Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Feb 1935

Vol. 54 No. 14

In Committee on Finance. - Supplementary Estimates—1934-35. Vote No. 2—Oireachtas.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chum bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Oireachtais, maraon le Deontas-i-gCabhair.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Oireachtas, including a Grant-in-Aid.

As indicated on the face of the Estimate, the supplementary provision asked for is required for the purpose of a contribution from State Funds towards the Oireachtas Restaurant, the contribution to take the form of a payment to the caterer of such amount as the Minister for Finance may determine in recoupment of the excess expenses of catering as shown by certified accounts. The total sum required in the current financial year is £500, but as savings are anticipated on other sub-heads of the Vote, a token provision of only £10 is being asked for. As the House is aware, in 1933 it was decided that the Restaurant services should be handed over to outside caterers. This was duly done and, as a result of the first year's trading, a substantial loss was incurred by the caterers. It has arisen mainly because of the high wages bill for service of food; the spasmodic rushes of business on two or three days, and the small receipts which are forthcoming during the rest of the week while, at the same time, a permanent staff has to be maintained. The caterers, in indicating their position to the Ceann Comhairle, stated that they were anxious to continue as caterers, but that they had not anticipated such a heavy loss as has, in fact, been incurred during the year, and asked that some alleviation might be afforded them. In the meantime, the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach had renewed the catering agreement for a further period of one year from April 1st, 1934. In connection with the Restaurant service generally, the Ceann Comhairle had enunciated the following principles, which have been accepted by the Minister for Finance, viz.: (1) That the provision of good food, well served and at a reasonable cost, must be considered as a necessary service if members are to discharge their Parliamentary duties effectively; (2) that the main purpose of the Restaurant should be, therefore, the provision of such a service and not the making of profits; (3) that if the proper working of the Restaurant should involve a loss some part of such loss should be borne by the State in the interests of the service; (4) that ample provision should be made from State Funds for the proper working of the Restaurant, such as maintenance and improvements, light and heat, cutlery, ware and utensils.

The whole position has recently been most carefully considered in the light of the foregoing principles and in view of the caterers' representations and experience. The conclusion has been reached that if a proper service is to be given it is necessary that the Restaurant be kept open during Recess periods, with a view, for one thing, to obviate the need for the frequent discharge and re-employment of staff which otherwise might arise. It may be taken, in view of the intermittent nature of the business, that it would not be feasible to retain the services of outside caterers unless some provision is made to recoup them in part, at any rate, for any losses they may incur on the service. It is accordingly proposed to make provision in the annual Estimates for the Oireachtas for a contribution to be paid, at the discretion of the Minister for Finance, in recoupment of the expenses of catering as shown by certified accounts.

It is not the intention, so far as the present caterers are concerned, that any loss should be recouped in full, and as I said, the firm are not looking for that. It has been agreed that the present caterers will continue the catering services for the present subject to the following new conditions, viz.—(1) No charge will be made for rent. (2) The arrangements as to replacement, cleaning, laundry, etc., will remain unchanged. (3) The caterers' tariff will provide for certain additional charges. (4) In the event of a loss accruing on the year's trading as shown by certified accounts, recoupment will be made of half the expenditure on fuel, plus a further payment not exceeding half the loss as ascertained after deduction of the total expenditure on fuel. I understand this arrangement is satisfactory to the caterers. It has been ascertained that they are prepared to accept a payment of £500 as an offset against the losses incurred in the first year of their trading. This payment will be made from the provision in the present Supplementary Estimate.

Will the Minister say if the waitresses are employed in the intervals when the Dáil is not sitting?

Some of them.

This has apparently all the marks of a Fianna Fáil scheme —it is going to be run at a loss.

I was surprised when I saw this Estimate on the Order Paper and I have been very much surprised at the Minister's statement. As a member of the Restaurant Committee I, with others, held that it was undesirable that the management of the restaurant should be handed over to a private firm at the time that it was. I thought then, and I think now that it was a very poor commentary on our capacity to do business: that in the management of the internal affairs of this House the occasion should arise for handing the restaurant over to any private firm. I think that my views, and the views of those who held with me in that connection, have been amply justified by the sorry story that we heard from the Minister for Finance this evening. I was not able to get down everything the Minister said, but I gathered enough material to base certain criticisms on it. Judging by the Minister's statement, the new arrangement has not been a success. The private firm that have been given a monopoly in the control and management of the restaurant have found that it was not a profitable proposition. I am rather surprised at that, because I remember that before this experiment was made the restaurant was in fact a paying proposition. There was an old debt——

The bar was a paying proposition.

