Vol. 326 No. 9
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism if he will indicate each subhead of each Vote for which he is responsible which is to be increased in the 1981 Estimates by less than 16 per cent and/or the officially expected rate of inflation in 1981; and how economies, if any, are to be made in respect of each subhead so as to keep within the provision in the subhead.
18.
asked the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Tourism how he expects to make each of the following expenditure reductions, for which provision has been made in the Book of Estimates in 1981: (a) £32,000 on consultancy services, (b) £29,000 on travelling expenses, (c) £50,000 on supplementary holiday accommodation, (d) £50,000 on tourism development works, (e) £212,000 on credit finance for exports or capital goods, (f) £175,000 on technical assistance, (g) £12,000 on the Irish Goods Council, (h) £950,000 on the bread subsidy, (i) £49,000 on the flour subsidy and (j) £112,000 for grants to industry by SFADCo; and if any of these cuts will result in a reduction in the level of services provided.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 17 and 18 together.
The detailed subhead information sought by the Deputy can more appropriately be raised when the Estimate for my Department comes before the Dáil.
The Minister intends to cut the amount provided for credit finance for capital exports by 20 per cent this year as against last year. Does this mean that he expects a reduction in capital exports this year?
No, I do not expect a reduction but I have not the figures for that year and the matter could be discussed more appropriately on the Estimate.
Why has there been a cut of £212,000?
That is a matter we can discuss in detail on the Estimate.
This question was put down and accepted and it is the Minister's obligation to answer it since the Ceann Comhairle has ruled it to be in order.
As I informed the Deputy in my reply, detailed matters relating to the subheads are more appropriate to the discussion on the Estimate.
The Minister has no right to adopt this attitude. The question was accepted as in order and it is quite clear——
I understand the same question has been put down to all Ministers and they have all replied in the same way.
That is not true. Is the Minister aware that other Ministers have had the courtesy and respect for this House to answer supplementary questions in respect of detailed provisions? Will he answer this question? Does the fact that there is a 20 per cent cut in the provision for credit guarantees for capital exports indicate that he expects there will be a 20 per cent reduction in capital exports? Surely the Minister has some projection as to what capital exports will be and therefore he should be able to answer this question.
This is a matter which is appropriate for discussion on the Estimate and the Deputy is at liberty to raise it then.
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.
The Minister appeared to state that this practice has been universally adopted by his colleagues and I understand Deputy Bruton to say that some Ministers have answered supplementary questions on this matter. There appears to be a conflict of fact and it would be helpful to clarify the truth of the matter as to whether other Ministers have answered similar questions.
If they have answered supplementary questions to that effect it conflicts with the original answers they gave.
In any case I have no responsibility for the Ministers' replies.
I hope the Minister was not intending to mislead the House in suggesting that all other Ministers have answered as he has.
He is hiding behind procedures.
