Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 29 Apr 1926

Vol. 15 No. 7

ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE No. 31—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £19,622 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Dlí agus Cirt.

That a sum not exceeding £19,622 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.

The Estimate for my Department this year shows a reduction of £5,716, as compared with last year's Estimate. The greater part of the total saving—the sum of £3,532—will be found under the sub-head of Salaries, Wages and Allowances, and has been effected by not filling a number of posts which fell vacant during the year. The effective staff of the Department, apart from the Film Censorship Branch, which, of course, is self-supporting and is obliged under the Act which constituted it to be self-supporting, is 69. It might, perhaps, be worth while and of interest to Deputies to analyse that personnel of 69 and to show the composition of it. Twenty-five officers—23 men and 2 women—of the Department are transferred civil servants. A further four men are re-instated civil servants—ex-civil servants brought back into the service by the Government. Amongst the 69 there is one pre-Truce Dáil employee. Then, by open or limited competition, there are a further 15 men and 6 women, a total of 21, and otherwise than by open or limited competition 2. I will explain that presently. That gives a total of 44 male and 9 female officers.

When I referred to "open or limited competition," Deputies might wonder what the significance of "limited" was in that context. That applies, of course, to the steps taken to deal with the temporary officer problem. Certain examinations were held confined to temporary officers, and they provided a means by which people, who had been, for many years, serving as temporary officers, were enabled to pass into the permanent service of the State and become established Civil Servants. These figures, at any rate, might be of interest— 25 transferred officers, 4 re-instated officers, 1 pre-Truce Dáil employee, 21 by open or limited competition, and 2 otherwise. To deal with the "two otherwise," one of these is the Assistant Secretary of my Department. He was a District Justice, and owing to the nature of the work which is performed in my Department, and to avoid unduly harassing the Attorney-General, it was found desirable to bring into the Department a man with legal qualifications. A Selection Board under the auspices of the Civil Service Commission dealt with applications. An application was forthcoming from one of the District Justices, District Justice Finlay, and the Selection Board named him for appointment to the post of Assistant Secretary to my Department. The other officer is the personal Secretary to the Minister. He was, I think, an Army officer at the time of his appointment. He was on the legal staff of the Army, and was recommended to me and accepted service as my personal Secretary. He served in that capacity for two very difficult years, and was subsequently certified as an established Civil Servant by the Civil Service Commission.

Last year, in dealing with the Estimates, I gave a rather detailed explanation of the duties of the inspector appointed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, for which there is £50 provided in the Estimate, and of the staff charged with the administration of the Aliens Restriction Act at Cobh. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to repeat that information in dealing with this year's Estimate. The alien traffic at Cobh has increased during the past twelve months, the total landings being 7,389 as compared with 6,302 for the year 1924-5. The departures were 7,436 as compared with 5,976. For Moville, the landing figures were 1,323, and departures 1,223, as compared with 1,554 and 1,314 for 1924-5. During the year 54 aliens were refused leave to land, and a number of others were only allowed to land on a time basis, that is to say, they had business to transact in the country and were allowed to remain for a sufficient period to transact that business. A sum of £100 is provided under Incidentals to pay the expenses of deporting aliens, who, for any reason, may prove to be undesirable.

As regards the Accounts Branch, some explanation is necessary. The Accounts Branch of my Department deals not only with the accounting side of this particular Vote, but deals also with the accounting of the Gárda Síochána Vote, the Supreme Court Vote and the High Court Vote, the District Court and the Circuit Court Officers' Vote. This latter Vote, the Circuit Court Officers' Vote, has only recently been transferred to the control of my Department, and the staff in this section may show a slight increase next year as a result of the additional duties which have been taken over. On the question of accountancy it may be well to explain to Deputies that our system of accounting for the Police Vote differs from that which obtained in the past. In the past the Inspector-General of the R.I.C. was the accounting officer for the R.I.C. Vote, and county and district officers through the country were sub-accounting officers for particular portions of the total sum. The Inspector-General had, of course, a considerable clerical staff assisting him in that work, and there was a clerical staff in the suboffices throughout the country. On the whole, I think it is a more satisfactory and efficient system to have the accounting as we have it at present, centrally operative. For one thing, it leaves the specialist police officer free to do the real work of a police officer. It means that chief superintendents and superintendents through the country have not a large demand on their time by clerical office work in connection with accounting. It is, I think, also from the point of view of financial control, a better system to have the accounting done directly in the Department by civilian clerks as it is at present. It is necessary to give that word of explanation in connection with the staffing of that accounts branch which, in the absence of such explanation, might seem heavy.

The sum of £650 for contemplated additional staff is to cover the salaries of two junior officers who have been on loan from their own Department for some time and who are now being finally transferred.

