Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 25 Feb 1927

Vol. 18 No. 10

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 2—OIREACHTAS

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar dheich bpúint chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Oireachtais.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding ten pounds be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Oireachtas.

A token sum of £10 is taken because, as Deputies are aware, it is customary to include in the Oireachtas Vote sufficient to pay the allowances of all Deputies elected. We do not make any deduction in anticipation of people continuing to remain out of the Oireachtas, so that it is only necessary to take a token Vote. The sum actually required under the sub-head is £600. In 1925-26 a supplementary estimate of £300 was granted towards the expenditure of the Oireachtas restaurant. In Part 3 of the Estimates it was described as a final contribution, but I put that down as an optimistic view, and when the estimate was before the Dáil I said it would be probably necessary to take further sums. When the restaurant was set up in 1922-23 there was a grant-in-aid of £250, and for a very considerable time that £250 remained unexhausted, because the Dáil sat continuously and the restaurant consequently, during certain periods, was able to make profits, which carried it over the slacker period. About eighteen months or so ago the sittings began to be less prolonged, and during the past year have been still less frequent, and that has resulted in greater losses being incurred by the restaurant, so that to enable the Joint Committee controlling it to pay its debts and carry on, a further sum of £600 is necessary.

The Department of Finance requested the Committee to go into the working of the restaurant to see what could be done either to make it pay its way or reduce the losses that were being incurred. I believe the Committee did examine the matter to some extent, and they have been urged to go further into it. Of course it must be recognised that if we have the sort of sittings that we have had there are bound to be losses. If the Dáil sits only for a day or two in the week, it is impossible for the restaurant to pay its way, and I think there is no alternative to providing the money. I think that for the conduct of the business of the House when it is sitting it is necessary to have the restaurant, and that it would not be possible to ask members to go outside the precincts of the House for meals. It may be that after the general election the number of Deputies attending will be larger, and perhaps the attendance will be more regular, so that there may be a chance of the restaurant paying its way.

Mr. GOOD

What is the actual loss on the restaurant? The Minister said that a contribution of £250 was originally given. Now a further contribution of £600 is necessary. There is no fixed period attaching to this payment, and I should like to know what the annual loss is on the restaurant. As far as one can judge of a restaurant of that character, I am not satisfied that there should be a loss on it.

Mr. BLYTHE

I could not tell the Deputy what the annual loss was; it varied. I think in the first year there was no loss, or very little, because the Dáil sat regularly for a long period. In the year we are in now the loss must be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the £600 required.

Mr. GOOD

For one year?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes. It depends upon the way the Dáil sits. If you have the Dáil meeting sometimes once a week or one or two days a week the loss will pile up.

Mr. HEWAT

This raises a rather serious matter. The Minister comes along with a token vote for £10, while the actual amount we are dealing with is £600. I think that supplementary estimate is misleading from the public point of view. The position is that the country is called upon to pay in the neighbourhood of a thousand pounds this year towards the upkeep of the restaurant.

Mr. JOHNSON

That is not correct.

Mr. HEWAT

There is this £600 plus what has been already granted.

Mr. BLYTHE

Not this year—in 1925.

Mr. HEWAT

I see. At all events, the Minister may be right in saying he cannot anticipate what the restaurant is going to do, but I think if a very substantial loss is to be visualised as taking place in the future, we would be entitled to consider the whole question of the restaurant and whether it is worth the money which it is going to cost the Dáil.

Mr. JOHNSON

I realise quite clearly it is necessary to take into account the cost of this restaurant. I want to make it clear the loss does not arise because Deputies get special service or special terms for what they consume. It is not a loss because of any special benefit to Deputies as Deputies. It is a loss because it is deemed to be necessary for the proper conduct of parliamentary business—I am speaking now of the restaurant. I think it is the experience of every parliament in the world that there must be attached to that parliament a place where people can get food, and if we have to have such a place, and I think we must have, we have to face the possibility of a loss unless you can so regularise the meetings of the House and the habits of members, that the service of the establishment can be adjusted to the regularity of the requirements. But when we are bound, as we are, to have a service to meet regular meetings, and that by the accident of Parliamentary business regular meetings do not take place, you cannot have a continuous relay of temporaries to deal with this kind of service, and I think this is one of the normal charges that must be attached for the purpose of transacting the business of the House.

Mr. HEWAT

Could you not contract the business out?

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not think you could contract the business out at this price. You could contract the business out by giving a bounty to the contractor. However, that is a matter I am sure the Committee, of which I am not a member, can take into account, but I can see no likelihood of that being a solution of the problem. The only way whereby I can see the loss could be avoided would be to make it a public restaurant—and that would be undesirable—or to ensure that the House would sit regularly at stated times and that there should be regular attendance of members on those benches as well as on other benches, and that there should be something like constant demand upon the restaurant.

Mr. HEWAT

Would Deputy Johnson advocate that course?

Mr. JOHNSON

I do, and I try to practise it. I endeavoured to secure that the business of the House should be seen ahead with some amount of foresight, and that there should be some regularity. But it is impossible. I look upon the matter from the point of view of a private Deputy, and I tried to examine it from the point of view of economy, and I can see no possibility of the restaurant meeting the requirements of a commercial undertaking unless you can ensure something like a regular business.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The problem of the restaurant question could not be solved, I may say, even if the House met at regular intervals, unless the House met all the year round for the purpose of supplying people to the restaurant, which certainly would be a much more expensive process than a subsidy to the restaurant. At any rate, I think Deputies will agree that it is not possible to allow the public, generally, into the Oireachtas restaurant. That being so, there is no remedy except this one, other than shutting down the restaurant which would be very serious for some of us, because our fast would be extremely long.

Question put and agreed to.