Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 May 1930

Vol. 34 No. 13

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 22—Stationery and Printing.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £66,271 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1931, chun costais soláthair Pháipéarachais, Clódóireachta, Páipéir, Greamuíochta agus Leabhra Clóbhuailte i gcóir na Seirbhíse Puiblí; chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an tSoláthair d'íoc; agus chun Ilsheirbhísí Ilghnéitheacha maraon le Tuairiscí Díospóireachtaí an Oireachtais.

That a sum not exceeding £66,271 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, 1931, for the expense of providing Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for Sundry Miscellaneous Services including Reports of Oireachtas Debates.

Mr. Bourke

I have referred in previous years to the reductions in the Estimates which it had been found possible to effect in this service, and, as will be seen, it has been considered practicable to further reduce the amount required. Although the decrease in the gross Estimate is approximately £18,000, the bulk of it represents reduced commitments in respect of charges under sub-head H for printing the registers of electors, etc., throughout the country, and as four-sevenths of this cost is repaid to the Stationery Office and credited to Appropriations-in-Aid, only a comparatively small saving in the net Estimate is secured. I might add here that the decrease in sub-head H is due to the fact that for the coming year, and the three following years, the Stationery Office and local authorities would secure the benefit of reprint rates on the registers set up under five yearly contracts in 1929-30.

Savings on sub-head J—that is, paper—amounting to £1,570, are due partly to the very favourable prices at which paper is now purchased and partly to a decline in the volume of paper required for public services. Under sub-heads F and G— that is, Oireachtas Printing, etc.— we have a reduction of £1,100. This is partly the result of economies which have been effected in the cost of printing and binding of Oireachtas debates, and partly it is due to reduced provision for meeting the charges which should arise on reprinting and binding into volume form the statutory rules and orders issued since 1922. The increases in sub-head A are mainly due to increments of salaries and wages. Coming to sub-head B, I might inform Deputies that the addition here is to provide for the purchase of a new van in replacement of one now almost six years in use, whose further repair is deemed to be uneconomical.

Under sub-head GG provision has been made for the purpose of reprinting for advanced students and for University use certain text-books not now available in late, middle and early modern Irish. A scheme will be drawn up with a view to selection of the most suitable books for the purpose. Under sub-head HH the scheme for which £900 was provided in the Estimates for last year has been extended in scope. The original intention was to revive certain weekly publications in Irish which, owing to financial difficulties, had ceased publication, and to assist others where it was shown, following investigation, that they were being carried on at a loss or were unable to establish themselves without assistance. Two publications have, as a result, been revived and one other has been assisted to keep going and enlarge its pages. A fourth, a quarterly publication, is being published for the first time with the assistance given, and two other cases, one a revival of a children's newspaper, are under consideration. The assistance takes the form of a grant, the extent of which is decided by a committee, towards the expenses of printing. This grant is paid by the Stationery Office on production of the printer's account and the voucher copies of the newspapers.

Part of the amount shown in this sub-head will, it is proposed, be used in the coming year for the payment to newspapers in the Gaeltacht and elsewhere for articles of local interest and reports of proceedings in Irish. The object in view is to promote the extension of printing in the Irish language in areas where Irish is largely the speech of the people. Coming to sub-head L, dealing with binding, I would point out that the actual expenditure in the year ending 31st March last, on this sub-head, is approximately £8,300, or £300 in excess of the amount voted, and it is hoped that the estimated figure of £8,570 will be found sufficient to meet the binding charges falling in the present year. Notwithstanding a reduction in the number of the more expensive bindings, the general binding charges tend to increase. This increase is due to the growth of new departments and the added activities of existing departments.

The Stationery Office Estimates as a whole do not call for any very detailed analysis. There has been, notwithstanding the progressive decline in expenditure, a considerable increase in printing and stationery services, partly arising out of additions to the services borne on the Stationery Office Vote and partly to the greater activities of existing services. The deliberations of the Oireachtas in the past three years have resulted in the passing into law of approximately 120 Acts, and as these have included such important instruments as the Industrial and Commercial Property (Protection) Act, the Land Act of 1927, the Betting Act, the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act, the Barrow Drainage Act, and the Creamery Act, it will be evident that the additions to the Stationery Office services have been considerable. A heavy printing programme is also proposed by the Ancient MSS. Commission for completion in the coming year.

In view of the fact that I am unable to point to any service of which the Stationery Office has been relieved in the same period, except the College of Science, which has passed to the National University, it is very satisfactory to note that considerable reductions have been effected with the co-operation of Departments in the matter of official requirements. These reductions have been not alone in the volume of stores supplies but also in the form and style of printing and binding. There have also been savings in production costs largely due to closer competition for Stationery Office purchases, the stencilling by the Stationery Office staff in lieu of printing of important documents such as minutes of evidence taken before Commissions, always a costly printing work, and of documents for internal use, of which limited quantities are needed. The general effect of these savings has been to more than neutralise the cost of additional services cast on the Stationery Office.