Mr. Murphy

There was an old debt due to the Minister for Finance in connection with a loan that had been given for the establishment of the restaurant, but on the actual trading at the time the change was made a profit was, I repeat, being made on the restaurant. It has been stated that the staff have to be maintained during the period when the Dáil is not sitting. That is not entirely true. It is true of a few members of the staff, but as regards a substantial number of the members of the staff employed during the time the Oireachtas is in Session, their services are dispensed with during the Recess.

The Minister is not responsible for that.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister referred to all this in his statement, and I submit, with all respect, that I am entitled to deal with the matter.

The Deputy is entitled to say whether the amount of money asked for should be voted, but as regards the internal management by the caterers, for which the Minister I understand has no responsibility, the Deputy cannot deal with that.

Mr. Murphy

I am following the line pursued by the Minister in the statement he put forward asking for this money.

Did the Minister say that the staff were to be kept on all the year round?

Mr. Murphy

He referred to that particular point.

Was not a special question asked on that?

I allowed Deputy Kelly to ask a question and that was all the reference that was made to it. If Deputy Kelly had attempted to pursue the matter I would have intervened.

It was raised by the Minister first.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister, in dealing with the difficulty that has arisen, gave as one of the reasons for bringing forward this Vote the spasmodic nature of the business done in the restaurant, and said the fact that the staff had to be retained was a factor in bringing about the present situation.

He may have made the statement that it was one of the factors, but he did not indicate that he had any responsibility for it.

Mr. Murphy

If a Vote for the expenditure of public money is brought before the Dáil, surely somebody has responsibility for it, and Deputies are entitled to criticise it.

I am endeavouring to keep the Deputy from discussing the internal arrangements of the restaurant. I am not preventing him from discussing how the money should be expended, but I am pointing out to him that responsibility for the staff is a matter purely for the caterers.

Is not Deputy Murphy entitled to criticise and comment on matters that were raised by the Minister himself?

And, particularly, when part of the amount in question is due to the fact that staff have to be kept on.

Deputy Murphy is not entitled to discuss any thing for which the Minister has no responsibility to this House. The Minister for Finance is not, I understand, responsible for the internal arrangements made by the caterers.

Mr. Murphy

I submit, with all possible respect, that somebody ought to be responsible for a state of affairs which means the loss of public money.

It is not the function of the Chair to discuss whether someone ought to be responsible. I now ask the Minister for Finance whether he has any responsibility for the length of time that the staff is kept on. If he has not responsibility, then the matter cannot be discussed here.

I have no responsibility.

Does the fact that the staff have to be kept on affect this Vote?

Did not the Minister give as one of the material reasons for the loss incurred the fact that the staff have to be kept on when the Dáil is not sitting?

I am not responsible for that.

That was given as part of the reason why this Vote was introduced.

Mr. Murphy

I hope I may be permitted to say this, that the experiment has been a most disastrous one, and that the Minister should now consider the advisability of telling whoever is responsible that the time has come for reverting back to the old arrangement of having the restaurant under the control of a Committee of the Oireachtas. Surely such a Committee ought to be capable of managing the restaurant, of employing persons and so on. I repeat again that the position was financially better at the time that this new arrangement was made than what has been revealed at the present time. I think it an extraordinary thing that under this arrangement facilities are given for the use of premises here free of rent, and, if I understood the Minister properly, certain other allowances are to follow.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. Murphy

I do not think there has been any improvement in either the quality of the food or the service in the restaurant since the change was made.

Deputies

Oh, oh!

This is an Estimate for £500 for the restaurant. The Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and I are jointly responsible for the conduct of the restaurant. The Minister for Finance has no responsibility in the matter. If Deputies desire information as to the necessity for this Vote I shall be glad to meet them at any time in my room and furnish any information they require. The domestic arrangements of the restaurant may not be discussed here.

May I suggest, Sir, arising out of your statement, that this Estimate be postponed until such time as we can get an opportunity of having a conversation with you?

I am sure that the Minister for Finance will agree to that course.

Certainly.

Further consideration of the Estimate postponed.

Top
Share