Vol. 18 No. 10
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar Mhíle Punt chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1927, chun costaisí i dtaobh Longlainne Inis Sionnach.
That a supplementary sum not exceeding One Thousand Pounds be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1927, for expenses in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard.
This vote is required to make good the diminution in the contribution from the Army Vote in respect of services provided for the military on the island. When the estimate was prepared, the inmates of the military hospital numbered about 130, and the estimate was made on the basis of that number. Very shortly afterwards the number was reduced to about 60, and it remained at that figure since. Accordingly, there will be a smaller amount available from the Army Vote than was anticipated. This is really a book-keeping transaction, transferring a sum of £1,000 from the Army Vote to this Vote.
Could the Minister say where the Army Vote shows a payment to Haulbowline dockyard? There is no reference, for instance, to an appropriation-in-aid of the Haulbowline dockyard estimates in March last.
There was an agreement between the two departments concerned that the Army would pay a certain sum in respect of facilities provided for it in Haulbowline. I do not know what Vote it came out of, but that was the arrangement, and, as the number of persons has been reduced, the amount has been reduced in proportion.
We had before us an estimate of £15,200, which was voted for the Haulbowline dockyard. Now it appears that that is being exceeded, because a certain income which was expected to be paid by the Army is not forthcoming, but there was no expectation, so far as the estimates show, that an income was to be credited to the account. There is no appropriation-in-aid in connection with this. While it is, no doubt, purely a book-keeping transaction, I think it would be more satisfactory if we knew that the Haulbowline dockyard account was to be credited with sums from another department.
There is not really an increase in the cost of the upkeep of Haulbowline. What has happened is that a sum of £1,000 which we expected to get from the Army has not been given. It is merely adding to this Vote and deducting from another.
I quite appreciate that, but we were given to understand by this estimate that the total sum to be expended within the year on Haulbowline dockyard was £15,200. No question arose on the face of the estimate that there was a larger sum than that actually expendable. It was to be reduced by a certain income from another account. That did not appear on the estimate, and therefore we were, to that extent, misled.
The amounts paid from the Army Vote were amounts due, say, for a share of the electric light, for maintenance work in connection with buildings, such as the hospital, and for matters of that nature, which were charged to the Army as its share of the maintenance expenses.
This raises the whole question of the form of estimates, and I think that the matter which Deputy Johnson has raised is an important one, especially from the point of view of the Dáil having information before it on the estimates. Obviously what happened is that the estimate that was put forward was not a proper one. The estimate that should have been before us should have shown the total cost of running the dockyard, whereas before the estimate came to us it had been reduced by the amount of money they expected to receive. I maintain that that is an incorrect form in which to put forward estimates because the Dáil, in order to know what it is voting, should, in the first instance, know what the total expenditure on Haulbowline is going to be, so as to be able to check the amount with the ultimate expenditure. If the total amount asked for from the Dáil was less than the amount of estimated expenditure it should be shown in the form of an expected appropriation-in-aid.
I think the Deputy is right.
In any event, I think the military will be leaving the island soon, so that the question is not likely to arise again.
It will always arise, as Haulbowline is one of the places with which we have to deal, and we have to see what our obligations are in regard to it. The question will probably arise in the near future as to what we are to do with it. If the military vacate it and it is left derelict, we will have to consider the position.
A great many efforts have been made to get rid of it, in fact, to get anybody to take it. If anybody would work it they would not be asked for anything.
Possibly a contribution from the Deputy for Cork city would enable us to see a little way ahead in this matter. It is important that we should know whether there is any prospect of the dockyard being used. I understand that it has a great deal of very valuable machinery which could be made productive, and we know that there are many things required in the country for which it might be made useful. The cost of maintenance of the undertaking, if it is not likely to be made use of, is heavy. £16,200 a year is a big sum to pay for whitewashing an elephant. I would like to know whether the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs could give the Dáil any information, which the Minister for Finance evidently cannot, as to the possible use of the dockyard.
I would suggest that, perhaps, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has something up his sleeve in connection with the development of the mercantile marine.
