Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1934

Vol. 54 No. 4

In Committee on Finance. - Supplementary Estimates, 1934-35. Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £67,000 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1935, chun caiteachais i dtaobh Foirgintí Puiblí; chun coinneáil-suas Páirceanna agus Oibreacha Puiblí áirithe; agus chun déanamh agus coinneáil-suas Oibreacha Dréineála agus chun Feabhsuithe Slí Loingseoireachta Abha na Sionainne.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £67,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of Public Buildings; for the Maintenance of certain Parks and Public Works; for the Execution and Maintenance of Drainage Works; and for the Improvement of the River Shannon Navigation.

The purpose for which this money is required is fully set out in Part III of the Estimate and I do not think it necessary to add anything.

Mr. McGilligan

The purpose?

Mr. MacEntee

The purpose for which the money is required.

Mr. Cosgrave

Is that all the Minister has to say about it?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

For £100,000?

Mr. MacEntee

£132,000.

Mr. McGilligan

Let us see the purpose so far as it is given here. This is the point to which the Minister refers us:

"In connection with the carrying out of the Shannon Power Development Scheme, a sum of £160,000 was expended out of advances made from the Shannon Power Development Fund on improvements effected in the navigation of the River Shannon."

That is the first relevant phrase. It goes on:

"Of this sum, £132,450 was declared by the terms of Section 3 of the Electricity (Finance) Act, 1929, not to be repayable by the Electricity Supply Board, and the present Vote is for the purpose of repaying to the Exchequer that amount of the advances."

Is that the explanation of why we are voting £132,000? Will the Minister tell us what are the particular improvements effected in the navigation of the River Shannon on which all or the greater part of this amount was spent?

Mr. MacEntee

They are such improvements as were carried out under the Deputy's aegis as Minister for Industry and Commerce. Whether they were improvements or not, the Deputy himself can decide.

Mr. McGilligan

£132,000 is said to have been spent, and I ask where the improvements are and what they were. I have not got the material in my possession. The Minister has, or ought to have, if he could concentrate his mind on the matter. Are we entitled to know, now when we are paying the bill, what improvements have been effected in the navigation of the river —say, the sections of the river that have been improved and what is their effect from the angle of boats of deeper draught being able to——

Mr. MacEntee

Might I suggest that all this is entirely irrelevant? It sets out here that the total cost of these works was £160,661, and of this £132,000, which was spent in 1929——

Mr. McGilligan

No, it was not.

Mr. MacEntee

Oh, yes.

Mr. McGilligan

It was voted.

Mr. MacEntee

——was decided by the terms of Section 3 of the Electricity (Finance) Act, 1929, not to be repayable by the Electricity Supply Board. It was advanced by the Exchequer, and it is now being repaid to the Exchequer under this Vote.

Mr. McGilligan

Advanced for what?

Mr. MacEntee

For the works carried out under the Minister's supervision.

Mr. McGilligan

And that is sufficient explanation! When you are riding white elephants to death you might as well refrain from giving any explanation of them.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is an extraordinary procedure.

Mr. MacEntee

The purposes are fully set out in the Estimate.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will the Minister behave himself? Let him remember that he has got to answer for the money he is getting from this State. He is getting paid by the State and he must render an account of his duty to the State. There are Deputies here who were not here in 1929, and they are entitled to hear what money was spent, how it was spent, and what was done. That is the usual course. If we are to set the precedent that a Minister is to come in here and say: "This is a sum of money provided under an Act passed five years ago and spent, and that is all I have to say about it," then we reach a very nice pass in Parliamentary procedure. This afternoon we had a whole list of Orders made by the Executive Council which placed taxation upon the people's backs. We are told by the Executive Council that this is a democratic Government. The Minister now, in answer to a question as to how this money was spent, said: "You know all about it." If the Minister wants Deputy McGilligan to explain all about it, let him hand over the papers and Deputy McGilligan will explain it. The House, apart from anybody on this Bench, is entitled to hear how this money was expended, what the purposes were, and so on, and the Minister is failing in his duty in not giving the information to the House.

