Vol. 48 No. 17
I beg to move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £2,761 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 Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an tSaor-Chíosa.
That a sum not exceeding £2,761 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 Salaries and Expenses of the Quit Rent Office.
Will the Minister tell us the amount of quit rents collected for this £4,000 odd? We will then be able to see how the percentage works out.
As the Deputy must be aware, the collection of quit rents is not the only function of this office. It happens to be the main current function of the office. The total rental comes to about £8,000.
Then it costs over £4,000 to collect about £8,000, and we call that economy!
No. I pointed out that that is not the main function of the office. It might be said to be the main function, but almost equally important is the fact that the office is utilised where sales are made through the Land Commission. Every case of a sale made through the Land Commission has to be made through the Quit Rent Office.
Investigation of title may be made to ascertain the total of all quit rents and reversions. These are laborious matters and have to be performed with the greatest care because quit rents, as well as all other charges on the land, have to be extinguished in their progress through the Land Commission.
I agree these operations and functions of the office are important, but I cannot agree with the major portion of the work of this office which costs so much. This Estimate comes up year by year and always practically for the same amount, notwithstanding the fact that the quit rents are a reducing sum. In order to justify the retention of this department we are told that portion of its work is inquiry into matters referred to it by the Land Commission. It appears to me that examination of that character could equally well be done by the Land Commission itself, without reference to this Department. I would like some justification from the Minister for the continuance of this Department further than what we have heard this year and on previous occasions. The sum of £4,000 for collecting £8,000 a year is, I think the House will agree, an excessive amount.
Will the Minister deny that by spending an extra £1,000 on the Land Commission office this work could be perfectly well done by the Land Commission?
I am not in a position to accept the statement that for the expenditure of an additional £1,000 the work might be equally well done by the Land Commission. I am not at all sure that the Land Commission could at present undertake such work.
Is not this one of the estimates that the Fianna Fáil Party went through very carefully before the 1932 election?
Of course, but I am not prepared to say that for the expenditure of £1,000 what the Deputy suggests could be done. I am sure that if we provided a certain sum of money to operate these functions, the collection of quit rents and so on, it could be done, but this is not the only function of that office. They have the maintaining of Crown property transferred to Saorstát by Article 11 of the Constitution, and, in addition, the roads, paths and shores to inland lakes and other rights of property. The importance of the office is growing and references to it arising out of legal proceedings are continually increasing.
Is this the office that goes round collecting, in addition to tithe rent charges, bits of foreshore that happen to be knocking about?
One of the superintendents receives an allowance from the Department of Industry and Commerce for issuing advice to the marine branch of that Department in connection with the administration of the foreshore. He may be the officer to whom Deputy Costello refers.
This has nearly always been the attitude adopted on previous occasions in connection with this Vote. It comes up here again just as if no useful purpose was served by debates on these estimates. I do not want to press the Minister unduly. I am sure he is as anxious as I am that economies should be effected but here is an outstanding case where economies could be effected. It is equally difficult to get the present Minister to move in the matter as it was his predecessor. They all talk about economy when in opposition but when they are in a position to effect economies I do not find them so interested in economy. I do not want to blame the present Minister unduly. I am quite satisfied, from information that I have about this Department, that the duty it discharges could be equally well discharged by a couple or one additional official on the staff of the Land Commission. The work they do is an off-shoot of the work of the Land Commission and I am satisfied it could be equally well done by that Department with the assistance of a couple of officials. I hope, having said so much on this occasion, that it will not be necessary to press this matter to a vote on a future occasion. Let us hope that between this and the next occasion on which this Vote comes up we will find that something has been done by those who are then responsible for the Government which has not been done by those in power at the moment.
I would like to make quite clear that the possibilities of economy in this Department have been investigated. We are in this position. We inherited this Department from our predecessors. The people in this Department have special knowledge. If we were to close this Quit Rent Office we would have to employ the same persons to do the work if we transferred it to the Land Commission. These people have specialised in this Department and have been a long time in the Department. It is, if you like, a sort of pigeon-hole into which they have drifted, and in which they have spent their official lives. Everyone of them is a transferred officer. They are discharging special functions for which they have specialised and have a special knowledge. If we close down that office these, being transferred officers, have rights under Article X, and if they go out they will possibly cost the State as much when drawing their pensions and doing nothing as they cost the State now, when the State, at any rate, has the advantage of their specialised knowledge. As I say, this is one of the difficulties that we inherited in the Treaty.
If we are to follow the Minister's argument we cannot hope that any estimate for the Government service in the future will be reduced. I recognise the difficulty. I am sure that all these officers who have given valuable services in the past if they were transferred to other departments would give good and useful service to the State. I am not with the Minister when he says that no economy could be effected. These transfers occur in ordinary business every day in the year with good effect and I cannot see why the same should not apply to Government departments.
In view of the fact that no rents are being collected by the Land Commission at the present time, would the Minister say what the collection branch is doing? Are they being paid their full salaries just as if they were doing something?
The Deputy should raise that upon the Land Commission Vote. Meantime may I ask does the Deputy mean that we should resume collection of rents?
