Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Nov 1922

Vol. 1 No. 31

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - MINISTRY OF FINANCE.

The last batch of Estimates presented caused some criticism to be directed against them on account of the lack of details generally in many of the Estimates as compared with the full details published in a number of them. There is substance in the criticism, but Members will realise the difficulties under which the staff of the Ministry of Finance, whose duty it is to see that these Estimates are properly prepared, labour. Now, the setting up of all this machinery was complicated and it has proved physically impossible to give the information which has been desired, and the absence of which has given rise to much criticism. It is hoped that when presenting the Estimates for the coming year, 1923-24, sufficient information will be given to satisfy the Members on that point at any rate. The first one is the Ministry of Finance. I am moving:—

"That the Dáil in Committee having considered the Estimates for the Ministry of Finance in 1922-23, and having passed a Vote on Account of £55,000 for the period to 6th December, 1922, recommend that the full Estimate of £68,100 be adopted in due course by the Oireachtas."

May I just say that I accept the explanation of the Minister in regard to the lack of details, but I would like just to remind him that the Government of Northern Ireland is just as new. They have a Ministry of Finance which costs nearly as much, and they have been able to give all the details that are required.

I wonder if they have given them from the beginning. If my recollection is correct, the Northern Government referred to by Mr. Johnson was set up by an Act of 1920. We came into operation, practically speaking, on an Act passed in 1922, so that they have arrived at a little more efficient stage than we have. They have had a good start. Now, with regard to this particular Ministry of Finance, the only thing I have to draw attention to is, it is practically an administrative office for salaries, and so on, and I do not think that it raises any particular question that requires explanation.

I wish to ask the Minister for Finance the exact position we stand in in regard to the receipts as compared with the expenditure of the country. Does that come under this Vote?

I think not. This is a Vote for the office of the Ministry of Finance, and it merely concerns the administration of a particular office. No particular service except the Ministry of Finance office comes under this Vote.

Will the Minister for Finance be willing to give the information for the benefit of the country, which would like to know the exact financial position of the country? I notice in the public Press to-day where he is reported to have said——

This matter is not in order on this particular Vote. It is not a matter that could be taken as arising on this Vote of £68,100 under this head. Facilities will have to be given in some other way for the discussion of that question.

I think it would be well if we had a statement even in a general way from the Minister for Finance as to the relations which exist between the Finance Ministry and the other Ministries. What power exactly has the Finance Department of holding up legislation or holding up proposals which may be made by Ministers of other Departments? I have several instances in my mind in connection with a particular Department which I know a good deal about, where, under the old regime, proposals which were made by this particular Department, and which they believed were good proposals, were turned down without any, or very little, preliminary consideration; and we would like to know if, under the new order of things, the power rests with the Finance Department to turn down any scheme which may be proposed by, say, the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Education, and that the only consideration would be the question of cost. Now, I can quite well understand that if the Minister goes into new schemes, or the cost of the proposed new schemes, it is necessary to find out from the Minister for Finance whether there is money there to meet this. But it is not so much exactly under that head I would complain as the turning down of them on the matter of details. I know that in the Education Department, under the old British regulations, they could scarcely make the simplest rule for the administration of their Department without getting the consent of the Treasury, which generally meant the consent of a clerk or official in Dublin Castle at the time who knew absolutely nothing as to the necessity for these particular regulations or rules. It would be well if we had a statement on that point from the Minister. Now, under the third section here, Estimates are presented in connection with the Teachers' Pension Office, and that particular Department is under the control of the Ministry for Finance. There is just one or two matters I think it necessary to draw attention to.

The money out of which the teachers pensions are paid is voted under the head of Public Education.

Well, the manner in which the Department or this particular Ministry administers that money, I take it, can be raised now. Is that correct?

Yes, it can be raised now.

