Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Mar 1924

Vol. 6 No. 32

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 67—SCHOOL GRANTS (NORTHERN IRELAND).

I beg to move—

That a sum, not exceeding £11,000, be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924, for payment of grants to schools in Northern Ireland.

These are grants due to intermediate schools in Northern Ireland. In 1922, after the setting up of the Provisional Government, an examination was held by the Intermediate Board at which the pupils from certain schools in Northern Ireland sat. The examination was held in Belfast and other centres in the North. As a consequence of the pupils from these schools entering for the examination which we held, rather than for the examination which was held by the Government of Northern Ireland, they lost the grants which were payable as results fees for these examinations, namely, £2,500. Other grants which were lost to the schools as a result of following a certain line of conduct, also resulted from our holding these examinations in the North. There was also lost a sum of £2,300 teachers' salaries; a sum of £2,400 of what was called an additional grant, and £3,600, science and art grant. The Northern Government refused to pay any of the grants; they not merely refused to pay the £2,500 which would have been payable on the results of the examination, but they also refused to pay any other grants. There is no doubt that these schools suffered a loss entirely as a result of our policy in holding that examination in the Six Counties. Personally, I am not conversant with how the matter arose. It was at a time when there was a dual system of Government in the country. You had here a Dáil Eireann Cabinet, and you also had the Provisional Government. I was member of the Dáil Eireann Cabinet and not of the Provisional Government, and I do not know exactly how the matter arose, but perhaps it could be explained. In any case, the schools certainly lost their money entirely as a result of the line of action which we took.

Can the Minister say who gained this £11,000? Into whose pocket did this sum of money go by reason of it not being paid out?

The Government of Northern Ireland.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I was interested to hear the Minister for Finance saying, in the course of his statement, that he was proposing this Vote in order to make good the loss that was suffered as a result of their policy at that particular time. Now, perhaps, the Minister is aware that there are others who suffered, and are suffering, as a result of a certain policy which was pursued at that time. I would like to know if the Government is prepared to make good the losses which were suffered in all cases.

If the Deputy will discuss with me the matter he has in mind I will answer him.

Question put and agreed to.

I think we ought to go on now to discuss the Vote on Account and report the two things together rather than report the Supplementary Estimates now and the Vote on Account separately. Before we take the Vote on Account we will have to settle what procedure it is proposed to adopt.

I propose to move the motion that is on the Paper. I presume it is possible to discuss anything that arises.

That would be an extraordinary discussion. All these amounts will appear in the Estimates which will be introduced in a fortnight's time, and in the discussion of the Estimates detailed discussion of the amounts and of the method of spending the amounts will, of course, be allowed. If I knew the minds of Deputies as to what exactly they want to raise on this Vote on Account we could arrange for the discussion.

I will want to call attention to the discrepancy of the amounts claimed as between one Department and another.

That is one point. I would like to hear others.

I intend to move a reduction of this Vote by half, that is to reduce it by five millions.

I intend to move a reduction of £850,000 in connection with the Post Office in order to bring certain grievances up.

I might suggest that we defer discussion on the particular Votes till the Estimates come on.

I am quite clear about that.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Of course, there may be matters of urgency that we would wish to bring up now.

If there were put an amendment to reduce, would that amendment not be merely for the total sum, and not apply of necessity to any of the constituents?

Would it be possible for the amendment to reduce to be taken on Number 5—that we should vote the whole amount on account and only allow £5,909,520 to be granted out of the Central Fund? That would probably be more convenient than making a general reduction all through these figures. That would leave the Ministry of Finance free to allot the money as they think best.

That would probably be the better way.

That is to say, take the Vote on Account and move a reduction of Number 5 on the Order Paper?

That is what I would suggest.

That will serve my purpose better than taking the reduction on this motion.

That would serve Deputy Cooper's purpose, too?

We cannot have the discussion on the administration of all these Departments at this stage. We could arrange for one reduction to be moved so as to draw attention to one particular Department, and leave it at that, but it would be better to confine the discussion to general questions, and to take the detailed discussion later on on the Estimates.

