LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETURN.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I desire to move the following motion:—

"To move for a return showing:—

(1) the number of Inspectors, medical and lay, respectively, employed either by the late Local Government Board of Ireland or by the Local Government Department of the Free State in the years 1914, 1920, and at the present time;

"(2) the salaries paid to such Inspectors, medical and lay, respectively, in the same years and at the present time; and

"the qualifications required of Medical Inspectors in the same years and at the present time."

I understand this is a matter that ordinarily, until this present moment, would have been put forward by way of a question, but it now takes place by way of a motion for a return. It explains itself and requires no support by way of explanation from me. There is one matter I would like to raise in that connection, and it is this—I take it that a return of this sort, to use a time honoured phrase, would be laid on the table of the House. May I suggest it would be available in a more convenient form for Deputies if the return in question were to be printed either for circulation amongst Deputies or else printed in the official debates.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Mr. Burke)

The return asked for in accordance with the present request has been prepared and will be laid on the table when printed. I will take the other matter into consideration.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The report will be made available for Deputies in the reading room. That is the twentieth century meaning of the phrase "Laid on the table."

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Could it be ordered now that it be circulated to Deputies?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Unless the Minister agrees we would have to take that matter up separately.

Mr. BURKE

I will agree to that.

The PRESIDENT

I do not know whether this motion has been seconded. Is it a matter of accommodation? Because I perceive that any comparison between a certain position, say in the years 1914, 1920 and at present, may be used, as such information has been used in the past, not in the interests of truth, and certainly not in the real interests of the country. I would welcome a return showing the position at the time of the signing of the Treaty or at the time of taking over by the Provisional Government, or at the first of April, 1922, comparing the staffs and expenditure then, with the staffs and expenditure now. I say that it does not appear to me that any useful public purpose is served by giving information for such years as 1914 and 1920. It affords opportunities for attacking the administration now on grounds that are not fair and are not just, and in the knowledge of persons making these charges they are neither just nor fair.

I read in a paper last week—I think it was the "Independent"—a statement by a member of the Dáil that this was an extravagant Government and an extravagant State. We were told that the Army in this State cost twice what the Belgian Army cost in 1914 and 1916, and half what the British Army cost in 1914. He might as well just have told us that it was costing three times the amount to run this country than it cost the old Irish Parliament to run it, or four times the amount. He might have said our national debt was greater than it was at the time of the Union. Arguments such as those used by a person who has no knowledge, or an unbalanced knowledge, of his subject certainly reflects no credit on the person who uses the argument, and does not beget any real confidence in the people of the State. In asking for a return, such as Deputy Figgis has asked for here, one should at least give us some reason for the information that is required. Some reason ought to be given as to why Departments of the State should rummage through the archives left by the British Government, and some tangible excuse ought to be given for an attempt to fill the Deputy's library other than merely moving the motion.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is a new arrangement by which a Deputy moves for a return instead of asking a question which involves a very lengthy reply. I ascertained before putting this motion on the Paper that it would not be opposed by the Minister. I therefore took it for granted that it would be an unopposed motion, that the Deputy would simply move it, and that the Minister would promise to make the return, and that would be enough. For that reason, I put it first on the Order Paper after the questions. If it were opposed and became a subject of debate, I would put it down for the present as a motion by a private member, to be discussed in the time allotted to private members' business, pending some better arrangement, suggested by the suitable Committee. I understood the matter was to go through without debate. If it must be debated it must be debated at some other time.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Nov 1923