Might I ask the Committee whether a group of Votes is being taken to go down as far as, say, No. 9?
Committee on Finance. - Vote 5—Office of the Minister for Finance.
There may be specific questions on some of them.
As far as the Vote for the Office of Public Works.
Votes 5 to 72 inclusive.
Yes, with, of course, any specific question on any one of these.
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £96,250 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1950, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster-General's Office.
This is the sum required in addition to the amount already granted under the Vote on Account. Deputies will notice that there is an increase in the Vote of £23,000, which can be divided under three headings. First of all, there are the ordinary incremental increases that accrue from time to time. The second is the transfer from the Vote associated with the Supplementary Estimate taken last year for the increase in the Vote for civil servants. Part of that is distributed through this Vote and, in fact, is distributed through most of the other Votes of which I have charge. The third is in connection with foreign exchange control. In that, there has been an addition to staff. That, of course, is a consequential increase in the moneys taken from the taxpayers for the remuneration. Foreign exchange control has developed over the years, starting in a rather limited way. It was hoped that exchange control in the ordinary sense of the word might have been got rid of by this time, but, of course, circumstances have moved against that. In addition to that, the Foreign Exchange Department now has to take upon itself the duties that are appropriate to the Marshall Aid Fund and the whole of the E.C.A. developments, in so far as they react here. For that reason, there has been quite a considerable building up of staff. Some of these, of course, are people who are on loan from other Departments and, therefore, other Departments will show a corresponding decrease. But there have been additions to the staff owing to an increase in the work. I do not think there is any other question arising out of the Estimate.
The Minister explained that one of the reasons for the increase was the increased work in the Foreign Exchange Department. The Minister during the year has approved of many information officers being appointed to various Departments. It would be no harm if he asked some of his own officers to give a little information to Ministers of the Government about our internal finances. We had the Taoiseach saying down in Bantry a couple of weeks ago that they had reduced taxation to the extent of £7,000,000 in 16 months. He said:—
"By reducing taxation by over £7,000,000 in 16 months, we have eased the burden which has been oppressing every member of the community, for nowadays everyone is a taxpayer."
He said that in Bantry on Saturday, 11th June last. Would the Minister convey to the Taoiseach that, instead of reducing taxation by £7,000,000 they have increased it by nearly £8,000,000?
Does the Deputy realise that this is an Estimate on which to discuss administration?
I am not going into these figures. At Budget time a table explanatory of the Budget is sent out by officials, in fact, they prepare various tables. All I am asking the Minister to do is to call the Taoiseach's attention to the table issued in connection with the Financial Statement in 1949.
The Financial Statement is relevant on the Budget.
I do not propose to discuss anything in connection with policy.
Deputies are only supposed to discuss the administration of the Department by the Minister in charge thereof.
That is what I propose to do. I ask the Minister to publish a statement which will bring it home to everybody that in 1947-48 the Exchequer issues for Central Fund and Supply Services were £65,161,000.
The Deputy is dealing with taxation, which does not arise.
I am talking about the issues from the Exchequer, which are fed not only from taxation but from other Exchequer income.
And has nothing to do with administration.
I submit that it is important that in the administration of the Department of Finance the public should be aware of what they are paying, that they should be told that clearly.
Are there not opportunities on the Budget?
If the Budgetary statements are not sufficient, I submit that other statements should be issued and, particularly, that the Taoiseach, the head of the Government, should be warned against telling the falsehood that they reduced taxation by £7,000,000 when it was increased by nearly £8,000,000.
There might be collective responsibility, but the Estimates for each Department are discussed separately, not for any other Department.
Then we will bring that matter up on the Vote for the Taoiseach's Department. One of the Votes for which the Minister is responsible and which we are asked to discuss in a general way is Vote 15— Commissions and Special Inquiries. A year and a half ago there were certain allegations made in the Dáil and the Dáil set up a special inquiry to investigate these charges. The charges, then, related to alleged corruption against certain Ministers and against a company in which a Senator was a partner. The judges who sat on that tribunal advised the Government and the Irish public——
There is no Vote for this.
No, there is no Vote for this.
If the Chair will bear with me for one second, what I am objecting to is that there is no money for it. At least, there is a Vote, it comes in under the Commissions and Special Inquiries.
I distinctly differ from the Deputy. Any commissions set up under that Vote are not open for discussion now.
I am complaining as a matter of the Minister's administration that during this year which we are now discussing he turned down an application for expenses to which citizens of this country were put by the commission established by this Dáil to investigate charges of corruption which were proved to be absolutely unfounded. The last reply on this matter to a certain firm—the firm of Stokes and Quirke— who applied for their expenses was from the Taoiseach's Department on the 29th January this year. The last reply from the Minister for Finance two months previously clearly established it as a matter of administration coming within the purview of the Minister for Finance this year. I think it is very wrong when this Dáil believes a matter to be of sufficient public importance to warrant an inquiry carried out by three senior judges, and when the charges are proved to be unfounded, that the Minister for Finance should refuse to bear the reasonable expenses of the persons who are accused unjustly and put to abnormal expense. In this particular case the charges hurled in this Dáil were also hurled from every platform round the country. The Dáil set up this tribunal. The judges consisted of Mr. Justice O'Byrne, Mr. Justice Davitt and Mr. Justice Haugh.
