Vol. 61 No. 15
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £4,900 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, 1937, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Saotharlainne Stáit.
That a sum not exceeding £4,900 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, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the State Laboratory.
There is a decrease in this case of £19 on a total of £7,360. The function of the State Laboratory is obvious. It consists of the analysis of samples for all the different Departments. It analysed 42,460 of them last year. One might manage to get in a certain amount of romance if one went through a list of the things that they do analyse. For instance, for the Revenue Commissioners—a very romantic Department—they analysed samples of soap, bottles, beer, spirits, wines, cider, denatured alcohol, fruit (dried or otherwise preserved), molasses, saccharin, sugar and sugar confectionery, cocoa, table water, margarine, tobacco, oatmeal and woollen materials. I do not think there is anything which really arises on this Estimate in the way of principle or anything of that kind, which need concern the House.
Is it this Department which analyses samples sent forward by local authorities?
Yes.
If it is, I do not find in the Estimate any Appropriation-in-Aíd, which surprises me, because I thought local authorities paid a fee to the State Laboratory for tests that were carried out on their behalf. I may be mistaken in that. I will direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the wages paid to chemical assistants, attendants and the cleaner and I would be glad to know if these wages carry with them a cost-of-living bonus, because a weekly wage of 13/- seems to be very modest, and attendants, who are presumably whole-time employees, as opposed to the cleaner, who is doubtless only a part-time employee, receive 27/-, rising to 31/-. That amount seems to be very modest.
They would receive a cost-of-living bonus on 27/- and 31/-.
But the cleaner would not?
I am not sure, but I should imagine the cleaner would. I will look the matter up and make sure.
There are two classes, chemical assistants and attendants. In one case the maximum wage is 34/- and in the other case the maximum wage is 31/-. What are their wages with the cost-of-living bonus added? I should like to know whether the Minister for Finance is satisfied in his mind that these are adequate wages to pay persons working full time in a State Department.
As to the actual amount the Deputy will find on page 3 a table which shows the actual increase to be made in those cases. The whole of the wages in those cases are decided by the Inter-Departmental Wages Committee. I cannot speak in relation to any individual cases, but I am perfectly sure there is no salary here which has not, in fact, been put through the Inter-Departmental Committee.
In fact it emerges from page 3 that these wages have been in fact increased by over 50 per cent., which puts a very different complexion on it.
Quite.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say a word about the fees paid by the local authorities.
I have a note here about it which states:—
"The extra receipts consist of fees payable on the analysis of samples which are forwarded to the State laboratory under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, by direction of the District Justices in cases where the defendants appeal against the certificates of local analysts and also fees payable on analysis under the Dairy Produce Act, 1924, in cases where either prosecutors or defendants appeal against the certificate of analysis of the analyst appointed under that Act by the Department of Agriculture. Fees are also received in connection with the testing and certification of creamery appliances (volumetric glass instruments such as pipettes, butyrometers, etc.) under the Milk and Cream (Calculation of Prices) Order, 1928. For examinations and post-mortems conducted under the Coroners Act, 1927, a fee normally not exceeding £10 10s. is payable by the coroner (in exceptional cases a larger fee may be demanded)."
Is that what Deputy Dillon asked for?
I do not see any Appropriations-in-Aid on the Vote. If these are received I am surprised they do not appear on page 61 of the Estimates.
It is just possible that they do not in fact happen to be there. The Deputy will find at the bottom of the page a footnote which reads:—"The receipts in connection with this service are estimated as follows:— Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer: Fees (cash) for analysis, examinations and testing of instruments, £150." There is a further item there of £130.
Yes, but the usual form has, at the end of the items, an estimate of the Appropriations-in-Aid.
They evidently are under a different form, but I think what is in the footnote is what the Deputy is looking for.
The total amount in the footnote is £280. Surely the sum of £280 cannot cover the amount of the fees that the State laboratory would receive if they carried out all the analyses that local authorities require to have carried out in the course of the financial year.
I understand there is something in the point that the Deputy has raised. The extra receipts are not treated as Appropriations-in-Aid in this case. If the Deputy requires it, I will ascertain what amount has been paid under this head.
Well, I would be obliged if the Parliamentary Secretary would, at his convenience, let me have the reason as to why there is a different procedure in regard to the State laboratory in the method of receiving the money and not stating it under Appropriations-in-Aid.
I will do that with pleasure.