I move: "That a sum not exceeding £10,909,510 be granted on account for or towards defraying the charges for certain public services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925. I want to say just one or two things with regard to the Vote on Account. In the first place no money can be paid as a result of passing a Vote on Account on any new service that has not been specifically before the Dáil. For instance, if these Supplementary Estimates had not been taken for Army pensions, it would have been impossible as a result of putting in a Vote on Account of Army pensions to have expended any money on Army pensions or any similar matter. Money can only be expended out of a Vote on Account of existing services that have already been before the Dáil.

Why? Is it because the precedent has been established in some other place, or is it that it has been found convenient, or is it a rule of the Department?

It is a definite rule. I am not sure whether it is statutory or not. I think it is. It certainly is regarded as one of the canons that a Vote on Account only provides for the carrying on of existing services on which the Dáil has already pronounced. With regard to the amount asked for in the Vote on Account, the Standing Orders of the Dáil contemplate that Estimates shall be passed before the 1st August. That is that from the beginning of the financial year, a period of four months shall be allowed during which the Dáil can consider the Estimates and can deal finally with them. They have to be through all stages in the Dáil before the 1st August. The practice in Great Britain is to take one-third of the total required as a Vote on Account. I think if Deputies will reflect on the amount of time that will be required they will see that you cannot well ask for less than one-third of the amount required. I hope that in a day or so the Estimates will be circulated to the Dáil. They will not come before the Dáil for consideration until about a fortnight or so. Almost about the same time the Budget and the Finance Bill will come before the Dáil, and will occupy a considerable amount of the time available. If we discuss the Estimates in detail, as we really ought to discuss them, there is no reason why we should rush over them in the way they are rushed over in England. If we then pass our Central Fund Bill and our Appropriation Bill, and allow the three weeks that will be necessary in the case of Money Bills to elapse, you will see that you could not hope to have the matter finally dealt with before the end of June—it might very well approach nearer to the end of July, which is the limit contemplated by the Standing Orders of the Dáil.

As to the disparity in the amount of various Estimates, look at the Ministry of Fisheries. The net estimate of the Ministry of Fisheries is £56,000, but there are Appropriations in Aid, as will be seen in the Supplementary, of something like £27,000 or £28,000, so that the gross expenditure is nearer £90,000 than £56,000. These Appropriations in Aid may not come in until well on in the year, so that the amount asked for on account even in that particular Ministry is not much more than one-third of the total. The general principle is that we ask for what is estimated to carry a Department over a period of three months. If the Department desires to initiate any new services then we must arrange to take the estimate of that Department early. It is undesirable, in my opinion, that we should have to rush the Estimates or that we should have to cut in in the middle of our consideration of them with one Central Fund Bill and follow it with another. In this matter, as in many other matters of financial procedure, I think we are following the British practice. In this particular regard I think it is a practice that is reasonable, although the amount seems to be large. I would suggest in the circumstances that the Dáil should be prepared to grant the amount that is asked for. It commits the Dáil certainly to nothing, except to a continuance, during the period of three months, of the existing services. It does not commit them to the total sums; it enables them to discuss in detail every item that will appear on the Estimates, just in the same way as if the Vote on Account had not been taken at all.

The first point I want to make is, that we are at a great disadvantage in dealing with a Vote on Account that we saw for the first time when we came into the Dáil yesterday. We sat yesterday for twelve hours with certain intervals for refreshments, during which we were not able to study Votes on Account. It is unfair to ask us to go on with this Vote on Account with so little notice and so little opportunity of studying the matter. That is my excuse for not having gone in detail into the figures. In the figures I have gone into there seems to be an extraordinary discrepancy in regard to the proportion demanded by the various departments. Taking one or two figures as I took them—mostly during the speech of the Minister for Fisheries— arbitrarily I found that we were asked to vote for the Oireachtas £40,000. The total vote last year for the Oireachtas was £95,000, so that instead of voting one-third we are voting nearly half. I cannot anticipate any extraordinary expenditure, any increase of staff, even any increase of salary that will necessitate an increased vote of that kind.

Mr. O'CONNELL

You never know.

Things are changing.