We are going to have the whole report of the Locke Inquiry.
The merits of the case do not arise. The findings do not arise.
No, the findings do not arise, but the fact that the Minister refused to pay the expenses of a person whom the judges claimed was unjustly charged, irresponsibly charged, falsely charged, does arise, I submit.
When was the report brought in?
The Minister refused during this administrative year.
There is no provision made.
I know the members of the Government do not want to hear about this.
We shall soon hear about that if you are allowed to discuss it.
They fooled a lot of people about it and they do not want to be reminded of the fact that three judges stated that, in relation——
The findings do not arise.
I propose merely to quote the findings.
The Deputy is dealing with the findings if he is quoting them.
I propose to quote a certain portion of the findings in order to prove that my contention that the firm of Stokes and Quirke and other citizens of this country were put to unjustifiable expense because of allegations here is correct. When the Dáil set up a Commission of Inquiry it should pay the reasonable expenses in relation to the charges which were held to be unjustified. That was the procedure which was followed by the previous Government. In relation to the first charge, the judges stated——
The findings are not for discussion.
I am not proposing to discuss them.
The Deputy is discussing them. The Deputy is quoting them and contending that they are right or wrong.
For my information, will you instruct me as to whether it is right and proper that a matter which is in the sole discretion of the Minister for Finance is open to discussion here during the debate on this Estimate or not? The public of this country have no method of finding out about these matters other than discussion here in the Dáil on appropriate occasions.
This is not an appropriate occasion to discuss the findings.
I am not discussing the findings. What I am discussing is the Minister's action in refusing to pay the reasonable costs of the people who were charged unjustly of corruption.
The Deputy has stated so.
That is what I propose to do, with your permission. Several charges were made.
I will not hear any more about the charges or the findings.
Will the Chair tell me when the people of this country are entitled to discuss this?
There are ways of putting down motions.
There are ways of putting down motions. I am simply discussing here——
What is not in order.
——the Minister's action in turning down an application for funds.
The Deputy is trying to read out the findings of that tribunal under the disguise that it is a matter of the Minister's administration.
I have not read one word.
Mr. de Valera
The point of the case is that the tribunal found that these charges were not justifiable. There would be quite a different case for refusing to pay expenses if they were justifiable. The only way to make that clear to the House would be by stating definitely what the judges found. It is quite clear that it would be a different case if the findings were different.
The findings are available to every Deputy of this House. I did not prevent the Deputy from stating that expenses should have been given to certain people who were charged unjustly according to the Deputy and possibly in accordance with the findings. The Deputy can state that without reading all those findings out and starting a debate on the inquiry.
I do not propose to read the findings out but I want to characterise the findings in the words of the judges so that I will not be held afterwards to have misquoted them. When we are discussing a judge's decision it is important that we quote the words which the judge used and that we do not discuss it on a quotation from recollection.
The Deputy need not quote the judge's words. They are open to every Deputy of this House. Deputies can read them for themselves.
I have not even read one yet. One of these charges was described as fantastically inaccurate. Another was described as "wholly untrue, entirely without foundation and made with a degree of recklessness amounting to complete irresponsibility". Another was——
I told the Deputy I will not hear more quotations from those findings.
Well, another was——
I will not hear more from the Deputy on it.
I will proceed then to deal with——
——with the Estimates before the House.
——with the Minister's administration of his Department, with your permission, which is the normal thing to discuss on such occasions. I object to the Minister for Finance refusing to meet the reasonable expenses of any citizen in this country who was taken before this tribunal or who was summoned before it, and in respect of whom the tribunal found that the charges made against him were made recklessly and falsely. The proper thing for the Minister to have done on that occasion was to have followed precedent: that, where charges were made falsely, the accused person should be indemnified against loss. If there were charges made against him of sufficient importance for the Dáil to set up this procedure of inquiring into them, and if, in respect of some of those charges, there was a finding against him, then he should bear the costs in relation to those charges; but here was a case where a firm of auctioneers, a couple of Ministers and several other firms were brought before the tribunal and put to expense. You had a firm of solicitors, the firm of Messrs. Arthur Cox and Company, brought before this tribunal, to tell what they knew about the matter, and you had a firm of Messrs. Stokes and Quirke. That particular firm was subjected to very heavy expenses. As a matter of fact, we know that one of the members of the Government, the present Attorney-General, was employed at that time in his capacity as senior counsel to defend the firm of Messrs. Stokes and Quirke.
I do not think so.
The Attorney-General was present at that tribunal and, not only was he present at the tribunal, but he stated in no uncertain fashion what he thought of the Minister for Finance and of his allegations here. That was published in the papers, and I am sure it will be within the recollection of the Minister for Finance that he denounced his conduct as completely reckless. However, that is by the way.
You are on very thin ice now.
What I am concerned about is that the people involved— innocently involved—in this should be indemnified against loss. If we are going to carry on here as a democratic State in which everybody has reasonable rights guaranteed to him, then I think that a person has as much right to be defended by the State when he is being deprived unjustly of his character as if he were deprived unjustly of his property. If it is of great importance that there should be full freedom of discussion in this Dáil, it is also of importance that this Dáil should not be used as a fort from which people can sling slanders without any danger to themselves, or even without having to answer for them before any court.
