Vol. 276 No. 13
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £3,355,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1974, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1974, for salaries and expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry grants-in-aid.
Could the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries indicate to us how the sums provided for in the Estimate compare with the proposed allocation for the coming year?
That is a six-marker. All I can tell the Deputy is that the sums provided are substantially up on the previous year. That is what we are comparing.
May I take from that that the Minister agrees that fisheries deserve to be substantially up in the coming year because of the importance of the fishing industry to our economy especially at the present time when employment should be maintained? The Government are proclaiming that it is their aim to maintain employment, despite the fact that they are not maintaining it, but that being so I take it from the Minister's reply that he feels that the allocation for fisheries which as he says is up on the previous year should again be up if only to allow for inflation in the coming year. Since it is not are we to take it that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries takes the view that I have expressed and that his view did not prevail with the Minister for Finance? The Minister for Finance might like to explain to us why he took the view he did.
The question is not relevant to the Estimate we are discussing.
It is relevant to the Estimate under discussion. The Estimate refers to the whole fishing industry.
The Deputy is not in the Dáil a wet day.
This is a charade; it is chaos.
I should like to point out to the Minister for Finance, and to the other Ministers in the House, that if we were to challenge a division on any one of these Estimates or supplementary Estimates, the money could not be obtained in this particular year. This carry on of moving 70 estimates on the last sitting day of the financial year, a record in the history of the State——
It is not.
These 70 Estimates are being allowed to go through by courtesy of the Opposition and the Ministers concerned, particularly the Minister for Finance, would be well advised to keep a more civil tongue in their cheeks when information is being sought by those who are facilitating the Government for the neglect they have gone on with over the past nine months.
In reply to Deputy O'Malley, and the misinformation conveyed by Deputy Andrews, the position is that we are dealing this year with ten supplementary Estimates that have been debated, or partly debated, and 21 that were not debated. Last year three were debated or partly debated and 31 not debated. In 1972-73 one was debated, or partly debated, and 32 were not debated. In 1971-72 six were debated, or partly debated, and 31 not debated.
Would the Minister give us further facts and tell us how much money is involved in the Votes we are dealing with and how much was involved in the corresponding item on the Order Paper last year?
I can give the Deputy comparative figures. In this year, taking main and supplementary Estimates, 34 per cent debated, 21 per cent partly debated and 45 per cent not debated.
The Minister is giving an estimate.
The Minister should tell us the difference between debating and the introduction of Estimates and leave it at that.
How many items are on the back of the Order Paper? There are 70 items, a record in the history of this House. The Minister is deliberately misleading the House.
As usual.
There are fewer than when the Deputy's party were in power.
