Vol. 78 No. 13
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £6,220 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun Seirbhísí Iompair agus Meteoraíochta.
That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £6,220 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1940, for Transport and Meteorological Services.
I want some information and I wonder if the Minister is in a position to give it to me. In connection with the meteorological side of these services, I understand there are different grades—you might call them the first, second, third and fourth grades, in respect of the men in that particular service. I understand that for what I would roughly call the second grade, say, the junior professional staff, there are cadets who, after two years' service, would become established officers. In that connection I understand the requirements include a mathematical or scientific degree, together with a knowledge of one of two great continental languages. Would the Minister be able to tell me, in connection with the original appointments after the service had come under our control, how many citizens of this State were successful in securing appointments—what proportion they were?
I am not saying now that a certain number of these appointments must not necessarily go to people who are not citizens of this State. I realise it may be difficult to find specially qualified, technical men. Where the requirements did not include any previous meteorological knowledge, but purely a scientific degree, with possibly a knowledge of French or German, I should like to know what proportion of our own people were successful in gaining appointments on that particular section of the staff. I am speaking now of the appointments as they were before the end of last year; I am not referring to any recent appointments that were made, say, since the end of November of last year. The point is that if only a small proportion got into that section, it raises important educational as well as other questions.
Perhaps the Minister would give me information as to the proportion of our own men that were taken on and if there is what would seem to be an undue proportion of outsiders on that particular section of the staff. I am not referring now to the lower grades, because I understand we might have a monopoly there. What I have in mind would be the second grade, where there would be cadets, and so on.
I should like to ask two questions. The first has reference to the civil airports. What is this sum of £7,150 required for? It is indicated that it represents an additional sum required for the acquisition of land. I wonder where this land is. The second question is this. I wonder, if the Minister had to complain or inquire in regard to the matter that was referred to by Deputy O'Sullivan, would he have employed as moderate language or would he have wondered why was it that an Irish Government scoured the world to get foreigners for the public service rather than employ decent, Irish boys who have no work to do? I think he would get quite eloquent about it. It would be a chastening thought for him to turn over in his mind what he would have done in Deputy O'Sullivan's place?
I am afraid that, at the moment, I am not able to answer Deputy O'Sullivan's question. I did not anticipate that it would arise on the Estimate because there is nothing here about staff. I shall be glad to send the Deputy the particulars he asks for.
I will put down a question or raise it when the main Estimate comes round.
If the Deputy puts down a question I will give him the information. With regard to the question of the amount provided under sub-head B, the position there is that it was anticipated that about £68,000 in all would be required for the acquisition of land for the aerodromes. It was thought, prior to the printing of the Estimates for the current year, that about £63,000 of that would have been expended by the 31st March, 1939, leaving the necessary provision for the current year about £4,250. In fact, owing to delay in proving title and completing other legal formalities, it was not possible to pay more than £54,500 approximately before the end of March, 1939, and, accordingly, the sum of £7,900, over and above what has been set out in the volume of Estimates, had to be met in this year. That is the reason for the sub-head in the Estimate.
Am I to understand from the Minister that the total anticipated expenditure on land is in the order of £68,000? If that is so, is it the Minister's purpose, year after year, to provide in the Estimates only so much of that £68,000 as he intends to spend within the financial year, because, in the main book of Estimates, the Minister is providing a sum of £3,200 for the purchase of land for civil airports.
£4,250.
If the Minister turns to page 276 of the book of Estimates he will find under sub-head B.—Civil Airports—that the provision made for the acquisition of land is £3,200.
It does not make very much difference whether it is £4,250 or £3,200.
Let the Minister not begin to ramble. What we want to find out is this: the Minister was understood to have said that his requirements were in the order of £68,000. Where does he get that figure?
I have explained to the Deputy that of this £68,000 it was anticipated, when the volume of Estimates was sent to the printers some time in January of last year, that £63,750 of that would have been paid by the 31st March last. In fact, due to delays in proving title, only £54,500 was paid before the end of March, 1939. The balance was carried over and has to be met in the current year. It is to meet the balance which was carried over that the present Supplementary Estimate is introduced. We are in exactly the same position as we were in regard to the New York Fair.
But this is the puzzle. The Minister says that he contemplated an expenditure of £68,000, and that this balance arises from the fact that he did not transfer the money to the vendors at the end of the financial year 1939, whereas he anticipated that he would have had to do that. Instead of doing that, he surrendered the balance to the Exchequer.
Precisely.
But when we look at the book of Estimates for 1938-39——
For 1938-39? Is the Deputy looking at the Appropriation Accounts or the Estimates?
The Estimates.
I have before me the Estimates for 1939-40. In the second column there is a reference to the Estimates for 1938-39.
Which was the amount expended in that year, but there may have been a Supplementary Estimate towards the end of 1938-39.
There should be no question of "may have been". Was there, or was there not?
I am not prepared to answer that.
But the Minister has mentioned this figure of £68,000, and there is no reference to it anywhere.
If there appears to be a discrepancy in the matter, then the Deputy ought to see whether a Supplementary Estimate was introduced in that year or not.
The Minister who comes to the House to defend the Estimate should also look it up.
The question, in the form which it has now developed, does not arise at all.