What is the relevance of that?
This Dáil was used——
What has that to do with the Estimate?
The importance of the thing is this——
I am not arguing the importance. I simply want to keep the rules of order or to have them kept. The attitude of this Dáil, surely, does not arise on the Estimate for the Minister for Finance.
The Minister is appointed by this Dáil to administer the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance is more than an accounting office. It is an office which has a fair amount of influence on policy and, I submit, it should be the particular care of the Minister for Finance in the administration of his Department to ensure that citizens would get reasonably fair play and that if this Dáil is used to sling charges against individuals, and if the Dáil decides to have these charges investigated by a special tribunal of three judges, then those citizens, if found guiltless of the charges hurled against them in the Dáil, should be indemnified against loss.
The Deputy is repeating himself.
I am because I have been interrupted several times.
The Deputy has not been interrupted by the Chair except in the interests of order. I do not know whether he regards that as an interruption or not.
I am quite prepared to believe that it is in the interests of order you are doing it. I passed away from certain aspects of this matter which I would like to discuss when you decided that they were out of order, and I submitted to your ruling.
Put down a motion and have it discussed entirely.
Will the Government give time for the motion?
I am not the Government.
You are not the Government?
Order!
The Deputy by his interruption——
I object to these slighting references to this report. If it is to be discussed, it should be discussed by everybody.
I am certainly entitled to talk about it.
Deputy O'Higgins, of course, is not a member of the Government. He is a member of the Government Party, and he has no right to speak on behalf of the Government with regard to this matter. I took quite a different attitude with the Minister for Finance at the beginning by asking him to say if we put down a motion that the Government would, within a reasonable period, give time for its discussion. But that is not the situation, and, therefore, I am availing myself of this Estimate to say that the Minister has behaved in a most despotic fashion by depriving a citizen of his rights. A number of people went before this tribunal and paid their legal expenses in the knowledge that, heretofore, where people were found guiltless on certain charges they were indemnified with regard to their costs. These people have a right to expect that when the charges were found to be utterly reckless, when witnesses were found to be "shifty" in their evidence, that they were liars, in other words——
The Deputy, again, is discussing the report.
——they have the right to expect that they would be indemnified against loss in relation to those charges and the Minister has refused to do it. I believe that, in doing that, he acted very wrongly, that he acted against the best interests of this State and also against the best interests of the people of this State. It is in the interests of the people of this State to see that charges made against their Government or charges made against public men are fully investigated. In order that that should be done properly it is in the interests of the State to see that the accused people will be able to get the best legal advice that they can get. In this particular case, the legal expenses were very heavy. I have no hope that the Minister for Finance will change his mind. We all know that he is biased in certain regards. I want to give my opinion of that to the Dáil and to say how ill-advised, I think, he was, not only ill-advised but very vindictive, in refusing to meet the legitimate costs of all the people involved in this tribunal in respect of the charges of which they were found guiltless, the charges which the judges said were completely reckless.
The Deputy is again repeating himself.
Mr. de Valera
I, too, would like to speak on this matter, but I fear, from the ruling given by the Chair, that it will be almost impossible to deal with it at all. I do not know to what extent on occasions like this we have the right to criticise the Minister because of his refusal to meet a just claim on his Department.
Deputy Aiken was not precluded from asking for that.
Mr. de Valera
How can I make that case? How can I deal with that matter unless I am at liberty to point out the precise circumstances? As I stated in my intervention, this matter would be quite different if the findings of the tribunal were other than what they were. The case that has been made was made on the basis of the findings of the tribunal and, consequently, unless one can deal with those findings, it will be impossible to make the case that should be made. The point is that there were certain findings of a public tribunal, a tribunal that was essential. The findings were quite clear in their expression. As a result of those findings, I submit that the State is bound, in justice to the individual, to see that that individual is not out of pocket. It is bad enough to have a person charged publicly and have a lot of the mud that was flung at him sticking to him, without making him bear certain losses, out of pocket expenses, money which he had to spend in defending himself against these false charges.
On a point of order. I submit that any reference to this report which involves arguments concerning the findings is not in order. If it is, I take it that it will be possible for other Deputies to discuss not only the findings but the evidence.
The evidence has not been discussed and the Leader of the Opposition is in order so far. I am not giving any answer to hypothetical questions.
Mr. de Valera
The case is of such importance that it is quite impossible to discuss it as it ought to be discussed on this occasion.
I think Deputy Aiken went too far.
Mr. de Valera
That being the view of the Chair, I must desist, but, nevertheless, I think it is the duty of the Government, in fair play to the citizens, to see that when charges are made and are investigated, when this matter was all discussed in the Dáil beforehand, when there had been previous cases in which there was a precedent established, an opportunity is provided for its discussion. If we cannot discuss it now, an early opportunity ought to be given to the House to enter into a discussion on it.
Did the Deputy say "previous cases"?
Mr. de Valera
A previous case.
There was just the one case.
Mr. de Valera
I suggest that if we are to be precluded from discussing this case now, in the interests of justice an opportunity should be given by the Government to discuss it in the House at an early date.
