asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of Christmas cards provided in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969 and 1970 for (a) himself and (b) his Parliamentary Secretary; and the total cost in each case for each year.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Official Christmas Cards.
123.
The reply is in the form of a tabular statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:—
|
Year |
Minister |
Parliamentary Secretary |
||
|
Number |
Cost |
Number |
Cost |
|
|
£ |
£ |
|||
|
1966 |
2,200 |
131 |
3,500 |
62 |
|
1967 |
1,500 |
51 |
5,000 |
153 |
|
1968 |
2,200 |
167 |
Nil |
Nil |
|
1969 |
2,700 |
295 |
2,000 |
129 |
|
1970 |
600 |
45 (estimated) |
25,000 |
600 (estimate) |
124.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if in estimating the cost of Christmas cards and greetings he includes (a) envelopes and (b) estimated Civil Service time.
The answer is— (a) Yes; (b) No, because the work was done by the normal office staff.
The staff had nothing better to do.
125.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if in connection with the issue of Christmas cards this year by the Parliamentary Secretary, any staff was assigned specially to this work; and, if so, if he will give details.
The work was carried out over a period of some weeks by the normal office staff.
Can the Minister give any valid reason whatsoever for the huge disparity in the number of Christmas cards which he, as Minister, issued this year, costing £45, and the number of Christmas cards issued by his Parliamentary Secretary, over 20,000, at a cost of £600? Has the Minister any cogent reason to give the House for this huge disparity?
That would seem to be a separate question.
I think this matter was dealt with adequately earlier today.
I think it was dealt with the other day when the Minister said that the Parliamentary Secretary can look after himself.
Has the Deputy accepted that explanation?
I think there is a distinction to be made there.
It is clear there must have been a considerable disruption of normal staff duties. A big number of people must have been involved in doling out some 27,000 Christmas cards. What happened to the work these people should have been doing in the intervening period?
That is a separate question.
Is it contemplated that this should be done by way of overtime?
Question No. 126.
An assurance was given earlier by another Minister to the effect that none of the Christmas cards sent out was sent out to his own constituents. They were sent out to people who had business dealings with him. Does that assurance hold good in the case of the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary also?
That is a separate question. I am calling Question No. 126.
Could the Minister answer that question?
The destination of the correspondence of the Parliamentary Secretary is a matter for himself.
It was alleged by the Parliamentary Secretary——
The Chair has called Question No. 126.
——that the figure of 27,000——
I have called Question No. 126.
We were told to raise this on this question.
I want to place on record in this House the exact number of Christmas cards involved.
It is contained in the reply.
Could we have the figure?
How many cards?
I have already answered the question.
The Chair has called Question No. 126.
On a point of order. On what occasion can we ask——
This is not a point of order.
When can we get the information about the destination of the Parliamentary Secretary's cards?
This is not a point of order.
The Parliamentary Secretary attributed an untruth to me——
Yes.
——when I mentioned a specific figure about the Christmas cards he sent out.
That is right.
I understand it was an all-time record, 27,000, one to every household in Tipperary.
The Chair has called Question No. 126.
On a point of order.
What is the point of order?
I want to know, when we are given a tabular statement in reply, are we not entitled to ask for a single figure from that reply? Is that in order. Surely it is fair to ask if it is in order?
The Deputy must know that the Chair has no control over the form or content of any answer a Minister may give.
Is it in order to ask the question? I gather it is. We have asked what the figure was. Would the Minister be courteous enough to give the figure?
I will refer the Deputy to the reply given to Question No. 123, I think, which will be circulated in the Official Report.
Could we be given just one figure from that reply?
I think he will find in the answer the information he is looking for.
Could we have it now on the floor of the House?
It is a tabular statement.
Just the figure for 1970?
The Minister, 600 cards, the cost £45, and that is an estimate. In the case of the Parliamentary Secretary, 25,000——
Deputies
Oh!
Now we know who is telling the truth. The Parliamentary Secretary is silent now.
The Parliamentary Secretary was trying to make me out a liar for saying 27,000. He is still at the top of the league table. This is a national scandal. It is an abuse of public money and privilege by a junior Minister.