There is no need for the Minister to get impatient. I sometimes get tired of pouring oil on the Minister's troubled waters.
Or throwing sand into the machinery, which?
But surely it is a very undesirable practice to allow to grow up to have Ministers romping into this House with bunches of Supplementary Estimates in their hands, knowing nothing and caring less about what the expenditure called for under them is. It is a tedious job—nobody denies it— for a Minister to get his Estimates through this House, sometimes. It is a difficult job, but that is what it is meant to be. That is Parliamentary Government. For a Minister with a majority behind him in the House simply to say "No, I will give you no information; you may divide and I will march my boys into the lobby against you", is to prostitute Parliamentary Government.
It is of the very essence of Parliamentary Government that we secure all the information asked for. When we are in office the Minister will be able to secure the information he requires. In this case we ask for somewhat complex figures and the Minister has given us, I think, a somewhat facile reply. He intended to expend £68,000 in all, he glances at the book before him, misinterprets it to say that he had not paid over certain moneys at the end of the financial year and surrendered them to the Exchequer, and is now seeking them from the Exchequer in a Supplementary Estimate. But we cannot reconcile those figures with the figures given by him when he was Minister for Finance.
Might I suggest to the Deputy that he would find the matter fully explained if he took the Estimates for 1937-38 as well as the present Estimates. As usual——
Now, do not lose patience. Courage, courage!
It is very tedious to be amused at the Deputy all the time.
Could we not get down to business now and get the information?
The information which I was asked for was "what was the total provision to be made for land" and I gave it. I did not say that the. whole of the £68,000 or £63,000 was to be spent in the year 1938-39, but I gave the expenditure in the preceding years. If the Deputy will look up the Estimates, perhaps he will find a satisfactory explanation for it.
What is the explanation?
I have told the House the reason why it is necessary to introduce this Supplementary Estimate for £7,000 odd, which it was estimated would be expended when the volume of Estimates for the current year was being printed. We expected it would have fallen to be paid in the last financial year, but did not come in course of payment up to the 31st March last, and has fallen into this financial year for payment; for this we are now asking authority.
Does this finish the expenditure of the whole £68,000?
No. The Supplementary Estimate does not complete it, but the Supplementary Estimate, with the provision we have made this year, will bring the total to be paid for land up to £68,000. I should say that that £68,000 includes the curent rates on the land, too.
So it includes——
It includes what we are paying on the land only, in order to complete it and put it into a position for use.
It does not include salaries, wages and allowances, equipment and miscellaneous expenditure given under sub-head B. I take it these moneys are payable to the same vendors. It is not a question of acquiring a new portion of land?
If the Deputy would look up the Supplementary Estimate he will become quite clear about it. It is only for the acquisition of land.
That is all it is stated to be for.
We consider all this subject of the inaccuracy of estimating an objectionable one. We have here a number of Votes; this is one of them. The total sum comes to £370,000. It is quite true that there are certain savings, but I gather they were allowed for when the original Budget was being introduced, as there is always a certain percentage taken off for savings. Surely there ought to be better justification now in every one of these Supplementary Estimates for the sudden huge sum of £370,000 additional to the Estimates. We have not got them all here; there are various others to come.
This is a point in which there has apparently been incorrect estimation. It is only an example of the whole lot. Having got a pack of Estimates last March in a number of normal services—the army is not included—we have now over £370,000 additional by way of Supplementary Estimates, and more to come. Savings bring that down to £270,000, but this is already allowed for in the Budget. I think it is highly reprehensible.
The Minister has mentioned a figure of £68,000. Is this referable to sub-head B—Civil Airports —or only to——
It includes the amount for acquisition of land and current rates. It includes what we anticipate this land is going to cost us as ready for development.
And rates, but does not include the other items under Civil Airports? It is only the purchase of the land and rates?
The original Estimate provided £3,200 for acquisition and £1,050 for rates.
There is a provision in it for £1,000 for salaries, wages and allowances.
That was the Supplementary Estimate.
The Supplementary Estimate has nothing to do with it.
What is wrong with the Burtonport extension referred to in the first heading?
The position there is that the Londonderry and Lough Swilly railway company changed over from rail to road services. They are continuing to operate the Burtonport extension until the roads in that particular district are ready to carry the bus traffic. We anticipate that that will be done this year and accordingly these grants will be met by way of repayable advances.
Is this £2,500 the only expenditure on the Burtonport extension?
It is to provide for transport facilities pending the closing of the railway.
Is it a repayable advance?
The road transport system in Donegal and the Londonderry and Lough Swilly road transport seem to be much more profitable than rail transport.
How many years is it since any repayable advance was made in whole or in part?
I concede at once that it must be very many years.
Outside living memory?
Perhaps. It is anticipated that when the extension is finally closed down the company will show a profit.
When the extension is closed down we will save £2,500? We will not again be met with a demand for £2,500?
Do not ask me to be so positive, but I do not anticipate we shall.
It says here that it is a repayable advance, free of interest, to enable the company to continue the provision of public transport facilities pending the closing of the Burtonport Extension Railway. I take it that, once the extension is closed, this £2,500 will not be required.
Probably not.
It will be like the Ticknevin Bog: it needs a lot of money to keep it running at a loss.
