Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Mar 1930

Vol. 33 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 71—Repayments to Contingency Fund.

The President

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £1,727 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Roimhíocanna Ilghnéitheacha áirithe d'aisíoc leis an gCiste Teangmhais.

That a sum not exceeding £1,727 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Repayment to the Contingency Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.

The various items making up the certain miscellaneous advances have been circulated. There is no final payment charged against the Fund, and the Fund is restored to its original figure, £20,000, each year either by means of the repayments to the Contingency Fund Vote or by repayment from the ordinary Service Votes of advances made to them. The purpose of the Fund is to defray urgent or unforseen expenditure which is not covered by ordinary Votes and for which it may be impracticable to seek the immediate approval of the Dáil. If there is any point arising out of any of the payments I will be glad to give some information.

Mr. Lemass

Can we get any information concerning some of the items mentioned in the Estimate? We are particularly interested in the advance to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the purposes of research and also the renewal fees on patents in respect of the De Vecchis process for the desiccation of sugar beet. We would like to know for what particular purpose the advance was given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the first case, and for what reason were renewal fees paid in the second case. What is the process for and by whom has it been untilised?

Mr. McGilligan

The item of £300 is an advance to myself for the purposes of research in connection with the Drumm Battery. The next item is an item of £12 and is renewal fees on patents in respect of the De Vecchis process for the desiccation of sugar beet. It so happened that on October 1925 a certain company presented to the British Nation certain patents for the use of a particular process for the treating of sugar beet and drawing sugar therefrom. More recently we were offered that, if we took up the question of renewing fees. The matter was then urgent and the payment of £12 is for the renewal fees in connection with the patents. I cannot say that the possession of this patent throws out any prospect of gain at the moment but it was considered wiser to accept the patent. It was a hurried payment made in order to prevent the lapse of this patent.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Minister prepared to give the House any information concerning the progress made in connection with the Drumm Battery?

Mr. McGilligan

I prefer not to speak of it.

Mr. Lemass

Are we to take it that this advance of £300 is in addition to the amount already paid?

Mr. McGilligan

Certainly.

Mr. Esmonde

I am very glad that the Minister has made these two special ex-gratia payments to the parents of Detective Officer Tadhg O'Sullivan and to Mr. John White. These injuries were incurred while these officers were doing their duty to the State. With regard to the last item for £136 6s. to cover expenditure incurred by the British Vice-Consul at Suez in respect of the embalming and transport of the body of the person who died there, I wonder would the Minister for External Affairs tell us whether there has been any agreement between this State and the British Government with regard to items of this character and also with regard to the question which sometimes arises on the Estimates with regard to the return of distressed citizens of the Saorstát to this country. This is a very unusual case and I am sure a case of the kind will not occur for some time again. Perhaps the Minister has arrived at some agreement with the British Government to settle our liabilities under this heading.

Mr. McGilligan

This last item is a very unusual and very lamentable sort of case. The British Vice-Consul at Suez incurred some expense in connection with the embalming and transport of the body of the person named. It was on receipt of a wire from that individual's mother guaranteeing that the expenses would be paid. Acting on that guarantee, the Vice-Consul personally guaranteed the payment of the cost of embalming the body, and also the cost of shipping expenses. It is an unusual item. It is not a thing that would ordinarily occur or come within the duties of a Vice-Consul anywhere. The Vice-Consul showed his appreciation of that fact by wiring whether his expenses would be met. A guarantee was given, and that guarantee is not now being met. We propose, in order to wipe out this rather undesirable transaction, to pay. What remains to be done afterwards will have to be seen. We have no arrangement with any Government with regard to matters of this kind. It is a matter which we would consider if the British Consul were around and if there were no representatives of ours that he would arrange. The circumstances being so extraordinary, the Vice-Consul, in this particular case, before rendering aid, took the precaution of getting a guarantee, and that guarantee is not now being met.

Mr. Esmonde

No British Consul acting as our agent has any power to incur any expenditure on our behalf. Is that so?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes. We might not have brought in this Vote at all, but when a gentleman found himself responsible personally for this payment, we believed that the State should not see him, under the circumstances, made liable for these expenses. The only real remedy open to him at law was to act on his guarantee and try to enforce this in a court of law, but the expenses of bringing witnesses would, of course, be prohibitive.

Vote agreed to.