I think Labour Deputies have almost lost hope of any rise in their emoluments. Deputy O'Connell's Union has, I think, lost hope if Deputy O'Connell has not. Looking down the list in a most arbitrary way— I only took out a few items—Secret Service is less than a fourth of what was voted last year. I do not know whether Deputy Wilson's discovery last night that Parliamentary secretaries were possibly lurking under cover of Secret Service and have now come out, has had anything to do with that. But the fact remains that where we voted £50,000 last year for Secret Service, we are only asked to vote £12,000, or less than one-fourth, now. The average of the Vote on Account is about one-fourth of the year's expenditure. I look down the list and I find that the Gárda Síochána are asking for more than one-third of last year's Vote, though, as I understand, there is to be a cut in their pay and they will not, presumably, require as much money. On the other hand, an important Ministry—the Ministry for Local Government—are asking for less than one-fourth of last year's Estimate. Whether that is the effect of the criticism of Deputy Corish, and that the Ministry of Local Government is feeling small and drawing in its wings, I do not know Again, Hospitals and Charities are the most surprising of the lot. Hospitals and Charities last year were £16,000. They are asking for £12,000 on account, or just three-fourths of what they had before. I can only suppose that the Government is seized with penitence, and is making its soul with charitable donations. We come then to an extremely important Ministry, the Ministry of External Affairs, which is asking a Vote on Account of less than one-fifth of what it had last year. The Ministry of Fisheries, on the other hand, is asking for a good deal more than the original Vote. The Minister for Finance explained that, to a certain extent, but while he explained that appropriations in aid do not fall until late in the year, he told us nothing about those invested funds of the Congested Districts Board in the Church Consolidation Fund, or whatever it is, which bring in a certain amount of income. He did not explain how the balance would be redressed. I have taken these figures more or less haphazard, and they show no governing principle. The Government Departments have not been rationed. I have a feeling that the Departments have been asked, "How much do you want on account to carry you on to such and such a date." That, to my mind, is not the function of the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance have taken these things from the Departments, whether they were excessive or whether they were low. The Ministry of Finance should have said, "You can have so much to carry you on to such and such a date, and not one penny more."

I leave out that point of discrepancies, and I come to the other point. The Minister has quoted the practice at Westminster. So far as my recollection goes, the practice at Westminster is not to crowd discussion on the Estimates into the dog-days. I understand that they have already at Westminster discussed the Army and Air Force Estimates, and, in practice, the greater part of April and the early part of May are given to the discussion of Supply. I am speaking from memory, but that is my impression. Only a few odd Estimates, in which people do not take much interest, such as the Scottish Estimates, the Indian Budget, and so on, are crowded into the later days of June and July. If we pass this Vote on Account in its entirely now, we will be crowding our Estimates, which are probably the most important things we discuss here. Legislation affects individuals. Estimates affect taxation and taxation affects every person in the Saorstát. If we do that, we shall be discussing them as a tired Dáil, in hot weather, languidly going through and trying to keep a House. I think that would be a misfortune. Consequently, if we pass this very large Vote on Account—this Vote on Account which is £909,000 larger than the National loan; which is a quarter of the year's expenditure—it will be in the power of the Government to adjourn us. They will have the money they want, and, if our debates are inconvenient, it will be in their power to adjourn us for at least three months. By doing so we shall abdicate our constitutional function. I, for one, cannot support that. I agree that a Vote on Account is necessary, but I think this Vote, produced at such short notice, with no more explanation than we have just received from the Minister, is an excessive Vote. Therefore, I would ask the Dáil to consider very seriously before they decide upon it.

With regard to the first point that Deputy Bryan Cooper has raised in respect to discrepancies, I think the query he put very largely answers itself in the White Paper that was circulated to us yesterday. When these various items that are given on the Orders of the Day are compared with the Votes that were asked and given at the beginning of the current financial year, certain discrepancies do appear. But when they are compared with the revised Estimates that are to be called for for the coming year, as shown in this White Paper, the discrepancies that were apparent before disappear. That is to say, one-third, or whatever is the amount required on account, is generally proportionate to the Vote that will be required for the whole figure. That leaves the last question, which is, whether the vote be or be not too large. I do not think any Deputy here exactly fears that the Executive Council is going to do what Deputy Bryan Cooper suggested as a possibility—that is, to dispense with the Dáil because it had got the necessary amount of money which it needed. But the constitutional position remains the same. It is constitutionally sound that no legislature abdicates its functions to the extent of not keeping the Executive generally in close touch with the legislature in the only possible way —by voting moneys for short periods only. If any motion be made, as I understand motions will be made, for a reduction of the Vote on Account, on the ground that the Vote on Account is excessive and lasts for too long a period, I shall support it. As regards my third point, I asked the Minister a certain question in regard to a statement he made that Votes could not be asked on account where a Vote had not appeared already in the previous financial year in some form, either originally or supplementary. I asked that because in regard to No. 12—I can understand what the Vote is; it is an earlier Vote under a new name, but it is a new name —no earlier Vote did appear in any previous estimate for an item that was called a State laboratory. How far the rule which is offered to this House is consonant with the existence of this old Vote under this new form is a matter I put to the Minister now.

