Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Mar 1925

Vol. 10 No. 12

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE No. 64.—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

I move:—

Go ndeontar Suim ná raghaidh thar Míle Céad agus Dhá Phúnt Sheachtód chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1925, mar gheall ar Roimh-Iocanna Ilghnéitheacha áirithe d'aisíoc isteach sa Chiste Teangmhais.

That a sum not exceeding One Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Two Pounds be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for re payment to the Contingency Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.

The Contingency Fund was established in 1923-24 by a Grant-in-Aid of £20,000. These sums are required to bring up the Contingency Fund again to £20,000. It was placed at the disposal of the Executive Council to defray urgent or unforeseen expenditure which was not covered by ordinary votes, and for which it might be found impracticable for any reason to get the immediate approval of the Dáil. Other advances have been made from the fund than those which are now being repaid. We are now only asking the Dáil to vote moneys which will not be repaid from the fund for ordinary Votes. For instance, the Dáil has already voted a supplementary estimate to provide for the expenses of the Railway Tribunal, but before that Vote was passed the Railway Tribunal was in existence and expenses had been incurred. These were paid out of the Contingency Fund, and when the Supplementary Vote for the Railway Tribunal was passed, that Vote repaid the Contingency Fund. We are now moving simply for the repayment to the Contingency Fund of sums that will not be paid out of other votes. A big amount must be remitted for public departments in respect of stamp duties payable on deeds and other documents. That, of course, is a paper transaction. It simply means that the Revenue Commissioners stamp documents without charge when they are presented by a public department, and that the revenue is recouped out of this Vote for the amount lost.

I am sorry I do not see Deputy Sean Lyons here. I was going to ask the Minister if he will justify the practice of paying a bounty in respect of the birth of triplets. Will he say whether it is a legal obligation on the Minister or whether it is a premonition that within a short time, the system that has been talked about, the endowment of motherhood, should be made general or whether it is only intended as a supplement to the Health Insurance Scheme?

I would like to hear from the Minister some justification for the continuance of this rather unnecessary notification of the fact that in certain cases three children were born at the same time. Perhaps the Minister has some reason for it, but it were well, I think, that the House should be informed.

I did not quite follow what the Minister was saying in his explanation, but he referred to the Railway Tribunal. There does not seem to be any charge on this estimate for the Railway Tribunal.

I was referring to the note at the bottom, which says: "Issues additional to the above made from the Contingency Fund will be repaid to that fund from the appropriate votes." I was indicating that during the year sums which had been taken from the Contingency Fund have since been repaid, and I instanced the case of the Railway Tribunal.

With reference to the first item of Section 3, I do not know how this practice arose, but I think perhaps the people deserve some form of felicitation or commiseration in the circumstances. There were altogether nine grants; where all three children lived there were six such grants, and then there were three other grants of £2. I think it is not an excessive sum.

Barr
Roinn