The Chair considers it could be discussed in an orderly way on a motion.
I should like to put the argument to the Minister in this form, that it would appear to be an outrage if any man, a slander being issued, the case coming before a tribunal properly appointed and a decision having been properly arrived at, should be made a bankrupt, although he vindicated himself in the court, because the Government would not protect him not merely as regards his character but also as regards his property. If that attitude were to be adopted, almost anybody could be broken. Any citizen could suffer unless the principle is established that when an honest man is falsely slandered and he succeeds in vindicating himself, at least his expenses should be paid.
Deputy Aiken was Minister for Finance when the report came out.
Yes, and there was no rush made to try to cash in on the situation. It was taken for granted justice would be done by any Government. You have to make allowance for Opposition Parties; they do overstate the case. But, when they get into the saddle and have to shoulder responsibility, what you expect from any decent Irishman is a fair deal all round and an effort to maintain the standards of justice which are so essential to the public life of the country. I was disappointed with the Minister's attitude. I thought we would have got some light and leading on his attitude towards sterling and what he thinks ought to be done. I think this arises properly on the Estimate. He said a great many things which might easily be quoted to show what his attitude formerly was with regard to sterling in the face of any situation that might arise. Now, there is a very dangerous situation from the point of view of any small country that is relying on sterling.
Will the Deputy be kind enough to repeat that?
I said there is a very dangerous situation owing to the likelihood that sterling will be depreciated in value—there is a possibility of it. You could get quotations from British Ministers and supporters of the present British Government to show the present precarious situation, the indication of failure in spite of their colossal efforts to balance their imports and exports, together with the austerity programme that is being carried out. With all that, they have not succeeded in securing that balance. Again, we have read of the fall of Shanghai, which amounts to imperilling all the trade that at one time meant an annual income to Britain of £200,000,000. That represented her trade with the whole of North China and that is now in very grave peril.
We have also to consider the friction that has arisen—the objection which the United States are making to the agreement between the Argentine and Britain. Friction has also arisen between Canada and Britain and it is affecting their trading relations. All these things are of such a nature that they may give rise to a dangerous situation. There is also to be considered the slump which was indicated, I think, by the Minister in one of his speeches. All these things would seem to suggest that the country is entitled to a statement from the Minister as to his attitude and how he is going to get out of——
Out of what?
——the strait jacket of being attached to sterling.
Who put me into it?
We did not put you into it.
Who did?
The position was such that no change could be made during the war.
Can it be made now?
The Minister will have an opportunity of dealing with that matter.
I hope he will give us some indication of the attitude of the Government on cultural matters. It has been pointed out by persons in this country and experts who visit the country as tourists that we should pay more attention to cultural matters, that these things would prove a great asset in attracting tourists.
We had that on the Industry and Commerce Estimate.
It arises on Education, on Industry and Commerce, on the Board of Works, but I really think that the nigger in the pile is the Minister for Finance and that is why I should like to refer to it here.
There is no Vote for the niggers.
No. That is a method adopted for getting away with it. Having referred to it to that extent, however, I shall wait until the Estimate comes up for the Board of Works. I think I can raise certain individual cases then. I would ask the Minister to give attention to it because it is one of our best assets in regard to attracting tourists here. It is an asset, therefore, that should be developed.
I listened carefully to what both Deputy Aiken and Deputy de Valera said in regard to the Locke Tribunal. I would appeal to the Minister to consider the implications in this matter. I gather from Deputy Aiken that if he had continued as Minister for Finance after February of last year he would have agreed to the payment of costs and expenses incurred by Messrs. Stokes and Quirke at that inquiry. I understand that other parties are involved.
I did not confine it to Messrs. Stokes and Quirke. The owners of the distillery were dragged before this tribunal. That was quite natural. Their manager may have known something about negotiations that were going on. The owners of the distillery were absolutely oblivious of them. They were at considerable expense in appearing before this tribunal. Messrs. Arthur Cox and Company, solicitors in this city, also appeared. There were other people involved throughout the country. Mr. Morris of Clonmel was one of them. These are the people I recollect at the moment. I hold that all those people who were guiltless of any offence and who did nothing dishonourable should have their proper expenses met.
I know that the owners of the distillery were involved in very heavy costs and expenses in regard to this tribunal. I could not now, without reference, deal with the particular findings of the tribunal, but I think there is a general principle involved. That principle is that where a tribunal is set up by this House, unless the findings are very unfavourable to the parties involved, their costs and expenses should be paid. They are represented there by their legal advisers, counsel and solicitor and so on. I think the principle should be established that these costs and expenses should be met. I merely mention that. I do not know what correspondence has passed. Anyone who knows anything about the workings of the Department of Finance over a quarter of a century—and Deputy Aiken will admit this I am sure—must admit that the Department of Finance will always refuse to pay until there is substantial pressure put upon it.
There were letters to the Taoiseach, as well as to the Minister, in this case.
I do not know anything about that. I want to discuss this matter quite apart from politics and from the individuals involved. I want to discuss it quite apart also from some of the findings of the tribunal. I think that if we put the matter to the Minister in that way, probably it can be reconsidered departmentally and by the Government. I take it that a Supplementary Estimate might have to be introduced, but that Estimate would receive the approval of the House. I am concerned in the matter only because of the general principle involved. For that reason I ask the Minister to indicate in his reply that the door is still open for further consideration.
