Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Jul 1933

Vol. 48 No. 16

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 32—Stationery and Printing.

Mr. MacEntee

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £63,202 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, 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 Tuairiseí Díospóireachtaí an Oireachtais agus Deontas-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £63,202 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, 1934, 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 and a Grant-in-Aid.

General Mulcahy

There is a point under sub-head F 4 and sub-head G that I should like to ask the Minister with regard to. F 4 is for editing and printing of certain Irish texts. The amount of the estimate last year was £575, and this year it is £375. Sub-head G is for grants to newspapers and periodicals published in the Irish language. Last year the estimate was £1,000, and this year it is £560. I should like to ask the Minister whether the estimates last year indicate the amounts that were in fact spent, in which case the amounts that are provided for this year under those two headings would be about one-third less. I should like to know whether that is a matter of economising under those sub-heads or not. If, however, the Minister would tell us that the amounts estimated last year were not spent, perhaps he would have some remarks to offer as to whether a difficulty has been found in getting Irish newspapers to co-operate in the scheme of making use of the Irish language for the publication of news.

Mr. Dillon

I take it, sir that under this Vote the publication of Irish texts and the translation of classics into Irish fall for consideration. In that connection I should like the Minister to consider the desirability of appointing a small committee of scholars to advise the Department as to whether the moneys spent in this connection are being spent to the best advantage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy referring now to the translation of the classics from other languages?

Mr. Dillon

I am referring to what I think is popularly known as the Gúm.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think that comes under the Department of Education.

Mr. Dillon

I gather from what Deputy Mulcahy has mentioned here that there does come under this Vote a charge for the publication.

General Mulcahy

For the printing of certain texts that are out of print, or difficult of access.

Mr. MacEntee

It seems to me that the only thing that could be criticised in this Vote is the cost of printing, as to whether the money provided would enable the books to be printed sufficiently effectively to induce people to purchase them. I do not think the policy of printing books in Irish, or the printing of classics or their translation into Irish, would arise.

Mr. Dillon

I do not by any means wish to go outside the ambit of the Vote, but under sub-head F. 4 we have editing, printing, paper and binding for certain Irish texts. There is a sum for editing; there is a sum for printing; and there is a sum for the paper and binding. This may refer to the reprinting of texts which would not ordinarily be available, or which had gone out of print; it might not include translations. I will, however, venture to say this much, that I think a situation is arising in which there is sufficient difference of opinion as to the value of those texts in their present form to justify the Minister in taking counsel with his colleagues to find out if it would be advisable to invite a small committee of responsible scholars to make a report of their views as to the value of the texts as they appear. Frankly, I am referring to the texts that are published in the Gúm, that is readable books in the Irish language. This may only refer to scholars' texts that have gone out of print. My objection, of course, does not really apply to those. I am referring to the translations. I think there is scope there for the Minister to seek information.

As the printing of the Official Reports comes under sub-head F. 1 of this Vote I should be glad to know if the Department has had time to consider the recommendation made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges that the Official Reports should be made available to Deputies on the following day in the paper bound volume, rather than in the weekly bound volumes as at present. I feel that the Reports would be much more valuable to us if we could get them the morning after the debate. It frequently happens that a Minister makes a long statement on some important matter, which falls for debate on the following day, and though the Press reports are often excellent they are not sufficiently detailed to make the foundation of a debate in this House. When the reports reach us under the present system the debate is frequently long over, and though they are useful for the Committee Stage they would be very much more useful if they were available on the following morning.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I should just like to say a word in support of what Deputy Dillon said with reference to the circulation of the reports of the debates here. The Minister will recollect that there was a practice here at one time that the reports came out immediately, and that subsequently a revised edition—corrected, very often—was put into the printed volumes. Now, I am quite aware that, as an experiment and as a means towards economy, that system was changed to the present one. My recollection is that it was a saving in expenditure of only a very few hundred pounds indeed, and I myself think that the extra couple of hundred pounds, or whatever it was, would be very well expended if we did get, as we used to do, a first print, so to speak, of the reports, and subsequently got the bound volume at the end of a period, with the corrected, if necessary, reports in it. I would ask the Minister to consider, if it is not very expensive, going back to the original practice.

In connection with another matter which was mentioned here, the editing, printing, paper and binding for certain Irish texts, there is a point which rather strikes me. It is only a very trifling sum indeed, £15, but if these are mere reprints of texts which have gone out of print, with no question of revising or improving the texts, one hardly sees what editing is required at all. However, it is only a sum of £15, and possibly not worth discussing.

Mr. MacEntee

On the question raised by Deputy Mulcahy, the amount provided in the Estimates represents fairly closely the actual expenditure which took place under sub-heads F. 4 and G. There did not seem to be any point in including in the Estimate a figure the expenditure of which was never likely to be actually made.

On the question of the daily issue of the reports I do know that the Department of Finance some time ago refused to sanction the additional expenditure incurred, which I may say would not be, all things taken into consideration, an insignificant sum. It would involve an expenditure of something over £1,100 per annum, or approximately £7 per Deputy, to provide this service. I think the Department was perfectly justified in doing that because, after all, for four years now it has not been the custom to supply these daily reports. If the situation warranted a discontinuance of that service three or four years ago, I do not think we would be justified in restoring it now, particularly as, I may remind the House, there is continually held up to us the goal of two million pounds to which we are aspiring and, while £1,100 might appear an insignificant sum in this connection, we have to remember the old Scottish saying that many a mickle makes a muckle.

Mr. Dillon

In comparison with the six million pounds increase in taxation, it is very small.

General Mulcahy

I would suggest to the Minister that at a time when the Dáil is sitting on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays and when proposals involving a very considerable amount of expenditure are being placed before the House, even not very directly, at a time when statements made by Ministers are certainly not very clear as to where their proposals are leading, it might help the Minister to go somewhere along the road to saving, not the particular £2,000,000 which was contemplated long ago, but some £2,000,000, if we were able to have in our hands the Second Reading statements even in time for the Committee Stage, because it so happens at present that if a matter is discussed here on a Tuesday in dealing with the Committee Stage on the following Tuesday the House has not the benefit of having in its hands a report of the discussion that took place on the Second Reading. The Minister might again reconsider the question of making the Dáil debates more accessible to us. The fact is that the debate which takes place on a Tuesday does not reach the Deputies until the following Wednesday week and that means simply that our speeches are being made available for posterity——

Mr. MacEntee

I hope posterity will not judge us on them.

General Mulcahy

——or that the elaborate form in which they are printed and carried out is for posterity but they make very little contribution in helping us to discharge the day to day discussion of things here in this House.

Mr. Dillon

I would just like to mention again one matter to which the Minister did not refer when speaking on the Vote. I suggest that I spoke with considerable moderation. If the Minister had been studying the comments of certain distinguished contributors to the Irish language movement he would realise that there is very widespread dissatisfaction with the text-books which have been published under this head. I do not now want to repeat the violent language that has been used in reference to them. All I am submitting is that in the interest of the language there should be some authoritative committee set up and not have two distinguished contributors—I mention no names—cutting sticks for each other about these texts. I would be glad if the Minister would reconsider the setting up of this committee.

Mr. MacEntee

The reason I did not refer to it was that I hoped we would have a discussion on it before the Estimates concluded. The matter does not properly arise under this Vote. I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister for Education to what Deputy Dillon has referred to and I will suggest to him whether something should not be done in the matter of the activities of that organisation and the manner in which it is carrying out its duties.

Vote put and agreed to.