Vol. 183 No. 13
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £132,610 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Finance, including the Paymaster-General's Office.
Certainly, the Minister for Finance is being very sparing of words. I thought we might hear from him a little indication of the manner in which he administered his Department during the past year. In particular, I should like to hear from him in the light of the speech we have had a few minutes ago from the Minister for Agriculture, when the Minister for Agriculture alleged that in 1956-57 the then Minister for Finance paid out less money in farm building grants than was paid out last year. Perhaps the Minister for Finance would explain to the House, as of course it is the Minister for Finance who is supposed to be the man best at figures in the Government, how £623,625 is more than £705,248 or, perhaps, to be more strictly relevant, he would take his colleague the Minister for Agriculture aside and teach him a lesson in arithmetic, in subtraction, because, in fact, of course, £705,248 is the amount that was paid out in that year about which the Minister was telling untruths a few minutes ago and, as I said by way of interjection then, at no stage in the past three years has the present Minister for Finance paid out as much money in grants.
However, that is by way of an aside because I know full well that no matter how much the present Minister for Finance might try to teach mathematics to his colleague the Minister for Agriculture he would hardly succeed and he certainly would not succeed in getting him to tell the truth on that aspect.
The present Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance shows an increase over last year of £26,735. It is the job of the Minister for Finance, particularly, to show an example and to set a pattern to his colleagues in the Government. Perhaps the Minister for Finance would give the House some explanation as to why he has not set that example as Minister for Finance and why he has not held his own Estimate within bounds.
Are we to deal with each Vote individually, a Cheann Comhairle? I am entirely in your hands. There are certainly points that arise purely on the other votes.
To take them all together is a better proposal and then they can be put individually.
It seems rather inappropriate to deal with some of the Votes at the same time as the Finance Vote because they are so very, very different and, with all respect to you, Sir, I would suggest that it might be perhaps happier to take them one by one.
I am in the hands of the House. Whatever the House and the Minister consider desirable, I am agreeable.
I do not mind.
I do not mind. I think it would be easier to take them one by one.
Very good.
In that case all I want the Minister for Finance to do when he is making in reply the speech that he did not make in opening is to tell the House why he failed in his duty to show an example to his colleagues by keeping his Estimate down, why he allowed it to rise £26,000 over last year.
Secondly, I cannot let the occasion go without making a vehement protest against the manner in which the Minister for Finance during the past year has utilised both his power as a shareholder and his power as nominator in relation to certain State boards and companies. I particularly refer to the National Stud, in my constituency. He has so mismanaged his powers in relation to that Stud that he virtually has on it now only one, or two people at most, who know anything about horses. I know nothing whatever about one gentleman who is on it except that he has no knowledge of bloodstock. Another gentleman is a turf vendor who has no knowledge of bloodstock.
Is this relevant?
Yes. The Minister has the sole power of appointing the directors and has appointed these directors within the past year. It was a matter purely of administration.
Is it not a statutory function of the Minister to make those appointments?
It is part of his administration as Minister for Finance.
Is it not a statutory function he has to carry out?
But he has not to throw off people who have been there and put on new people. The manner in which he has exercised administratively that function reflects no credit on himself and certainly no credit on the Government. The leading bloodstock breeder in the country, the man who bred not merely a Derby winner but a Grand National winner, was thrown off by the Minister for Finance and the Minister did not even pay him the courtesy of writing the normal letter of thanks any Minister always writes to a director when he feels himself unable to reappoint him. The method by which that was done leaves everything to be desired and can only be described as pure graft.
I was not present and had not the benefit of listening to the Minister for Agriculture when he was giving figures in relation to farm grants but I am sure he was as accurate as he is accustomed to be in these matters.
Hear, hear!-which is not at all.
I take it he gave the correct figures and I am not accepting the Deputy's criticism of those figures.
He was as accurate as he usually is.
The Vote is higher this year; in fact nearly every Vote that came before the Dáil was higher because, as Deputies are aware, there was a fairly substantial increase in pay to civil servants. That is the biggest item, but there are, in addition, a few smaller Votes that appeared separately in other years but are taken into the Finance Estimate this year. For instance, one that appeared up to this was the Estimate under which the banks are remunerated for the management of Government stocks. That no longer appears under a separate heading. It was only a small amount involving a few hundred pounds.
A few hundred pounds? It is £70,420. The Minister should be better at arithmetic than that.
I mean the increase.
Again that is wrong. It is an increase of £4,120. That is bigger than a few hundred pounds.
Not very much different. I am not trying to exaggerate the position or say it made a big difference. The big difference was the increase in remuneration. It is that which caused most of the increase in this Vote.
In regard to the last point raised by the Deputy, I do not know to whom he referred as going off or to whom he referred as going on but I think he referred to a person appointed to the National Stud as having no knowledge of bloodstock. As a matter of fact, he has. He has had racehorses for many years—maybe not in a very big way, I admit, but at least he knows something about it. There are always reasons why changes must be made in the board and every government has made changes in its turn. We can I always criticise each other for making these changes but we can always defend our own position, too, in regard to any changes that may have been made.
The Minister might have had the courtesy to write and thank the man he put off.
I am surprised that that should have happened.
It did happen.
I am surprised at that happening because we have always written.
The Minister can have my personal assurance that no letter was written.
I am sorry that happened because it is not usual.