There is another matter to which I would like to refer. Recently some difference of opinion has arisen between the Minister and a trade union representing a substantial number of civil servants. I refer to the Civil Service Clerical Association. I understand that the Minister has withdrawn recognition from that association because of that difference. I am perfectly satisfied that the Minister is anxious that whatever difference there is should be solved and that the position should be clarified as soon as possible. I know that would be the Minister's own view. I also know that there are obstacles to the solution of problems such as this. Those obstacles exist in the Civil Service itself. I do not propose to go into details. I do not want the Minister to go into details in his reply. I would like the Minister, however, to take a generous step in meeting this association.
Things have happened which have brought this association under official displeasure. What has happened may never happen again, because a very useful lesson has been learned by everybody concerned. By some generous approach now on the part of the Minister the problem could be solved in the course of a few hours. Recognition could be restored to this association and that body could then work in the ordinary way. This association is a very useful one from the point of view of the public, the Government and the civil servants. I ask the Minister to do everything that is humanly possible to bring this dispute to an end. It is a bad thing for any body of people to feel it has a grievance. It would be a bad thing if the large membership involved in this association felt they had a grievance. I do not think that grievance is against the Minister. That is one of the troubles. Whatever the Minister may decide the grievance will not be against the Minister, but against somebody else. For that reason, I appeal to the Minister to be exceptionally generous. I know he is anxious to be generous. I appeal to him to bring this dispute to an end within the next couple of days.
There is a matter in connection with Vote 15—Commissions and Special Inquiries—on which I should like some information. I notice in connection with the Commission on Place Names that a sum of only £917 is being provided by the Minister this year, whereas a sum of £4,537 was provided last year. I should like some explanation from the Minister as to why that reduction has taken place. If the Minister does not object to that commission, why does he not allow it to function, or is it to be allowed to function any more? Is its work not of sufficient national importance? I think it is all-important. It was generally agreed by everybody that it was engaged in useful national work and that it should be allowed to continue that work. I think it is a shame that the Minister and the Government, in what one cannot call anything except a spirit of pique, reduced the provision made for its Vote very substantially. It would be more decent to have wiped it out altogether and to have told the country that the Minister has no use whatever for it.
There is another commission mentioned here—the Commission on Emigration and other Population Problems—and perhaps the Minister would tell us when it is expected to have a report from that body. That commission has been sitting for quite a considerable period now and it was expected that the country would have seen at least a preliminary report from the commission. It was set up to solve the problem of emigration originally. It was boosted as such and it was expected that within a few short weeks, or months at longest, the country would be given a solution for the emigration problem. It has now been sitting well over 14 months and considering that emigration——
Would the Deputy state whether it is not a commission set up by the Minister for Social Welfare?
It is provided for under Vote 15.
Is it not a commission set up by the Department of Social Welfare?
The Minister is responsible for it.
For the money end.
I take it that when the Minister asks for a Vote of £7,000, he is responsible for all matters arising out of that Estimate.
And I take it that the Deputy will not attempt to raise it again on the Vote for the Minister for Social Welfare?
That is another matter. It will depend on the Ceann Comhairle.
If it depends on the Chair, the Chair would state that that is the proper time to raise it.
Will the Minister for Social Welfare answer to the House for the work of that commission?
I am sure he would.
Will he provide an explanation as to its purposes and functions?
I cannot answer all these questions.
It is a question whether we are entitled to discuss it under this Estimate.
My answer is that Deputies are not entitled to discuss it under two Estimates.
Under which Estimate, then?
I have said under the Estimate for the Department of Social Welfare.
Will it be ruled that the Minister for Social Welfare will be bound——
I am not under cross-examination. I was asked a question and I answered it. I have no other answer.
We are not clear yet.
That is not my fault.
I suppose not, but what Minister is responsible?
The Minister for Social Welfare.
It was mentioned here this afternoon that the Minister for Finance was responsible for these Votes.
Very often commissions are set up under various Departments. The money for them is provided under this Vote, but the Minister of the Department by which they are set up is responsible for their work. In this instance, it will come under the Estimate for Social Welfare.
Could we not get some information about the Commission on Place Names? What Department is responsible for that?
It was set up by Finance and by no other Department and it is, therefore, quite legitimate to raise it on this Estimate.
And it was suspended by me.
That is fair enough. No other Department is concerned?
It is not stated here specifically that it is suspended. There is still a provision of £900 for it. There are a number of suspended commissions, the names of which are set out in italics.
They are not finished.
Does the Minister not think that this commission——
It is not finished.
It has some little life. It is allowed to remain in existence with the small life that the Minister is determined it should have.
You want the speedy death of it.
Perhaps the Minister would tell us why the number of officers in his Department have increased from 169 to 205?
Is that on the Vote here?
That is on Vote 5.
I did say that that was in connection with the Foreign Exchange Control Department. The increase arises nearly all there.
Will he tell the House whether that expenditure will be repayable to the Exchequer out of the foreign exchange control section, or will it be met by the taxpayer?
