asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state when he expects to be able to present the accounts of the Electricity Supply Board for the period 1930/31, now 20 months overdue.
Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Supply Board's Accounts.
The question refers to the period 1930/31, but I am unable to identify what information the Deputy requires as the accounts for that period would not be 20 months overdue.
Is the Minister in a position to state approximately when he expects to be able to lay these accounts on the Table?
What accounts?
The accounts for 1930/31.
The accounts for that period would certainly not be 20 months overdue. What set of accounts does the Deputy mean?
I mean all of the accounts—1927/28, 1928/29, 1929/30 and 1930/31.
The Deputy must be aware that some of these accounts have already been laid before the House. When I am asked precisely about accounts I will answer precisely.
Will the Minister indicate when the accounts for 1929/30 will be put before the House?
If the Deputy puts down that question I will answer it in due course.
So the Minister is prepared to take advantage of a typographical error?
I would like to point out to the Deputy that even the accounts for 1929/30 are not 20 months overdue. The Deputy obviously is going on the impossible assumption that accounts are ready for presentation the day after the financial year has ended.
Does the Minister not agree that they are at least ten months overdue?
I am not going to argue what accounts are overdue or how long overdue some years' accounts may be.
The Minister might at least be good enough to save Deputies putting down additional questions by indicating when he hopes to be able to present a particular year's accounts and permit time for discussion of the accounts already presented to the House.
The Deputy has not definitely made up his mind as to the accounts he really means. A year and a half ago I told the Deputy that a day for the discussion of accounts can always be got by making an approach through the usual channel.
I made an approach last week by way of a question to the President. Would not that be considered a proper method of approach?
It might be considered a proper method of approach, but the subject was improperly raised. The Deputy now indicates that he wants to discuss accounts that have been in the hands of members of the Dáil for at least eighteen months. The mere fact that eighteen months have elapsed since the accounts were circulated is surely sufficient indication that the House does not want to discuss them.
The fact that there has not been a discussion on the 1929/30 accounts is certainly not the fault of the House. No opportunity has been given for discussion. As regards the 1930/31 accounts, if a period of eighteen months elapses before they are submitted for discussion, I hope the Minister will not take that as an indication that Deputies are not anxious to have them considered.
I never have taken it in that light, but I must take into consideration the time in which the accounts have been in the hands of Deputies and no question was raised upon them. That is a totally different question from the question of delay in presenting them.
Does the Minister suggest that because he is not asked in what he deems to be an appropriate manner, he is entitled to refuse a discussion?
I could not refuse a discussion that was never asked. The mere fact that a discussion was not asked is surely proof that it was not required.
One certainly must agree that the Minister's attitude is one of evasion, if nothing else.