In regard to the question of giving consideration to a semi-State body, it is not an aspect that I propose to deal with under this Bill. Perhaps another opportunity will arise.
Telephone Capital Bill, 1973: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I understand.
I would want to have discussions on such an important aspect. The Minister when he was replying just now, and also earlier, referred to his predecessor and said that he did not wish to criticise him in any way and I appreciate that but there are some points I must raise with the Minister if only to set the record right in regard to the discussions that have gone on over this Bill and the Estimate in regard to capital expenditure. The Minister in his reply the last day referred to some Estimates and it is appropriate that I should try to put the picture in perspective regarding the level of capital expenditure by the Fianna Fáil administration. This ranged roughly from 1968-69 to the outgoing year 1972-73, from an increase of £144,000 in 1969-70, or 9 per cent, followed by £1,969,000 in the following year, or 18 per cent, followed by £1,892,000 in 1971-72, or 20 per cent, followed by £5,299,000 odd, or 46 per cent, in the final year which is 1972-73.
I am aware that the Minister said he was not criticising his predecessor but that he was criticising the Administration but I would take issue with him on the question I raised here on the last day regarding a wrong figure he gave. I refer to his having quoted Deputy Collins wrongly—I think he has agreed about this— regarding the figure of £11 million being reduced to £9.48 million whereas what had happened was that the figure of £9.48 million had been increased to £11 million. Consequently, I must put it to the Minister that in those circumstances the words he used following that error were used improperly. He referred to another cut and to this not being the Coalition Government of 1957 but by the Fianna Fáil coalition that had left office. The Minister is entitled to express an opinion but in these circumstances he was quoting figures that were not accurate. There had not been another cut in that particular case and his reference to a cut being not by another Coalition in 1957 but by a Fianna Fáil coalition was improper particularly since it was based on figures that were incorrect. The Minister should withdraw those remarks and in the sense that he was relating them to figures used by Deputy Collins he owes the Deputy an apology.
To refer further to the capital involved in respect of this Bill there is a matter which I intended clearing with the Minister. On the last occasion I asked the Minister where the difference arose between the £19 million and the £25 million and the Minister told me that the additional £6 million was coming from the Exchequer. Can the Minister tell me whether the Minister for Finance has sanctioned this extra capital? It involves a substantial amount of money in the current budget which already is of the order of £85,500,000. So far as I am aware this has been the practice on previous occasions and there were no Supplementary Estimates involved.
Another question arising in relation to capital expenditure relates to the European Investment Bank loan which, as the Minister states, is based on the £19 million estimate for the present year which I presume is expected to be £25 million finally. From the figures the Minister has given us it seems this would mean that if the £7,500,000 that is becoming available this year is included in the overall estimated capital expenditure which is envisaged now as being £25 million, we are left, after deducting £7,500,000 from £25 million, with a figure of £19,500,000. If my calculation is correct this is the increased capital which the Minister is so fortunate in obtaining from the European Bank for an improved telephone system. This money is not being raised in the way in which normally we raise capital but is being made available to us by reason of our membership of the EEC. This is very good so far as the State is concerned but no doubt the Minister will appreciate that the total amount to be made available by way of our ordinary capital budget system for the coming year will be £19,500,000. To refer back to the figures I gave earlier, in 1971-72 there was an increase of 20 per cent provided by the previous Administration and an increase of 46 per cent in 1972-73 while this year, if one disregards the European Bank loan, the increase being provided is a couple of million pounds. If I am correct in my assessment I do not think the Minister can stand over the criticisms he has made. That is not in any way to play down the additional loan which the Minister has been able to secure from the European Bank plus the amount of additional capital he is getting, which is about £3½ million roughly, over and above what the Fianna Fáil administration provided last year or to suggest it is not in itself a good thing. Anybody who studies impartially the figures I have read out will agree that they do not warrant the criticism in which the Minister indulged and to which I have already referred.
I should like to emphasise to the Minister that capital has to be found in the community and that criticism of a previous Administration because you think the money was not properly allocated or in the way you think it should have been allocated, is merely a personal opinion and has nothing to do with the realities of an Administration trying to provide and distribute capital in the best interests of the community.
Deputy Brugha has ranged rather widely considering that we are on Committee Stage and that what we are supposed to be discussing is section 1 of the Bill to which I do not think the Deputy referred specifically at all. He has gone into a lot of matter which was covered in the Second Reading debate and which was covered in my reply just now to that debate. On other matters which he raised he could, if he wished, put down questions to me which I should be glad to answer in the ordinary way. At this stage I should like to confine myself to section 1 which is the matter, in fact, before us.
This section provides authority for the further issue from the Central Fund of sums not exceeding £175 million to meet the expenditure on telephone development works. It is to be noted that the wording "as has been or may be required by the Minister" would cover expenditure already incurred in excess of that authorised by previous Telephone Capital Acts. Also, the issue of money by the Minister for Finance to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is subject to estimates of expenditure being approved by the Minister for Finance. Estimates of expenditure for each financial year are submitted to the Minister for Finance for approval about the previous December. I should like to commend section 1 to the House.
This is the second time today that the House has had the benefit or otherwise of being lectured by the Minister telling us what he will or will not reply to. He has now suggested that observations made by Deputy Brugha are more appropriate to Question Time. Today at Question Time he conveyed the impression——
The Deputy must proceed to the section.
The Minister has given us an object lesson in how to deal with the section. My question has to do with the spending of £175 million. In view of the fact that this section deals with the provision of that money my question comes within the section.