It must be met by the taxpayer.
I do not see the absolute necessity to provide an extra staff, which I estimate to be about 60.
Oh, no.
There is extra provision there, if you turn to page 16. There is some extra provision for clerical assistance, a very substantial amount.
On Vote 15? That is down£200.
On page 15 it is shown that the expenditure in connection with salaries, wages and allowances has gone up by £28,000.
Where is that?
There is an increase in the number of officers from 169 to 205.
That is still not 60.
If we take the extra clerical assistance, there is a far greater increase in the numbers than is shown there. We may take it that about 100 extra officers have become necessary because of foreign exchange control. The Minister, in his opening explanation, did give us full details of that, but, in conclusion, I should like if he would tell us something about the Commission on Place Names, when it is hoped to bring it back to life or whether it will be allowed to remain a long time in abeyance.
I am in somewhat the same difficulty as Deputy Allen in reference to the Irish Legal Terms Committee. I understand that the allocation for that work has been reduced to £25 a year.
That is under the Department of Justice.
The Irish Legal Terms Committee comes under the Department of Justice. You lost your chance.
Would I not be allowed to approach it in the same manner as Deputy Allen did?
No, it is under the Department of Justice and may not be discussed.
All I wanted to say was that the grant has been cut down to £25.
Is it under the Department of Justice Estimate or this Estimate?
All I want to say is that there has been a reduction——
There is no reduction in this Vote for it.
The Minister's recent decision to grant increases in the pensions payable to retired civil servants was very widely welcomed and long awaited, but very many of them were greatly disappointed to find that they had been treated differently to serving civil servants, that is to say, their increase in pension does not date from May, 1948, while serving civil servants received an increase retrospective to May, 1948. I think for the sake of the few extra pounds concerned the Minister might have given the pensioners similar treatment and I appeal to him even at this late stage to reconsider that matter.
I would ask the Minister whether he has anything further to say about the conditions of employment in the Ordnance Survey Office in the Phoenix Park and I would appeal to him to investigate fully the conditions of employment there and to try to find out why it is that the Valuation Office, the Land Commission and other offices rob the best men from that important office in the Phoenix Park. I suggest to him that it is of course because the conditions are very bad up there and if he wants to keep a good Ordnance Office he must see that conditions of employment are raised to a higher level.
I do not think we are dealing with the Office of Public Works now?
Not now.
A few points have been raised on the separate Votes for me to deal with and the main one has been raised by Deputy Aiken. In so far as the Taoiseach wants advice from me as to whether taxation has been raised or reduced, I will help him as well as I can. When Deputy Aiken said that taxation has been reduced by £7,000,000, it has, of course, been reduced by over £7,000,000.
It went up by nearly £8,000,000.
I will get that correction made as soon as possible, and I will get the Taoiseach to say that that has been done, notwithstanding the fact that increases have been given to quite a number of people.
With regard to the Vote for Special Commissions and Special Inquiries, Vote 15, it is very difficult to discuss the Locke Tribunal without going through the merits of the case. I have refused every application that has been made to me in that connection and I have done that mainly on the grounds of precedent. The precedent right from the foundation of this State has been that even though people are unfortunate enough to be brought before any court or tribunal on a charge which has eventually been proved to be unfounded, those people meet their own expenses. That has been the case in the Criminal Court and in so far as people have been subjected to inquiries set up by this Dáil and incurred expense, up to the case of the tribunal set up to investigate the charges which were made against Dr. Ward, has any payment ever been made? The memories of the Deputies who are sitting opposite are not so short that they will not pick up the occasion when shortly after they came into the Government they sent forward two servants of the State to meet a criminal charge under the Official Secrets Act. The judge refused to let the case go to a jury it was so bad and when he was summing up at the end he indicated that the expenses of the two or three servants of the State who had been in this reckless way brought before the court should be met. Of course they were not met, and, in so far as my information goes, those civil servants suffered in their particular status as such civil servants and they were not rehabilitated. Certainly they were not given any money reward to meet their expenses. It is also notorious that the first occasion on which a precedent was established was the Ward Tribunal case and it may be news to this House but it is not news to some people sitting opposite me that when they decided to meet these expenses they sent the matter to one of the taxing masters to get him to say what the proper payment should be. They were not satisfied with the first reference of the taxing master and sent it back a second time and, whether it was deliberate or not, the result was that Dr. Ward who did not come unscathed from it got a greater percentage of his expenses than Dr. MacCarvill who was largely responsible for starting the tribunal.
Were not Dr. MacCarvill's expenses also paid?
The case was sent back to the taxing master to see whether the costs should be decided on a solicitor and client basis or another basis and the basis was chosen which gave a bigger percentage to Dr. Ward.
Dr. MacCarvill also got paid.
Oh, no. On the basis chosen a greater percentage of outlay was given to one than to the other.
Dr. MacCarvill received his complete costs on the charges proved on a solicitor and client basis.
On the first return from the taxing master Dr. MacCarvill would have got a greater percentage of his outlay than Dr. Ward. When the case went back on the second reference it was changed. Are Deputies asking me to change the whole situation regarding people who are brought before the courts?
I am.