No statement from this Department would be complete that overlooked the important services carried out by it on a repayment basis. The cost of printing, binding and special supplies for such new services as the Currency Commission, the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Electricity Supply Board; the printing, binding and publication of text-books under Vote 47, the publications in Irish, under Vote 49 and of the older repaying services, including payment for the insertion of all Government advertisements in the Press, it is estimated will exceed £20,000 in the coming year. To this amount should be added the Estimate of £2,250 referred to in the Appropriations-in-Aid, being the value of stock issues to repaying Departments. For these services the Stationery Office, it is estimated, will receive £1,600 as Appropriations-in-Aid as commission for Staff charges.

I understand that this is the Department that deals with the question of the allocation of Government advertisements to newspapers throughout the country. On last year's Estimate I drew the attention of the House to the boycott of a certain newspaper, as far as Government advertisements were concerned, because editorially it did not see eye to eye with the policy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. The paper had the courage to criticise the Minister for Finance, with the result that no Government advertisement is given to that newspaper. I want to make it clear that I am not here to make a plea on behalf of that newspaper in order to get Government advertisements for it. That paper is in the position that it can carry on very successfully without Government advertisements. I want to direct the attention of the House to the corrupt practice, if I might say so, that has been adopted, not by the Parliamentary Secretary, but by the Minister for Finance in regard to this question of Government advertising.

When I raised the matter in the House last year the Minister informed me that it would in future be the policy of the Government not to advertise in newspapers which were edited and printed outside the Saorstát. During the past year the Government advertisements have appeared in at least two Belfast papers, notwithstanding that promise made by the Minister. Six or eight months ago a dwelling in Buncrana, Co. Donegal, owned or controlled by the Board of Works, became vacant. Instead of advertising it in the newspaper which circulates extensively in that district the Government inserted the advertisement of the letting in two Belfast newspapers. So much for the statement made, or the face-saving excuse put up by the Minister for Finance in regard to the boycott of the newspaper which I have mentioned. No doubt the Minister's policy is to withhold Government advertisements from newspapers whose editors refuse to shout through Cumann na nGaedheal megaphones. I say it is tantamount to using the taxpayers' money for Party purposes in order to bolster up the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. These tactics should not be tolerated by this House. Government advertisements should not be looked upon as the gift of any Government, no matter what Party is in power. Because a newspaper has the courage of its convictions to state things clearly and distinctly, and even if it should be criticising the Minister for Finance, it is not fair that it should be treated in the manner I have indicated. This House should not silently acquiesce in such a policy. For that reason, I intend to vote against this Estimate. I will protest in that way against the mean, petty policy enunciated by the Minister for Finance in trying to victimise his political opponents through the medium of Government funds.

Mr. Bourke

What the Deputy has said is all very interesting and entertaining, but it is completely out of order, because it has absolutely nothing to do with this Vote. The Stationery Office has nothing to say with regard to the policy of deciding what papers should be advertised in; it merely acts as an agent.

I am quite well aware that the Department allocates the advertisements to various newspapers. I am not blaming the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Bourke

But this matter is really out of order on this Vote.

The Parliamentary Secretary is merely following a course dictated by the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Bourke

The Stationery Office has nothing to do with deciding in what papers the advertisements should be inserted. We are told to advertise in certain papers, and that is all we know about it. The matter raised does not come under this heading at all. The Stationery Office does work for the various Departments, and it is just acting as an agent.

Is the cost of the advertisement charged against the Vote?

Mr. Bourke

We get recouped afterwards from the various Departments.

We have every sympathy with Deputy Cassidy in his protest against the abuse which he has brought to the notice of the House. I suggest to him that that protest might more properly be registered on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance. While we are not prepared to divide on this Vote, at the same time, if we do not divide, we would not like to be taken as at all countenancing the policy of discrimination of which, apparently, the Department has unwillingly been the agent or instrument.

Mr. Bourke

It is necessary for me to say that I disagree with the Deputy on that point. I have suggested that it is not in order to discuss this matter on this Vote.

Do I take it then that the Parliamentary Secretary would willingly be the agent of the discrimination of which Deputy Cassidy has complained?

That does not arise.

Mr. Bourke

It is begging the question altogether.

In view of the fact that this matter was raised previously on the Vote of the Minister for Finance, I think it would be better if Deputy Cassidy reserved his statement until that Vote is reached.

It was raised before on the Stationery Office Vote.

And it was also raised on the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance. I would ask the Deputy to reserve his statement for that occasion. The point is that the matter has not been adequately discussed. The Parliamentary Secretary disclaims responsibility for it, and the Minister who is responsible for the policy is not here to answer to the House. Until we have heard the Minister on this matter it would be unsatisfactory to indicate our attitude in the Division Lobby.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share