his time there and to be on our permanent staff. I think it is only right that the House should know that.
Does the Deputy feel that his Party should make restitution?
No. We did not get any of the money. From the point of view of his ordinary mode of life, this man was living in rather luxurious circumstances during that period. I do not grudge it to him. I think he deserved it if ho was able to persuade the Government that he was giving them information; if he was able to thrill them and make shivers run down their spines with stories of the plots that were being hatched under the black hood and under the dreadful incantations going on at 3 Merrion Square. The foolish men in the Government have since got sense. They have realised that their legs were being pulled by the individuals on whom they were wasting secret service money. So far as some of the money has been spent in teaching them that lesson, my own opinion is that it has been spent well, and I do not grudge what has gone in that way. I think, however, that a time has now arrived when ordinary prudence should be exercised in the administration of this fund, and that the Minister ought to be more careful in future to ensure that if we pay spies we ought to get some value for our money.
I ask the House not to believe a single word of what Deputy Dillon has said. He has got up here to pull the legs of people who may be listening to him, and to take a "rise" out of Deputy Norton, who apparently takes him seriously. I challenge Deputy Dillon to give me the name of this alleged recipient——
If I did the decent man would never get a job from you again.
——of secret service money.
It is the subsidy that I am concerned about.
Deputy Norton, of course, may have affiliations with Deputy Dillon for all I know, and if he is thinking that way he had better go over to him. I repeat that I do not believe a single word of what Deputy Dillon has said. I know this, that on occasions Deputy Norton has taken leave to doubt the veracity of the gentlemen sitting on the opposite benches. Does the Deputy believe that story for a moment? Is the Deputy so simple, so unsophisticated that he is going to believe a story of that sort, or be taken in with a "stunt" such as has been staged here by Deputy Dillon? I challenge Deputy Dillon, if he is making the accusation seriously, to furnish me with the names of the people in his organisation or on his headquarters staff who alleged that they were the recipients of secret service money, and we will let him know whether they were or not.
They would be in danger of losing their jobs.
No, because the Deputy has told us that they are no longer with him and therefore they are not in any such danger. I do say this, that it is not unknown for a man who is in danger of losing his job, or who is not satisfied with the salary which he is receiving, to go to his employer and say that "so and so has offered me so much more if I will serve him instead of you," and to utilise that as a lever for extracting an increase in salary. That is not unknown, and, possibly, some person may have worked that dodge on Deputy Dillon and his associates: to go to them and say "the Government is prepared to give me £4 a week to give you away. What more are you going to give me?" That stunt may possibly have been tried, though in view of the recent rather shaky condition of the Fine Gael finances I think the man who would try it would indeed be an optimist if he thought it was going to work. At any rate I am going to make this offer to Deputy Dillon and to Deputy Mulcahy. Mind you, Deputy Mulcahy ought to know something about paying secret service money to men who are engaged in the offices of political organisations because there is on record the report of a tribunal set up by this House which does show that during the period our predecessors were in office a certain man was paid to act as a Government agent in the Fianna Fáil organisation. That is on record, and that has been proven. I challenge Deputy Dillon, in order that this matter may be tested, to furnish me with the names of those employed by the Fine Gael organisation who allege that they have been retained as secret service agents by the Government, and I will let him know whether it is true or not. Then we will be able to determine whether these men are as trustworthy as the Deputy seems to think. He will be able at any rate to know whether they have been trying to fool him a little bit.
They did not try to fool me.
The Deputy is in this dilemma, that I do not believe his story.
I do not give a fiddle-de-dee whether the Minister does or not.
The Deputy has made wild allegations which somebody may take at their face value, because they do not know the gentleman who has made them, but I challenge Deputy Dillon now to give me in confidence the names of those people who have told him that they were employed as Government agents in his organisation, and I will tell him whether it is true or not.
They would be afraid of losing their jobs.
Deputy Dillon has already said that these men are no longer Government agents; that they are so honest, so upright and such models of rectitude that they could not possibly endure to continue taking £4 a week from the Government and not render the Government the service for which they were being paid. Deputy Dillon has already told us that and, therefore, his men are in no danger of losing their jobs, so far as we are concerned. They might be in danger of losing their jobs if Deputy Dillon found he had been tricked, because, I presume, if he investigated this matter and was sufficiently assured—I am not certain whether it could be proved—not to believe their story, I take it the Deputy's organisation would dispense with the services of these men, if they have not done so already, merely because they cannot afford to provide for them any longer. I know there have been gentlemen employed, gentlemen who were members of the Deputy's organisation particularly on its militant side, who were used by them in Government offices for the purpose of securing information— but who, needless to say, are not in Government employment any longer. They were very prominent members of the Deputy's organisation at one period. But that is possibly beside the point. What is to the point now is that the Deputy has made an allegation here that Government money was used for a certain purpose, and I am asking him to give me the name of the individual who made the allegation and I will have the matter sifted, and I will let the Deputy know whether it is true or not.