When I was Minister for Industry and Commerce I was seeking additional moneys from the Minister for Finance and I was given to understand by officials of my Department that if, at a given time, I got an allocation from the Minister for Finance out of a capital provision of £2 million it was possible that I would not be able to spend that money because we had not got the personnel available, the experts, the installers and the technicians who would enable the Department to spend the money.
That does not arise on the section.
If we are making provision to give £175 million to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs I should like to feel that the Department had the personnel and the capacity to spend it. Unless the Minister can tell me he is in a position to spend the money I certainly would be opposed to providing it.
In his Second Reading contribution the Minister indicated that together with the assistance they are getting from the EEC loan they will be spending far more than was spent last year. My understanding is that the availability of sufficient installers and technicians could be open to question in so far as there is a restricted form of recruitment. The recruitment into the engineering section of the Department is by way of trainee installers and trainee technicians and the Department have objected traditionally to taking in already trained technicians and already trained installers.
The Deputy is going too wide of the section.
I want to be guided by the Chair but I feel it is possible that the Department may not be able to spend this money. Will the Minister open the doors of the Department to installers or technicians who were trained in the US or in England, Irishmen who want to come back home and find this type of employment? In view of the fact that the Minister is seeking money in this House to enable him to increase the provision of telephones and telephone equipment, we are entitled to know whether he has the personnel, or whether he is making arrangements to take on additional personnel with expertise who can be recruited directly to the Department, or whether we have to wait for two or three years to build up a team by reason of the fact that they can be taken on only as trainee installers and trainee technicians.
In reply to Deputy Lalor's question, the matter of the preparedness of my Department to carry out the capital works concerned was very fully gone into as the Deputy will imagine it would be both in my Department and between my Department and the Department of Finance which naturally, in view of the magnitude of the sums involved, went into this matter with the most particular care. We are satisfied that we are in a position, if we get the capital, to use it to carry out the works concerned. If it should appear at any stage that there might be a bottleneck due to existing recruitment practices—and we are not satisfied that there is such a bottleneck—we certainly would take steps to deal with that situation. Our concern is to expand and modernise the telephone system and if, for that purpose we have to cut red tape, we shall cut it. There is no doubt whatever about that. Deputy Lalor may possibly have a particular case in mind and, if he has, I shall be glad to look into it with him. The general answer to his general question is as I have described it.
Deputy Lalor referred to my having lectured the House. I would regret it if I had adopted a tone which would justify that. All I am trying to do is what it is my duty to do, that is, to put this Bill through the House. I did not attempt to deal on this section with all the questions raised by Deputy Brugha because it appeared to me that they were more relevant to the Second Stage. I have, in fact, replied in substance to many of them and I do not think the Chair would permit me, even if I did so wish, to renew the whole Second Reading debate on the basis of section 1. I am commending the section to the House.
Tá súil agam go mbeidh mé in ord sa mhéid atá le rá agam. Ní mórán é ach measaim go bhfuil sé thar a bheith tábhachtach. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil suim ag an Aire i gcúrsaí na Gaeltachta.
Leigh mé an oráid a thug sé agus an Bille seo á thabhairt isteach aige. Thug mé faoi ndeara go bhfuil sé socraithe feabhas a chur ar chursaí telefóin in áiteacha mar Gaillimh, Sligeach agus in áiteacha móra eile atá cóngarach don Ghaeltacht. An raibh an tAire ag breathnú ar mholtaí atá déanta cheana féin ag An Foras Forbartha agus ag institiúidí eile nach iad maidir le tábhacht an telefóin sa Ghaeltacht?
Tá ceist faoi leith breactha síos agam mar gheall air sin agus freagróidh an tAire í an Déardaoin seo chugainn le cúnamh Dé. Ní raibh mé sa Teach an oíche faoi dheireadh ach thuig mé go bhfuil saghas dualgais orm an méid seo a rá. Má táimid ag iarraidh slí mhaireachtála na Gaeltachta a ardú, tá sé níos tábhachtaí, b'fhéidir, go mbeadh an meán cumarsáide níos fhearr ansin ná in áit ar bith eile. Níor tugadh aird ar bith ar an gceist sin ná ar na socraithe atá á ndéanamh i dtaobh conas a chaithfear an t-airgead seo.
Is maith atá a fhios agam an riachtanas atá ann feabhas a chur ar chúrsaí telefóin sa Ghaeltacht. Bím ó am go h-am i nDún Chaoin agus ní féidir liom féin mar Aire Phoist agus Telegrafa maoímh as an tseirbhís sin. Ar an Dara Céim dúirt mé gur céim mhór ar aghaidh í an Bille seo agus luaigh mé an tairbhe a dhéanfadh sé do na réigiúin cosúil leis na Gaeltachtaí. Is mó is tairbhe an Bille seo dhóibh ná do na cathracha móra. Ach ní féidir an dá cheist a dheighilt óna chéile. Cuir i gcás, nuair a théann an tseirbhís chun cinn i dTráigh Lí nó i nGaillimh raghaidh sé chun tairbhe na Gaeltachta freisin ach beidh an cheist sin á scrúdú agam sa Roinn sna blianta atá romhainn agus tá mé an-tsásta go bhfuil ceist curtha síos ag an dTeachta i dtaobh na ceiste sin. Freagróidh mé an cheist sin go cruinn.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Question "That the Bill be received for final consideration" put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
May I make a correction in a figure I gave earlier? I said I was working out a sum but, unfortunately, my subtraction was not entirely correct. The figure I should have read out, if one took off the European Investment Bank loan of £17½ million from the estimate of £25 million, should have been £17½ million. There was an error on my part.
Question put and agreed to.
This is a money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.