Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Feb 1929

Vol. 28 No. 2

Public Business. - Vote 52—Agriculture.

Mr. Blythe

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £303,487 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tailte agus Talmhaíochta agus seirbhisí áirithe atá fé riara na hOifige sin, maraon le hIldeontaisí i gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £303,487 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Lands and Agriculture and of certain services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

I am moving this out of its order if the House has no objection.

Mr. MacEntee

I was going to suggest that in view of the absence of Deputy Ryan, it would be better that this Vote should be deferred. Unfortunately Deputy Ryan is not present.

Mr. Hogan

I do not mind, but I make this point. This is an impressive Estimate. It is under subhead M. 7, "the Purchase of Creameries, etc; Re-voted." I do not think that there is any opposition in the Dáil at the moment to the purchase of the Condensed Milk Company and I think I can say quite fairly that no other question has been debated so fully as this particular question. The original Estimate was debated on three or four days by every member in the House and it was debated afterwards five or six times on supplementaries. The general principle has been agreed to. The details, if you like, have not been agreed to but both the general principle and the details that make up this Estimate have been debated and decided upon.

Mr. Fahy

Might I ask the Minister does not this Estimate arise out of legislation passed subsequent to the original Estimate?

Mr. Hogan

There was a sum of £500,000 originally voted for the purchase of the Condensed Milk Company. All that money was not spent in 1926-27, the year in which it was voted. Only £303,000 out of the £500,000 was spent in the year in which it was voted. The Company had to be liquidated and its assets transferred. We proceeded to spend the balance of the Estimate on the following year, and we expended more of it in the year 1928-29. We were hoping to spend more of it but this matter came before the Public Accounts Committee and as a matter of procedure, they decided that it was not strictly correct to spend this money which was voted in 1926-27. It was suggested by the Committee that the money that remained unspent in 1926-27 should be re-voted. That is why we are applying for this Vote of £303,487. It is really a question of financial procedure, book-keeping if you like. It has been discussed with regard to its principles and details already. The principle has been discussed by all parties in the House and has been agreed on. The details have not, but the details and the general principle have been discussed time and time again. I am not asking for any sum of money for anything that is new either in principle or in detail.

Mr. MacEntee

Do I understand the Minister correctly that out of the £500,000 of the original Estimate, a sum of £197,000 has been spent?

Mr. Hogan

All of the £500,000 has been spent with the exception of a sum of £40,000. But only a small amount of the money was spent in the year in which it was voted. The balance was spent in 1927-28 and some of it was spent this year. It was mentioned at the Public Accounts Committee that in so far as the money voted was not spent in the year in which it was voted it should be returned to the Exchequer and re-voted.

Mr. MacEntee

It means in effect that this Estimate will be retrospective?

Mr. Hogan

Yes, certainly.

Mr. Briscoe

There is no question in this business of voting new money. Might I ask the Minister if he is prepared to state that he is in agreement with the Public Accounts Committee with regard to the principle of surrendering to the Exchequer at the end of the year any unspent money? The purpose, as far as I was concerned, and the underlying motive in having that sent back, was that the Committee felt that moneys voted in a year and not fully spent should be returned to the Exchequer and revoted the following year. If the Minister is prepared to state that he is in agreement with that principle, I will be satisfied.

Mr. Hogan

I agree that would have been a better procedure, and it is the procedure that should be followed. While I agree on that, I will put this point: where a big sum of money is given for a purpose which is not exactly to cover the services a Government Department usually carries out, it has to be spent as a commercial proposition. It might have been better if it took the form of a grant-in-aid with a note to the effect that this money was not to be surrendered. That could be brought before the House, and the grant-in-aid could be discussed from the point of view that the Minister was asking for money which was not to be surrendered. It is difficult in a matter of buying and selling when you have not definitely before your mind the amount of money at your disposal. You are in some difficulty if you agree with a vendor to give him £X and then you are not absolutely sure that you have that money when the actual time for buying comes. I agree that the point is only one of detail, because once the House has approved the general principle, Deputies are most unlikely to deny the money to carry out the details of the scheme.

Mr. Maguire

Does portion of the Estimate include money for technical work and for general schemes throughout the country?

Mr. Hogan

There is a sum for special agricultural schemes in congested districts and the additional estimate is £1,885. The original estimate was £36,975. There was, in fact £38,860 spent with the consent of the Minister for Finance. The difference was found by using savings in another sub-head. The transaction came before the Public Accounts Committee, and they were of opinion that the amount should have been revoted—that we should vote a supplementary estimate. I quite agree. The appropriations-in-aid and the savings made under other sub-heads equal the amounts set out under sub-head I and sub-head M.6. If the Deputy adds £9,428 opposite appropriations-in-aid, and also £14,157, savings on other sub-heads, and equally if he adds £21,700 opposite sub-head M.6 and £1,885 opposite sub-head I, he will get the figure £23,585.

Mr. MacEntee

I presume the whole of the Vote under sub-head M 7 will not be spent this year, and it may reappear in next year's Estimates?

Mr. Hogan

I should say a small amount of it will.

Mr. MacEntee

If there are any details that we may wish to raise, I dare say they can be brought up at a later stage.

Mr. Hogan

I think it is most unlikely that the whole of the Vote will be spent. There is £30,000 or £40,000 held up pending an arbitration. Whether that arbitration will be completed, I doubt very much. I do not think it will; in fact I am almost certain it will not. I am sure Deputies will have an opportunity in the Estimates next year of reviewing the whole matter.

Mr. MacEntee

In view of the Minister's statement, we are quite prepared to agree to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Cassidy

This is a matter which should be given very special consideration, more especially by Deputies representing such areas as Donegal, Mayo or Galway. In this Supplementary Estimate we are asked to re-vote a sum of £303,487. The most of that money is being expended on the purchase of creameries. Those creameries are being purchased in counties where there is fertile land. The taxpayers all over the twenty-six counties are asked to subscribe their quota towards the amount of purchase money. The taxpayers in Donegal, Mayo and Galway are not getting much advantage out of this scheme. It is true that under the Estimate there is an additional sum of £1,885 being devoted to schemes in the congested districts. I suggest to the Minister, in view of the poverty existing in those districts, that the figure asked for is not near enough, especially when we take into consideration the amount to be expended on the purchase of creameries elsewhere, in counties where they are much better off than we are in the congested areas.

Mr. Hogan

I would like to point out to the Deputy that I am not asking for any money. I am asking for sanction for money that has been already spent. I mentioned a sum of £500,000. Three-fourths of that comes back under Appropriations-in-Aid. When the creameries are re-sold 75 per cent. of it will come back. When it is analysed the sum is not nearly as big as it might appear.

An Ceann Comhairle

What is strictly relevant under this Estimate arises on the point that Deputy Briscoe made.

Mr. Briscoe

I am quite satisfied, and, I am sure, so are other members of the House, as long as the Minister has agreed with the principle I have already mentioned. I expect we will have an opportunity on the Committee of Public Accounts of discussing these transactions, apart from the aspect placed upon them here arising out of the sum re-voted.

Mr. Hogan

I understand so.

Question put and agreed to.