Vol. 183 No. 13
asked the Minister for Lands (1) the price realised by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara from the sale of the three deep-sea trawlers, (2) the cost of these trawlers when purchased, (3) the cost of reconditioning and refitting them, (4) the cost of manning and running them since purchase, (5) the value of the total catch of each of these trawlers and (6) the total loss to the State on this transaction.
13.
asked the Minister for Lands if the three German trawlers owned by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have been sold; if so, to whom they were sold; what price was realised for each trawler; what was the original cost of each; and what were the losses on the operation of the trawlers, and the total losses involved in relation to the price realised on the recent sale.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 13 together and to reply in the form of a tabular statement which will be circulated with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:—
Three offshore fishing vessels of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.
|
£ |
|
|
Capital: |
|
|
Cost in July, 1952 |
50,250 (a) |
|
Additional outlay to 31 March, 1953 |
14,687 |
|
Further outlay to 31 March, 1960 (exclusive of £3,353 for asdic equipment retained on sale of vessels and £3,444 recovered from insurers) |
41,790 |
|
Net total outlay to 31 March, 1960 |
106,727 |
|
Net amount (after deduction of shipbrokers' commission) realised on sale to Claridge Trawlers Ltd., Lowestoft, Suffolk, England |
33,950 (a) |
|
Total depreciation |
72,777 |
|
Average depreciation per vessel per year |
3,032 |
|
Operation to 31 March, 1960 (b): |
|
|
Gross value of fish landed |
255,937 (c) |
|
Commission and other sales charges |
19,195 |
|
Net value of fish |
236,742 |
|
Outgoings (including £22,625 interest to Exchequer, crews' shares, repairs, management expenses, etc.) |
288,992 |
|
Losses |
52,250 |
|
Average loss per vessel per year |
2,177 |
|
Total of depreciation and operational losses (excluding any loss on operation after 31 March, 1960) |
125,027 |
(a) The three vessels were bought and sold together and a separate price was not determined for each of them.
(b) Figures for operation of the vessels—
(i) for the year ended 31 March, 1960, are subject to audit, and
(ii) since 31 March, 1960, are not yet available.
(c) The value of the catch of each of the vessels cannot readily be segregated for the entire period.
Are we to take it from what the Minister says that the trawlers have been sold?
The trawlers have been sold.
And he is not in a position to tell us what are the total losses involved?
I am, but if the Deputy reads the Question there is a lot of detailed information required which is suitable for reply only in the form I have given it.
I fully appreciate that, but I think it is customary, if a Minister is requested to give information, to give it to the House. I do not think that would be an excessive trespass on his patience.
In the Questions before me I am asked for certain information under a variety of subheads.
Six headings.
The usual form of reply to question of that kind requiring so much detailed information is in the form of a tabular statement.
It is usual to give one answer out of a tabular statement if requested.
I do not want to bring the Minister in on the adjournment but I am afraid, Sir, I shall have to ask your permission to do so. Will he answer item No. 6: "The total loss to the State in this transaction"?
We are all at sea like the trawlers.
I sympathise with the Minister being so coy in this matter but I am sure he will sympathise with us in desiring to get this information. Perhaps the Minister wishes to spare the blushes of the Minister for the Gaeltacht.
I may be sparing the Deputy some of those blushes.
I am prepared to spend them for the information.
I would ask the Minister to answer item No. 6: "The total loss to the State on this transaction?" Give us the figure. Is it £100,000?
The Deputy will get all the figures he has asked for when he gets the reply.
With your permission, Sir, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Deputy cannot raise two matters on the Adjournment.
He has no other way of getting the information.
The most valuable thing we have here is Question Time.
May I submit a point of Order to the Chair? The Minister is simply asking permission of the Chair to circulate his reply in the form of a tabular statement and the Chair should not, as a matter of precedent, give that permission if there is an objection by the Deputy who put down the Question for oral answer.
It is a well established principle. There is a precedent that a Minister may give his reply in the form of a tabular statement.
I noted that the Minister said: "With the permission of the Chair."
But not the Chair's permission for the format of the answer.
To put it into the Official Report instead of answering.
The Chair has no authority over a Minister as to the form he gives his reply.
And the Taoiseach is standing over the Minister's lack of courtesy.
I have decided the point of Order and I have no other function in the matter.
The most valuable thing the Irish people have is the right of Parliamentary question and reply.
They still have that.
They have not.
There will be no opportunity of discussing the reply if the Dáil is going to rise.
Question No. 14.
