Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Mar 1960

Vol. 179 No. 7

Committee on Finance - Vote 69—Repayments to Contingency Fund.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £1,030 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the repayment to the Contingency Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.

The purpose of the Vote for Repayments to the Contingency Fund, which is passed towards the end of the financial year, is to repay to the Contingency Fund any sums issued from it since it was last replenished—other than advances for services covered by and repayable out of other Votes and/ or Funds.

The Contingency Fund provides the means by which may be met urgent or unforeseen expenditure not covered by ordinary Votes and for which it is impracticable to seek the immediate approval of the Dáil. No payment is charged finally against the Fund, which each year is restored to its original figures of £20,000 through the Repayments to the Contingency Fund Vote and/or by the repayment, from the other Votes or Funds concerned, of any advances made thereto. An account of the Contingency Fund showing the advances made, repayments effected and advances outstanding is published with the annual Appropriation Accounts. The three items of expenditure which necessitate this year's Vote are shown on the face of the Estimate. They are naturally unforeseen; first, triples, secondly, centenarians and thirdly, the expenses in connection with the installation of the President in June, 1959. That is entirely due to the entertainment given on that occasion.

Could the Minister say how much does the parent get for triplets? Is it £1 or £3.

It is £3; £1 for each child.

Then there was only one set this year?

That is all.

I do not understand the last item at all. As the Minister very properly said a minute ago, the purpose of the Contingency Fund is to meet unforeseen expenses. Everybody knew there was going to be a President installed last June and there is no reason why there should not have been a sum included for this in the Estimate in the ordinary way when the Estimates were being framed. I suggest that to utilise the Contingency Fund for something that clearly should have been foreseen is an abuse of that Fund.

I must accept the censure of the Deputy in this instance. It should have been foreseen I admit, but perhaps the Department concerned was not in a position to make any estimate of what the expenses would be.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share