The State laboratory has existed. It is simply a matter of separating one particular service from another, and there is nothing new in that. Since the Customs and Excise has been in existence, it is necessary to have it.

Deputy Cooper pointed out certain anomalies, as he thought, in the preparation of the various Votes which are asked for on account. He did not note No. 21.

If I may interrupt for a moment, I made it clear that I was only able to make a cursory survey of the Supplementary Estimates.

The total sum required under the Representation of the People Act and under the Electoral Act last year, was £54,000. The total Estimate for 1924 was £41,000, and £27,000 are now asked for. I wonder whether the Government is expecting a General Election? I understand, of course, there is a Register, and I understand there is a likelihood of local elections. This is an Estimate for four months which will take us on to July. Again, I think this period is too long. I would support entirely what Deputy Cooper has said regarding the necessity for keeping this matter in our hands more tightly, and not allowing control for so long a period as four months to go from our grasp until we have had an opportunity of examining these Estimates more thoroughly. We have now reached the 27th of March, and we are supposed to get through this Vote on Account, and the necessary legislation to follow, before the 31st of March. I can imagine some very important matters arising within the next month, and I think there should be an opportunity for a closer examination of these figures, and at least some of the Estimates, some time within the period covered by the Vote on Account. It is on those grounds I suggested I would move for a reduction of this sum, so as to cover two, rather than four, months. While on this matter, I want to raise a more detailed point, if it is opportune.

Is it about a particular Department?

Better not refer to it, or we will have to deal with all departments, and I am afraid we might have sixty discussions.

Perhaps it will come up a little later.

I believe that a great deal of the fear of Deputy Johnson and other Deputies would be allayed if the Minister would indicate when he will set up the Committee on Public Accounts, which is provided for under Standing Order 100. It is due to function from the beginning of the next month. If we were assured that that particular Committee would be forthwith appointed, we might, perhaps, leave in the hands of the members of it the scrutiny of these matters connected with the expenses of next year.

They will be considering a report on the Accounts for 1922-23.

Mr. O'CONNELL

These are old accounts.

In the Vote on Account for the period 1924-25 I do not see any provision made to meet the coupons that will be due in June in connection with the National Loan. The coupons will be payable in June.

That will come out of the Central Fund. It will not require a Vote.

Your money is all right.

The Minister for Agriculture is not here, and I wished to ask him a question. It is not anything of a detailed nature—it is on the general policy in connection with matters over which he has detailed information. In the first place, we are waiting for a long time for a report on the Agricultural Commission——

No use? Very good. I believe that we would be doing the right thing when this item No. 5 comes along in reducing this Estimate by the amount which Deputy Cooper has suggested. Because, after all, to vote £10,000,000 in a cursory manner which will give the Government four months' time to waste £10,000,000, before the Dáil would be able to give the items any scrutiny, would, I think, be a very ill-advised policy for us.

Would I be in order in referring to a particular item?

No. Because the right to refer to particular items would extend to sixty items and the right of speech would be three speeches on each subject.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 11.

Tá.

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Pádraig F. Baxter.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • John J. Cole.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
  • Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Darrell Figgis.
  • Henry J. Finlay.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • William Hewat.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Alasdair Mac Cába.
  • Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • P. McGilligan.
  • Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Eoin Mac Neill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Próinsias O Cathail.
  • Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
  • Conchubhair O Conghaile.
  • Séamus N. O Dóláin.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Donchadh S. O Guaire.
  • Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • James O'Mara.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Patrick W. Shaw.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Nicholas Wall.

Níl.

  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás MacEoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
Motion declared carried.
Barr
Roinn