Mr. MacEntee

On the contrary, it is obvious that the Deputy does not understand what the purpose of the Estimate is. The purpose is to repay the Exchequer certain moneys which were advanced from the Exchequer. We have no responsibility for these advances whatever. They were not made in our time. They were made before we came into office for works for which we have no responsibility. All we are asking the Dáil to do now is to repay to the Exchequer moneys which our predecessors in office, with the consent of the Dáil, advanced from the Exchequer. That is the purpose of the Estimate.

Mr. McGilligan

It is wrong to say that these moneys were spent before the present Government took office. The money was voted. For instance, a good amount of money had to be expended on the Abbey river. There had to be a junction made with the old canal harbour and a new entrance made to it. A bridge across the Abbey river had to be removed. There had to be a reconstruction and a new approach and new development of a traffic type took place in connection with that. There was a considerable amount of experimentation because certain people said that barges going down and from the Abbey river, could not nose up into the harbour.

Mr. MacEntee

We are discussing whether £132,000 will be repaid to the Exchequer.

Mr. McGilligan

We are discussing the matter of the improvements in the navigation of the River Shannon.

Mr. MacEntee

We are not.

Mr. McGilligan

On which these moneys were expended.

Mr. MacEntee

We are discussing the purpose of the present Vote which is to repay to the Exchequer the amount due.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not regard the Minister as any judge of that. There was certainly on the upper reaches of the river quite an amount of development.

Mr. MacEntee

Might I refer to Standing Order 108, which states that in the discussion of a Supplementary Estimate the debates should be confined to the items constituting the Estimate and no discussion should be raised on the original Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Minister responsible for any of the expenditure in connection with this Estimate?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, if the Minister is not responsible for the expenditure we cannot allow a discussion of his administration.

Mr. McGilligan

Will the Minister give us the dates upon which all the improvements in the Shannon navigation came to an end?

General Mulcahy

If the Minister is not responsible for the expenditure, what Minister is? And if no Minister is responsible, what are we voting the money for?

Mr. MacEntee

To recoup the Exchequer for the Exchequer advances. That is all I am responsible for. I have no responsibility for Shannon navigation.

Mr. McGilligan

When a definite statement has been made that the Minister is not responsible for any part of the improvements in connection with the Shannon navigation, surely the Minister ought to answer the point raised: what was the latest date upon which money was expended on the navigation of the river?

Mr. MacEntee

I have no responsibility for that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister says he has no responsibility.

Mr. McGilligan

You are apparently acting on the point made by the Minister that on the Estimate only matters included in the Estimate should be discussed. If he was not responsible for any portion of the expenditure, your view, apparently, is that a discussion on the expenditure does not arise.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not say that.

Mr. McGilligan

About the navigation of the River Shannon and the improvements——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I did not give the Deputy leave to deal with that. I indicated that if the Minister was not responsible for the administration of any of this money we could not discuss the expenditure of the money in connection with the Shannon navigation. It was advanced, I understand, under another Administration and it is now being recouped to the Exchequer.

Mr. McGilligan

It was spent under two Administrations.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Of course, I do not know about that.

Mr. Cosgrave

The money which is now sought to be obtained, amounting to £67,000, is only now being repaid——

Mr. MacEntee

£132,000.

Mr. Cosgrave

£67,000 is the net total.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

This money has apparently been due to the Exchequer for over two and a half years. Can we have an explanation as to why it was not paid back at an earlier date? We are entitled to get an answer to that.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Cosgrave

According to the Minister's statement, this money was expended over two and a half years ago. If so, it had a right to be included in an Estimate and presented to this House at an earlier period.

Mr. MacEntee

No, it had not; the Deputy is wrong.

Mr. Cosgrave

Will the Minister give an explanation?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy is wrong. It is only now that we are asking for a payment of the advance.

Mr. Cosgrave

Although it has been due and owing for the last two and a half years?

Mr. MacEntee

It is only now we are asking for it.

Mr. Cosgrave

Why has it not been asked for before?

Mr. MacEntee

Because the interest has been paid up to this, and we do not require the interest any longer.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is the lamest explanation of all.