I would like to draw special attention to the way in which the teachers' pensions have been treated by the particular Department responsible. No class in Ireland, I think, no other body of people in Ireland, have been treated so badly, and I think that is pretty generally admitted by those on the Government side, who are best qualified to know the position in which they are. I shall not go into details now, except to say that over 2,000 or 2,500 of these people have a pension which amounts, on the average, to only £40 per year or a little over it, and that of every class which was receiving money from public funds this is the only one which got no increase whatsoever up to 1920. Old Age Pensions were increased and the pensions of the Police were increased, but up to the year 1920 these got no increase. Now, in England and Scotland the pensions of the retired teachers were increased in 1917 and again in 1918. In 1919 the Pensions Increase Act was passed in England and this applied to Ireland. Under that Act a certain percentage of increases were given to the teachers but owing to a technicality that we need not go into now, but which the Minister for Education is fully aware of, practically all the advantages that might have come under that Act to the Irish teachers were taken away from them. This matter was brought under the notice of the Minister for Education in the Provisional Government—Deputy Finian Lynch—immediately he took over the office, and he admitted the justice of the claim that was made on the retired teachers' behalf, and even went so far as to make a public announcement, that in the near future he would have it adjusted. He was quite sincere and quite honest in that, but possibly he was speaking without his book. He had not at that time the experience which he has now; he had not come up against the Finance Department. In May, in any case, the matter was thrashed out, I understand, with the Finance Department, and a certain offer was made. It was not at all anything like what was expected and what would have met the case, but such as it was it would have been something. This technicality I speak of was overruled by the Irish Treasury. Since May nothing has been done and we are now in November, and these people have still got nothing, and I think it is necessary to urge that this matter should be attended to immediately. There is just another matter, and that is the question of the regulations which the Treasury have made, or are insisting on making in connection with teachers who are now retiring. There is a regulation under which the pension is calculated on the salary, but it seems strange that teachers who now retire cannot, as in all branches of the Civil Service, take advantage of their salary up to the date of retirement; for instance, teachers who retire in January and February must calculate their salary up to the previous 31st March only, and that is a very great grievance especially just at present, and I hope that it will be looked into.

I wish to move the reduction of this vote by a sum of £100 in order to afford myself an opportunity of dwelling somewhat on the serious nature of our taxation at the present moment.

That is to say, in order to evade the rulling made a few moments ago.

In order to bring up a matter which is of supreme importance to the taxpayers of this country. The position as I see it——

The matter is not one that can be raised on this particular vote.

But can I move to reduce the amount by £100?

Yes, for a reason concerning this Department. Not for a general reason concerning finances generally.

The reason I am asking is that the Finance Minister, in his statement, has made no reference to this matter which is of great importance, and as we are very much concerned with the financial position, I wish to place a few matters before the Dáil. As far as I can understand the receipts for this year, if anything, would be in the neighbourhood of twenty-seven millions. The fourteen twenty-fifths of 48 millions is what we should receive here in this portion of Ireland known as Saorstát Eireann. The Minister for Finance has stated that the deficit at the end of this year will only amount to ten millions, but in my calculation, as a private member, I make out that it will amount to £20,000,000; the Excess Profits Tax amounted to seven millions and our proportion of that would be four million, but I do not think that will be collected at all because times are very bad. The Income Tax will not materialise to the extent it did last year, and if you take from that twenty-seven million the amount to be paid for War Debt, I imagine the amount will be twenty millions, leaving us eighteen to twenty millions in deficit, and I am surprised that when this tremendous amount of money was being voted away that some effort was not made to let the people understand the position we were in. We are Twenty-Six Counties and each of those Twenty-Six Counties has to bear a burden of one and a half million for taxation and half a million in local rates, and of the people of those Twenty-Six Counties, three millions or so, there are nearly two millions out of the three not three weeks away from starvation, and it puzzles me to know where all this money is coming from. I would like to ask an explanation from the Minister for Finance.

I beg to second the motion.