Possibly Deputy Cowan might. Even in a case where people come before the Criminal Court and the judge refuses to let the case go before a jury—not under the Official Secrets Act necessarily—they do not receive expenses.
Mr. de Valera
It merits examination.
It merited examination over 15 years and did not receive it. The critical point only comes when the firm of Quirke and Stokes is involved.
Mr. de Valera
It is a matter of justice.
A matter of justice was involved for 15 years and the Deputy never bothered.
Mr. de Valera
When it came up as a specific case it was dealt with.
It came up under the Official Secrets Act when the judge decided that the expenses should be met of those defamed members of this State and they never got a penny.
Mr. de Valera
If wrong was done it should have been done right.
If wrong was done it was done right. It was done at the very start of the Deputy's period in office in 1932 or 1933 and that condition lasted ever since.
Mr. de Valera
No.
Judges have from time to time made recommendations with regard to people being refunded as to their expenses out of public funds, but I do not know if it has ever been done. With regard to this case. I am told that corruption is negatived and the charges unfounded and Deputy Aiken has read the judges report. That case was not tried in the courts and the Deputy well knows it. It was tried at every fireside, in every public house, in every bus, in every tram and at any street corner where people met and the people as a jury had a different point of view to the judges. I want to make the point that has been made from my left here. The one man who was held up to odium and scorn in the judges' report was Deputy Oliver Flanagan.
And the Minister.
Leave me out for a time. Deputy Flanagan went with that verdict sizzling before the people and got the greatest popular vote from the jury of his own constituents that was got in this country.
Mr. de Valera
There are those you slander here when you slandered the judges outside.
We will pass from that now.
I insist upon my rights. Deputy Aiken was allowed to discuss this matter.
On a point of order. I was forbidden by the Ceann Comhairle to deal with the merits of this particular case and the merits of the judges award.
The Deputy means that he was not allowed.
I was forbidden.
I am not going to allow the matter to be discussed.
"The charges of corruption were negatived," but no matter what the judges said the jury said otherwise.
The jury said nothing.
Anybody who has gone through the law courts knows the situation that occasionally occurs—with a bad judge, it often occurs—where a judge gives a very definite lead to a jury and the jury will not convict.
And rightly so.
Often rightly so. That was the case in connection with the Locke Tribunal.
Mr. de Valera
Nonsense. There was no jury in that case.
I suggest that the Minister should pass from that now.
Deputy Flanagan said——
Mr. de Valera
Is the Minister going to suggest that the question which was to be decided in the election in that constituency was the question of the Locke Tribunal?
I say that if Deputy Flanagan had been believed by the people of Leix-Offaly to be the sort of perjurer the report of the Locke Tribunal said he was, he could not have got all those votes.
The Minister will pass on now from that case.
There is another remark made about that case which is generally believed. Deputy Aiken said that people should not be allowed to sling slander without danger to themselves. The Deputy forgets that that is in the Constitution of this country, that the rule is there, that it is a constitutional safeguard for liberty of debate in this House.
Which may be abused.
Which may be abused. I am suggesting now that the test, in the end, as to whether a Deputy abuses that privilege or not is the way in which the people look at him.
Mr. de Valera
Surely there should be better safeguards for the individual than that?
If the Deputy is alleged to have abused that privilege —and that is the charge made against the Deputy mentioned—I say he took the chance and went before his constituents.
Mr. de Valera
All that Deputy Flanagan was was a cat's-paw of people who did not stand up to it themselves.
Do not let there be any extra heat in this, any more than is necessary. Deputy Flanagan faced everyone. Being a person untutored in court ways, he faced the court and won the admiration of all those in the court.
Except the judges.
The judges gave a verdict against him.
I ask the Minister to pass on from that case.
The Deputy then faced his constituency.
That amounts to a slander on the judges.
I am entitled to say in this House that the verdict of the people was against the judges' report. If that is slander on the judges, let them pull the cap tighter on their heads. I am going to refuse to pay these expenses unless I get a contrary direction from the Dáil and when I get a contrary direction it will not be on the Locke Tribunal alone or on Stokes and Quirke alone——
Mr. de Valera
No one asked that it be on Stokes and Quirke alone.
It will not be on that Locke case alone, but will be in the case of people who were brought up in criminal cases and eventually found not guilty.
Deputy Little is anxious to know about sterling. I want to record again, for the Dáil's hearing, that he said himself that there was a dangerous situation nowadays for any small country relying on sterling—and the people who brought that dangerous situation about are facing me.
I suppose we were responsible for the war.
Oh, no. The war did not necessarily mean that we had to be tied up with sterling.
It was the war that tied us to it.
What about the Central Bank Act?
What about the Currency Act of 1927?
Carried forward by the Deputy.
And carried forward by the Minister.
We have heard of the circumstances in relation to the Central Bank Act. There is a bit of a strait jacket, if the Deputy looks at it. It is rather hard for the Deputy, who for years has packed all the eggs into the one money basket—and there is quite a basket of eggs there——
And the Minister packed £3,000,000 more.
