Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 4

Public Business. - Vote No. 74.—Repayments to the Contingency Fund.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £841 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh Márta, 1935, chun Roimhíocanna Ilghnéitheacha áirithe d'aisíoc leis an gCiste Teangmhais.

That a sum not exceeding £841 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, for the repayment to the Contingency Fund of certain miscellaneous advances.

The purpose of the Contingency Fund is, as the House is aware, to defray urgent or unforeseen expenditure which is not covered by the ordinary Votes, and for which it may be impracticable to seek the immediate approval of the Dáil. Accordingly, the Minister for Finance may make advances from the fund to meet deficiencies on the ordinary Votes and for new services. Advances from the fund are repaid from the appropriate ordinary Votes where a Vote for the service for which the advance is made exists; in other cases, they are repaid from the Vote for the Repayments to the Contingency Fund. The purpose for which the repayments to the Contingency Fund are required in this case is set out very fully, I think, on the face of the Estimate.

Who is the commissioner who got money——

Or rather who was the commissioner?

Who is the commissioner to whom the money is being paid?

I understand there is no commissioner in existence. The present Attorney-General was the commissioner from the period 1st July, 1922, to 6th September, 1922.

Will the Attorney-General advise that any other payments that have not been made during that period should be paid also?

The Attorney-General has got nothing to do with advising in this matter. The Minister for Finance is responsible for the Contingency Fund. The Attorney-General was Land Settlement Commissioner up to the 6th September, 1922, and the moneys are properly due to him, though they were withheld by our predecessors.

Who made application for the money?

I presume the Land Settlement Commissioner.

That is the Attorney-General?

I presume so—that is not certain. I have satisfied myself that the money was properly due to the Attorney-General by the previous Administration on foot of a minute signed by the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Hogan, but that the debt was not honoured.

Did he apply for it?

I presume he did— yes.

You presume he did— yes?

Otherwise this letter would not be on the file:

"Department of Lands and Agriculture,

Dublin,

11th March, 1935.

Secretary,

Department of Finance.

I send you herewith copies of correspondence which I have had with Mr. Conor A. Maguire, B.L., on the subject of his claim for salary in respect of his services as Land Settlement Commissioner.

Mr. Maguire was paid his salary at the rate of £700 per annum up to 30th June, 1922, the date on which his name was, by order of the Government, struck off the salary list for failure to furnish a diary explaining his absence from office during period from June 28th to July 10th, 1922.

On making inquiries from Mr. Commissioner Heavy of the Land Commission, who was the officer in charge of the Land Settlement Commission at the time, I am informed that the date of Mr. Maguire's last attendance at that office was 6th September, 1922.

I recommend that salary at the rate of £700 per annum be paid to Mr. Maguire in respect of the period from 1st July, 1922 to 6th September, 1922.

(Signed) P. Hogan."

Will the Minister say how it comes that nearly three years after our successors took over office this money comes to be paid? The Attorney-General must have forgotten he had a claim of that sort. I hope he is not forgetting other matters in connection with his work if he is so careless about his own.

I hope the present Government will fulfil its obligations; its predecessors did not.

I wish it would fulfil its obligations—I wish it very sincerely.

Did I hear the Minister say that the present Government would honour all the obligations undertaken by its predecessors?

Its obligations to those who served this country. We have heard a good deal about victimisation, but we did not hear much about that case from the Opposition Benches.

Apparently the Minister, after dinner, is wandering a little bit.

Vote agreed to.
Top
Share