The statements of Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Wilson are to some extent contradictory. On the one hand they raise the matter regarding teachers' pensions which require supplementing, and on the other there is an objection to the enormous expenditure that is incurred by reason of those Estimates, and it is rather difficult to please both sides. Deputy O'Connell wants to know what is the duty of the Minister for Finance. The Minister for Finance exercises paternal solicitude over all the other Ministers, and, just as one who is sick calls in a doctor, when Ministries want money they come to the Minister for Finance. If each Ministry were to be only the consideration of the Minister concerned it would be easy to settle things, but each particular sphere of activity must be considered in relation to the whole, and if Members take the trouble to look up the Dáil Debates they will find that there were not many opportunities for the distribution of any more money than we are at present administering unless some other source of revenue be tapped. We are not tapping that source and consequently the administration of the various Ministries must be kept within the limits of our capability to discharge the liabilities for the year. The late General Collins had agreed to certain increases under the Pensions Increase Act on pensions calculated under the 1914 Act, and this question is now under the consideration of the Law Adviser. There are many more things other than that under his consideration. We are clearing up and building up and administering at the same time. This would come under the question of ordinary administration, and although I admit these pensions are as serious to the persons involved as any question of financial adjustment between the two countries, we have only to consider the importance of questions with relation to their significance to the whole country. I do not know why he should make an onslaught upon the Finance Ministry in connection with the reduction of expenditure, and I suppose it was simply for the purpose of raising it that such a reduction was proposed. I suppose we could get on without that £100, but within the last two months I gave a fairly exhaustive account of the whole matter in this year's revenue returns. I am speaking now from recollection. There is no sum included under Excess Profits Duty that we have received within the first six months of this year. I take it that the Members on those benches will admit that it was not a very sound proposition. We have received ten millions, and it is reasonable to expect we will receive more than ten million in the second half of the year, because Members being conservative themselves with regard to the handing out of money know that the majority of people wait until the last moment to pay——

The estimate is in the neighbourhood of £27,000,000, and the expenditure in the neighbourhood of £37,000,000. That includes £10,000,000 we have already passed, which has been decreed by the Courts for compensation and for damage, pre-Truce and post-Truce. It does not mean, of course, that it represents the actual damage. It only means that that sum has been actually dealt with by the Courts. That answers all the questions, I think. I am against this reduction.

Is the Ministry going to collect the whole £27,000,000—that is 14-25ths of the £48,000,000?

Yes; we have estimated for the receipt of £27,000,000, and we are going to get it.

Perhaps I did not make my point clear with regard to the Treasury or the Finance Department generally as to their powers in seeing how any particular portion of the total voted to a Department should be applied. Suppose a certain amount is voted. Let us say £2,000,000 is voted to a Department which would have liked to have got £2,500,000 or £3,000,000. What exactly is the power of the Finance Department to interfere with those who have the administration of the Department in the expenditure of that money?

I do not quite understand the question, but if the Deputy will communicate with me I will try to explain the matter to him on paper. Take, for instance, this Estimate. If it was not for the Ministry of Finance, after this money had been voted for various heads X, Y, and Z, and if X exhausted the Estimate or had not sufficient for its own particular branch the consent of the Ministry of Finance should be obtained before any surplus from Y or Z could be used. Is that what the Deputy means?

Yes; that is what I mean. The operation of transferring a surplus from one section of a Department to another cannot be entered upon without the consent of the Ministry of Finance.

No, it cannot be done without the consent of the Ministry.

Who are to be the judges? If the Ministry of Education has a certain sum voted, but is not allowed to transfer expenditure from one head to another—say there are two heads under which money is voted, and that that money could be more usefully expended under head A than B, or suppose there is a surplus from one head, why should the Minister of Finance be the judge of which of these heads the money should be expended under?

I have no doubt that the Minister for Education is a profoundly honest man, but some time or another we might get a Minister for Education who is not such an honest man, and it is in order to prevent any particular activity of a man putting up an Estimate which might be passed very easily for a popular object, but might not be spent upon that object, but devoted to another object, that the Finance Ministry is brought in. In addition, you have the security of the Auditor and the Accountant-General, who view all these things in a cold, detached manner. In the compilation of the Estimates everybody knows that to a certain extent there cannot be that degree of exactitude that most people imply, and the common function of the Ministry of Finance is certainly not to precipitate finance, and it has been found most successful in other countries.

I ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the reduction of the Vote; I am not convinced, but at the same time I consider that the Minister's optimism is satisfactory.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Motion made and question put: "That the Dáil in Committee having considered the Estimate for the Ministry of Finance in 1922-23, and having passed the Vote on Account of £55,000 for the period to the 6th December, 1922, recommend that the full Estimate of £68,100 for the financial year 1922-23 be adopted in due course by the Oireachtas."
Agreed to.
Top
Share