And the basket is likely to break down? Is the situation as bad as that? I thought Deputy Little might have given some advice and made known how near this danger of devaluation was to us and what he would do in order to minimise the danger if it came nearer. I do not know how near the danger is. I have read the comments made and I know the matter has been the subject of comment among various international gatherings. I know that there has been a definite attitude, so far as England is concerned, that she will not allow sterling to be devalued. There are certain forces which, in times to come, may make it necessary to allow sterling to be devalued, and then there may be a revaluation of currencies—possibly, our own included. But that is a matter which is a considerable way off in the future, thank goodness, and I do not think I should be questioned as to my attitude in a whole variety of circumstances that might arise. The Deputy is entitled to ask whether it is appreciated that there is a movement of that kind on and ask whether there is watchfulness here on that account. I can say that there is watchfulness here, but I do not intend to be drawn into a debate on that point. Later on, probably, there will be an opportunity of judging how tight the strait jacket is, and who fashioned it.
We did not fashion it.
Deputy Cowan has brought in the matter of the Civil Service Clerical Association and, though it was quite tactfully done, I am sorry it was raised at all.
If the Minister prefers not to deal with it——
The Deputy has gone into certain points of detail and I must go into them, in following him. There is no question of an official attitude on this matter which is different from mine. Deputy Cowan has been advised on this point, but that is wrong, that I would have a different attitude personally from the officials of my Department. When I am asked to recognise that this is a matter that should be solved in a few hours, I must say, first of all, that the offending matter appeared in the journal last December. We are now in the month of June, and I do not know how many letters have passed. I have read them all. No letter went out without myself in person being aware of it or agreeing with its terms. There have been deputations—I have taken some of them myself and have seen reports about the others. I suppose I am more definitely intimate with that matter than I am with a host of other matters in the Department. It has been very seriously considered, and I do not know what I am expected to do.
Deputy Cowan talks of big and generous steps. There has been quite enough generosity of the kind displayed in this whole matter. If Deputy Cowan likes to see the full details, I shall be very glad to show them to him, or to any other Deputy, and I will stand the test of their judgment in the matter, as to whether any harshness or any unkindness or unpleasantness was shown. There is no question of barring doors. They have been opened and reopened and kept ajar and many people have been trying to push in. It is a pity this small matter has been occupying the time and attention of very responsible officers over this period of six months.
The Place Names Commission— which a Deputy inquired about, if he is still interested in the matter—has not been abolished. It is being kept alive, and we are paying certain moneys out this year. The director is engaged in the compilation of a certain list of place names and he is assisted by one other officer. I am keeping it in that position until the circumstances I mentioned last year are met, that is, as I said, until such time as we have got this matter, and other matters connected with expense on the Irish language generally, better looked into and got something more in the way of a correlated scheme in regard to all these matters. The position is that the commission has not been abolished.
With regard to the Commission on Emigration, which was set up in April of last year, I do not know how anyone could expect that commission to report earlier. The terms of reference are:—
"to investigate the causes and consequences of the present level and trend in population in Ireland;
to examine, in particular, the social and economic effects of birth, death, migration and marriage rates at present and their probable course in the near future;
to consider what measures, if any, should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend in population; and generally to consider the desirability of formulating a national population policy."
It is certainly not too much to ask for 14 months, or even 28 months, for that commission to get down to work and to produce a good report.
It is a mark-time commission of course.
It is at least set up. The Deputies opposite only thought of setting it up when they were in office.
Everybody knows what is the cause of emigration.
The Deputy's colleagues were so much in ignorance that they decided to set up a commission of that type. It never got beyond a Government agenda paper and was withdrawn for further consideration. If the information was at hand, it should have been provided and the matter could then have disappeared.
The Government decided not to go on with it.
They did not. It was withdrawn from the agenda—that is a well-known term, as the Deputy knows—to be re-entered later.
Would the Minister issue an interim report?
Would I?
Or cause an interim report to be issued?
The Minister for Social Welfare might, but I should imagine not. In any event, Deputy Little does not require the information. He has his colleague to tell him what the causes of emigration are.
We can listen to everybody.
With regard to the Ordnance Survey staff, their conditions have, to some degree, been improved over the past 14 months, and, in so far as there are any matters which they think are outstanding. I have arranged to receive a deputation. My meeting with these people has been delayed because of other commitments, but I will be meeting them one of these days.
Would the Minister indicate what his general attitude is on the question of cultural activities as helping the tourist trade?
Very friendly.
With reference to the tables in the Financial Statement, 1949, will the Minister say whether the figure shown as the Issues from the Exchequer for 1947-45 is correct, £65,165,000, and whether his figure in the Budget statement for this year of £72,916,000 is correct—showing an increase in expenditure of almost £8,000,000?
What are the two years?
1947-48, £65,000,000, in the last year of Fianna Fáil's term of office and almost £73,000,000 in this, the second year of the Coalition Government—an increase of almost £8,000,000 in expenditure. You did not get that out of the air—it was got from the people's pockets.
The 1947-48 Estimate was built up in this way, that, in the autumn of 1947, a supplementary budget was introduced——
This is the audited expenditure.
——which had its effect only for the months from October to the following March, but the heritage we got was a Book of Estimates amounting to £75,000,000. That was what they proposed to spend, plus the Central Fund services, until we came in and cut it down.
You are spending almost £2 10s. 0d. per head more than we spent.
Vote put and agreed to.