Let me answer that. I have not the slightest intention of rendering information to the Minister about the identity of the persons concerned. So far as I am concerned, any agent of the Government or the police is welcome to investigate any activity on my part in my public or private life, in so far as it is the right of the Government to intervene in my private life. Any police agent and any representative of the Government or the forces of the State are welcome to go into my office at any time, on any occasion, to see any papers that they choose to see in their capacity as protectors of the public peace. I have no objection whatever to the Government using their secret service money to inform the Attorney-General's Department and the police force of any activities proceeding inside any organisation of which I am a member and I consider they have a perfect right to request me to inform them of any illegal activity good, bad or indifferent, promptly and immediately, that may be going on in any organisation to which I belong.
I have no grudge, as a politician, against the Minister's Government for paying secret service agents in my political organisation or any other political organisation, but as a public man I say it is a waste of money. The Government ought not to be paying spies where there is no crime to detect. It is the duty of the police to make up their minds approximately correctly before they distribute secret service money as to whether it is going to be properly expended or not. If the police have information that there is illegal activity going on in any office with which I am associated, I have no complaint whatever to make in regard to any steps the police may think it expedient to take in order to track down any illegality that they believe to exist. It is only right, in view of what the Minister has said, to mention that on one occasion I with, I think, the full approval of my colleagues on the National Executive of the United Ireland movement, went to the Attorney-General and said to him:
"If there is any illegal activity going on in any branch of our organisation all you have to do is to acquaint me or any of my colleagues and it will be promptly stopped."
Was it?
It was.
No.
Anyhow, that is irrelevant at the moment. The Attorney-General asked if he could bring that to the notice of the Executive Council and I said he might do so and I stand over that now as I stood over it then. I do make the case that it is a waste of money to be sending spies where there is nothing to so. The Minister says to me:
"Give me his name and I will tell you whether he is genuine."
I do not give a fiddle-de-dee whether he is genuine or not; he never got anything out of me. The man told me quite honestly, I believe, that he was getting money out of the Government. I was glad to hear it. It meant that his income was supplemented. I saw no objection to his being there as a Government agent.
I deny he was there. I deny the existence of this person. I think it is a another case of Mrs. Gamp's friend—the person does not exist.
I am merely telling the Minister what took place. The only objection I have to it is that it is unprofitable and a waste of money. What reason any man would have in our office to tell us that he was receiving money from the Government to give information to the police, I cannot imagine, because it would only induce us to give him less income in view of the income he was receiving from the police. The Minister may weigh up all these possibilities. I do not want him to think that I make any attack on him for sending this agent. It may be considered an enterprising thing, but in my opinion it is a very silly thing to do. I think the Minister is getting more sense now. I think he is beginning to realise that the ghosts that frightened him and the conspiracies that he believed to exist at one time——
There are less shootings now, fewer Deputies' houses burned, fewer trees cut down, fewer telegraph poles cut down, and fewer railways torn up. Seven hundred outrages through one organisation in one year is not a bad return.
I appeal to the Minister to restrain himself and to keep the discussion——
The Deputy tells us that he went to the Attorney-General and said he was going to stop any illegalities, but they continued.
I beg of the Minister not to lose his temper. If he does, the whole atmosphere of the House will become charged, and what has been a genial discussion will become acrimonious.
I cannot help being annoyed when I find how far Deputy Dillon was fooled by his colleagues. He came to the Attorney-General to say that no illegalities would be countenanced or tolerated by him, while they were actually taking place in the country.
The tone of the debate has so far proceeded peacefully. There is just one minute to go and the debate might become disfigured by a note which all of us, I am sure, would regret.
The Minister declares there was a Cumann na nGaedheal precedent for this action. Surely that completely proves Deputy Dillon's statement?
No.
The attraction that a candle has for a moth is nothing compared to the attraction a Cumann na nGaedheal precedent has for Fianna Fáil.
I deny that there is any foundation for Deputy Dillon's allegation. I merely say this, that if we had done a thing like that, it had been done before. I would like at this stage to point out that the Deputy has just attempted, the Deputy upon whose judgment——
Move to report progress and we will not object.
I move to report progress.