Mr. McGilligan

About these improvements in the navigation, are we to take it that the Minister need not give the dates; that it has been ruled that the improvements were all completed before the Minister came into office?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Do not take it as ruled by the Chair.

Mr. MacEntee

The only point relevant to this discussion is the point made by Deputy Cosgrave.

Mr. Cosgrave

Can we have an undertaking by the Minister that none of this money has been spent since the Minister came into office?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not giving any reply.

Mr. Cosgrave

Then I think Deputy McGilligan is in order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No. Let us be clear about this.

Mr. McGilligan

Can we get an undertaking that no part of this money will be applied to meeting any debt which has accrued since the Minister came into office—that no navigation improvement has taken place since he came into office?

Mr. MacEntee

The only purpose of this Estimate is to repay the advances. I have no responsibility for the expenditure of the other moneys.

Mr. McGilligan

The point has been made that the Minister is not responsible for the expenditure of any of this money. If he was, I assume we could discuss the improvements effected by this expenditure. I am prepared to vote this money if the Minister tells us that he did not intermeddle with it to any degree—that no part of the £67,000 will go to paying for any improvement effected since he came into office. Surely it is clear from what I said at the beginning—that the fact that these improvements extended into the period of the Minister's time in office—that we should be allowed to discuss this matter.

Mr. Dillon

Would it not be much easier for the Minister to give Deputies that information?

Mr. McGilligan

We have got no undertaking from the Minister that no part of this money is required for improvements. If that is so I want to talk about improvements.

Mr. MacEntee

I suggest that the Deputy is not in order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is to recoup the Treasury for money expended on improvements—money which had obviously been voted at first for improvements. The raising of the question that Deputy McGilligan is raising now is not in order.

Mr. McGilligan

Can we take it now that on no occasion can we discuss the expenditure of money voted by this House and which we know has been expended?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This money is asked to recoup the Treasury for money already expended.

Mr. Cosgrave

May I direct your attention to the Supplementary Estimate and the terminology of it? "Of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1935, for expenditure in respect of public buildings; for the maintenance of certain parks and public works; for the execution and maintenance of drainage works and for the improvement of the River Shannon navigation"—not for works done in the improvement of the River Shannon navigation.

Mr. MacEntee

The item is set out in Part III of the Estimate. That is what binds the House. We can only discuss Part III of the Estimate—that is, the River Shannon navigation improvement.

Mr. McGilligan

If a statement were made that this money was being granted and certain purposes were set out, and a limitation was put upon the expenditure upon the particular balance of these improvements and they were described as improvements of the River Shannon, then when can one discuss that the money was spent within the scope or the purpose for which it was granted? The Minister is now running away from the point that this expenditure was carried out in his predecessors' time. That was what he said at first, but he no longer stands now by that statement. He confesses he has been inaccurate. If we assume that some part of this expenditure took place in the Minister's period of office, are we to understand that the way in which it was spent is not to be debated at this stage?

Mr. MacEntee

Under various statutes of the Electricity Supply Board this money is being spent. If any further question is desired to be put it can be raised by putting down a question for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McGilligan

I asked for a ruling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The only thing on which I can rule is the concrete instance before me. I cannot follow a hypothetical matter such as that raised by Deputy McGilligan. It seems to me that this expenditure has been already voted, but that in order to recoup the Treasury this Vote is now being taken. That is clear. Deputy McGilligan wants an opportunity of discussing the administration of the Minister's Department.

Mr. McGilligan

I am anxious to discuss it as a relevant matter. If the improvements were only finished in May, June or July, this year, and this is the nearest occasion to their completion, can we not ask whether the money was properly spent and whether certain experiments previously made were attended to in the carrying out of the works? Nevertheless, the presumption that the improvements only took place last May or June, and that we cannot discuss it, because the money is spent, assumes a general ruling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Dillon

In connection with the original expenditure of £160,661 5s. 5d., with a view to ascertaining the purpose to which certain parts of that sum were applied, and with a view to making up my mind as to whether the sum of £160,661 5s. 5d. is for the purpose of Section 3 of the Finance Act of 1929, and whether this is the correct sum, I am entitled to examine the purpose for which the money was originally spent, and I require a reassurance from the Minister that what he did conforms to the original Estimate and to the terms of Section 3 of the original Act of 1929. Otherwise we cannot arrive at a correct figure.

