asked the Minister for Finance if he will indicate what justification there was for the public statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance at Dunmore, County Galway, as reported in a provincial newspaper of the 27th October, 1951, that the Estimate for bog development was the same as the previous year, in view of the figures under Vote 10, sub-heads (I) and (J), page 56 of the 1951-1952 Volume of Estimates, which show that there was a total increase of £70,000 for bog development over the Estimates of the previous year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Provision for Bog Development.
I am aware that there appeared in a provincial newspaper of October 27th what purported to be a statement made by me at a public meeting in Dunmore on Sunday, 14th October.
I did not make the statement in the form in which it appeared. I was refuting statements that had been made to the effect that there had been a curtailment of expenditure on minor employment, bog development and rural improvements schemes since the change of Government in June.
I dealt with each service separately, and gave the following information:—
Rural improvements schemes—Provision, 1951-52—£125,000—same as in previous year. Expenditure 1st April to 31st August, 1951—£61,000, as compared with an expenditure of £34,000 in the same period of 1950.
Minor employment schemes—Provision, 1951-52—£95,000—same as in previous year. Expenditure 1st April to 31st August, 1951—£6,000, as compared with an expenditure of £2,000 in the same period of 1950.
Development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers—Provision, 1951-52—£90,000—to which was added £30,000 in September, making a total of £120,000 available. Expenditure 1st April to 31st August, 1951—£58,000, as compared with an expenditure of £14,000 in the same period of 1950.
As the Deputy is, of course, aware, a provision of £40,000 is also included in the Estimates, 1951-52, for development works in bogs acquired by local authorities, but so far as bog development schemes are concerned when making my statement I was dealing only with works of this kind administered directly by my office.
The question I asked the Parliamentary Secretary was whether he was aware that, according to a report handed to the Connacht Tribune of this meeting at Dunmore, he made the statement that the amount of money allocated for bog development schemes in 1951-52 was the same as in previous year, although such is not the case. Will the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that there is £30,000 more this year in the sum which is being administered by his office?
Well, I have given the statement which I have made. I did not go into it as comprehensively as I might have. Perhaps if I did, the statement I would have to make, going back over a few years, would not make very pleasant reading for the Deputy or the Administration of which he was a member.
That is no reply to the question which I put down. The Parliamentary Secretary is quite welcome to go into anything he wishes. The question I put down was as to whether he was aware that in the issue of the Connacht Tribune for 27th October, he stated at a public meeting in Dunmore, a report of which was supplied to the Connacht Tribune, that the amount of money allocated for bog development schemes—that is subhead (I)—is the same as in previous year. That is not correct. There is an increase of £30,000. I have asked him if that statement is correct, and not to give me a rigmarole.
I wonder did the report bear my signature? I am not responsible for these reports.
I have asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I am prepared to make a statement. In the 1951-52 period the provision in the printed Estimates for bog development schemes for landowners and private persons was £90,000. That was £30,000 of an increase on the previous year. I would point out to the Deputy that in the 1948-49 Budget framed by Fianna Fáil before it went out of office, the figure was £90,000. It was reduced by £30,000 each of the two subsequent years. The £90,000 in 1951-52 would not at all compare with the £90,000 in the 1948-49 Budget, owing to the increase in wages and other things. It would not be capable of doing three-fifths of the work.
There was an increase of £30,000 and yet you supplied that statement to the Connacht Tribune.
Question No. 24.