asked the Minister for Finance if he will state (a) why in the 1942-43 Estimates there are no Appropriations-in-Aid shown in Vote 73 as against the expenditure on the production of turf, (b) the amount received in the year ending 31st March, 1942, in payments for turf sold; (c) the estimated amount to be received in the year ending 31st March, 1943, for turf to be sold; (d) whether the sale of turf is being carried out by the Turf Development Board, and if so (e) what amount is held by the Turf Development Board in respect of sales, and (f) in what account the payments to the Exchequer will be shown, and (g) what were the estimated quantities and values of the turf on hand at 31st March, 1942.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sales of Turf.
Apart from the cost of bog development schemes in all parts of the country, the only expenditure contemplated for the direct production of turf under Vote 73 is in respect of the Government camp schemes.
The position with regard to what is called national turf is that the turf was produced in 1941/42 by the county councils and to a limited extent by private producers. A certain portion of the turf of the 1941 crop has been sold to Messrs. Fuel Importers, Ltd., who, in turn, dispose of it to licensed fuel merchants in the non-turf areas.
During the current financial year, the production of national turf will be augmented as a result of the camp schemes by which the Government are undertaking, through the agency of the Turf Development Board, the direct production of turf in certain areas in Kildare and adjoining counties. The quantity of turf to be produced by the camp schemes depends on a number of circumstances such as the availability of labour and the preliminary preparation of the bogs, and it is not possible at this stage to make any forecast of production and subsequent sales. The proceeds of sales for 1942/43 will appear in the finance accounts under the heading Exchequer Extra Receipts.
Is it a fact that, during the year ended 31st March, 1942, members of the Construction Corps, who are paid by the taxpayers, were employed cutting turf and timber for Fuel Importers Ltd., which is a commercial concern selling turf at 64/- a ton?
That question does not arise on my reply.
It arises from the answer which the Parliamentary Secretary has just given.
If the Deputy puts down his question it will be answered. The habit of putting down one question and then asking a supplementary which has nothing to do with it means either that the question cannot be properly answered or Departmental officials have to waste an immense amount of time preparing the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary for any possible contingent question that may arise.
Do you, A Chinn Comhairle, rule that my supplementary question is out of order, because I prefer your ruling to that of the Parliamentary Secretary?
The Chair has not ruled on the question.
Is it not extraordinary that, on a Vote under which £1,250,000 is to be spent, there is absolutely no estimate of the receipts? Surely, some closer estimate could be made than to say, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that nothing has been allowed for it. Is the Minister for Finance going to make the discovery in his Budget that this item has been left out of the account? It is extraordinary that no estimate of the receipts has been made.
That would be a very legitimate question to put when the Estimate is being considered, but not as a supplementary to this particular question, which has been fully answered.
It is not a supplementary, and the question has not been fully answered. I asked, in the question, for the estimated amount to be received for the turf to be sold, and you said that that will be taken in next year.
There is an item in the Estimates amounting to about £493,000 which is behind the production of turf. That is the item which, I think, the Deputy has in mind. That very largely refers to the development work, plus the capital expenditure on the turf camps in Kildare. During the discussion on the Vote, I may be able to give the Deputy an estimate of the quantity of turf which will be produced by that money, but a great deal of that expenditure I have to undertake whether I produce any turf or not. There are certain contingent things which may greatly affect the total amount of production from that scheme, independent of the sum provided there. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Deputy's attitude of mind, and if he raises this matter when we come to deal with the Estimate, I shall be pleased to deal with it.
I am right then in supposing that the Parliamentary Secretary does not regard this £493,000 as an item that will have to be written off?
No.
That is what one would deduce from examining the accounts, and I am glad to have brought it out. I am not pinning the Parliamentary Secretary down to a definite price for the receipt of the turf, but I wish to say that, in a year in which we have an Estimate of practically £500,000, there ought to be corresponding receipts, or at least an estimate of receipts, shown in the accounts for that year. However, the Parliamentary Secretary says that he sympathises with me, so I hope he will translate his sympathy into figures.