Mr. MacEntee

There is a time to go into this matter, but this is not the time to discuss it. You, Sir, have already ruled.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to argue whether this money should be voted to recoup the money previously expended.

Mr. Dillon

I cannot address my mind to the problem unless I know how the money was spent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have another opportunity of doing that.

Mr. Dillon

The only decision the House has to arrive at now is whether the Minister can come in here and say whether the money is due to the Exchequer.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy will turn up the Finance Acts he will find the money set out there was vouched for and has been certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Mr. McGilligan

There were certain advances to be made from the Exchequer to the Electricity Supply Board and these were repayable. There was an advance of £132,450 for expenditure on the River Shannon navigation. The only money repayable is the money expended on the River Shannon. Is it not proper to enquire whether that has been spent at this stage, because it is not covered by the terms of the Act? Is it proper to discuss that now?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think so. This matter has been already discussed. This item is not before the House for the first time. We are nerely repaying the Exchequer advances which we are now recovering.

Mr. McGilligan

Supposing the money had been advanced and it was discovered afterwards that it was spent improperly under the terms of the Act there would have to be a Supplementary Estimate to cover whatever the amount was. We are presented here with a vote for £67,000, which, when we analyse it, is some portion of the expenditure of £132,000 that is said to be repayable. How do we know it? It is not repayable by the Electricity Supply Board. How do we know that it is part of the £132,000 which was voted for the expenditure in certain ways under Section 3 of the 929 Act? How do we know it was expended unless we are told the items making up the £132,000? Is it not proper to go into some detail as to the cost of the reconstruction of the Abbey River and of the bridge over the Abbey River, down into Limerick, and of the various locks on the Shannon and other works necessitated by this scheme for effecting an improvement in the navigation of the Shannon?

Mr. MacEntee

The proper person to ischarge that function is the Compoller and Auditor-General who audits he expenditure under all votes and atutes of this House.

Mr. McGilligan

Then, we might as ell wipe out this House.

Mr. MacEntee

The Comptroller and Auditor-General presents appropriation accounts, with his certificate and report, each year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We shall have to bring this discussion to an end. Deputy McGilligan knows as well as any other Deputy that a Supplementary Estimate is intended to cover something special and does not permit of a general review of a Minister's Department, as the main Estimate does. This Supplementary Estimate is presented for a particular purpose—to recoup the Treasury expenditure already made—and I cannot allow on it a general review of expenditure on the improvement of the navigation of the Shannon. I must confine the discussion to the question whether this sum of money should be voted to the Treasury or not to recoup it for moneys already expended on the Shannon navigation.

Mr. McGilligan

Although we are not told it has been so spent.

Mr. MacEntee

We shall be told by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Mr. McGilligan

No Minister stands up and tells us that the money has been so spent and no Minister is able to answer any questions about it.

Mr. Dillon

The reductio ad absurdum would be if I were to allege that the money in the Estimate had, in fact, to my own knowledge, been spent on paving O'Connell Street. The moment I make that allegation, I submit that I throw on the Minister the onus of rebutting it and he must inform the House promptly as to how the money was, in fact, spent. To secure that information, I move the rejection of this Estimate on the ground that the money was spent on paving O'Connell Street and is, therefore, not a fit and proper subject for a Supplementary Estimate. I object to the passing of an Estimate because the money was not spent in conformity with the original Estimate and is not covered by Section 3 of the Electricity (Finance) Act of 1929.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has given no notice of the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not accepting the motion.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has refused to give any information to the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no control over the Minister in that respect.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy can divide the House on that.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister made a statement from which he eventually ran away.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 46.

Tá.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Norton, William.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl.

• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Davis, Michael.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde. Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Rogers, Patrick James.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett

Motion declared carried.