In connection with the film censorship, the apparent saving on the sub-head of £966 is due to the fact that the sum provided for the cost of showing films is now borne on the Vote for Public Works and Buildings. The total quantity of films censored during the twelve months ending 31st March last was 5,191,412 feet, of which 363,709 feet represent interest films. The fees taken in the same period amounted to £2,325 17s. Complete figures for the cost of the working of this service during the same period are not yet available. But in view of the fact that there was a reduction of fees in February, 1925, there is not much likelihood of there being an appreciable surplus of receipts over expenses.

The Vote for Incidental Expenses is increased by £110. £100 of that represents the provision for the deportation of undesirable aliens to which I have referred.

As to the winding up of the affairs of the late Dáil courts, that work has now practically terminated, and the sum of £100 provided is intended to cover the few remaining claims which are under inquiry at the moment. That item will, of course, disappear from the Estimates this year.

With regard to the officers at present employed in this Department, in reply to a question I got a return showing that under Vote 31 there were twenty-five transferred civil servants; four ex-civil servants reinstated; one pre-Truce Dáil employee; and new officers, 15 men and 6 women, and two otherwise appointed.

Could the Minister indicate to us the 23 new officers in his Department? I have been trying to get an approximate sum as to the salaries and bonus of the existing officials. This return gives us the salaries as £8,219 and bonus £4,000, and the total for salaries and bonus here is £26,000. I should like if the Minister would indicate the different officials who are new employees so that we may be able to get the salaries of the new employees in his Department for the purpose of comparison. It would be interesting to see whether the new employees are being paid on the same standard as the old pre-Truce civil servants. The return given me, while of value to some extent, is of very little value if I am not able to get further information as to the officials in the Minister's Department who are transferred civil servants and who are not. If the Minister could go down the list and point out those who are new officials it would clear up the position with regard to the new officials and the transferred civil servants.

Shall I dispose of that now or wait until all the points are raised?

The Minister points out that there is a saving in his Department of £5,800, which, he says, has been effected by not filling posts that fell vacant during the year. I should like him to tell us how many posts fell vacant during the year and how many appointments were made, if any.

On the general question asked by the Minister, the procedure on Estimates has been this: The motion that the sum desired shall be granted is usually moved by the Minister for Finance or some other Minister of the Executive Council on his behalf. The Minister in charge of the Department under discussion usually makes a statement, such as the Minister for Justice has just made. If a question of major policy arises, or if for any important reason it is desired that the Vote shall be reconsidered or referred back, the Standing Orders make provision for a motion to refer back the Estimate for reconsideration. That must be made immediately. The debate on that motion, if made, should deal with general matters of policy and not with matters of detail which would properly arise under sub-heads. If the motion to refer back the Estimate is negatived, then the Vote proper comes up for consideration, and if it is desired to raise any general matters, they should be raised in the beginning, and the details should be reserved for the sub-head under which they would seem appropriately to come. Further motions can then be proposed. In the first place, a motion for a reduction of a general Vote and subsequently motions for reductions in different sub-heads. Finally, the question on the original motion, either for the original sum proposed, or for the sum remaining after amendments have been carried, if any amendments are carried, is put from the Chair.

It has been our practice to accept amendments without notice in Committee on Estimates, but it is very desirable that Deputies who desire to move amendments, whether in the nature of a motion to refer back the Vote, or for a general reduction, or for reductions in sub-heads, should give as much notice as possible, so that Deputies and the Minister will know precisely what the Minister will be asked to deal with.

In Committee on Estimates we cannot discuss legislation. That is to say, the Minister for Justice is now answering for the administration of his Department within the law, as the law stands. A debate cannot be allowed which seeks to amend the law and that is a thing on which we have been somewhat lax, but it is really a somewhat sound rule, if Deputies will consider it, that in any discussion on the Estimates Deputies should not be allowed to advocate reforms which would necessitate legislation. In other words, if a Minister can say when a Deputy is advocating a particular thing that that would require new legislation, and if that view appears to be a correct one, the Deputy is stopped from proceeding any further along that particular line. If he were not so stopped the discussion would be endless and would not be on the Estimates.

Now the question that Deputy Baxter has raised is a general question, under sub-head A, salaries, wages and allowances. If the Minister desires it, or if it were the desire of the Committee to take up sub-head A now, perhaps the Minister could answer that question if he has the information at the moment, because it might influence the general discussion. Otherwise it is more advisable that the Minister should be allowed to hear a number of points and to answer them together or at least in groups.

I will be glad to answer any question that Deputies may ask upon procedure, because if we could keep ourselves clear on that at the beginning, the discussion on the Estimates would be more fruitful. The greatest and the most objectionable tendency is to deal with details at the very beginning. Deputies who have nothing to deal with but details should wait until the particular sub-head comes up.

I desire to raise a matter of public policy in connection with the Minister's Department. He is the Minister charged with the safety and preservation of the peace and the lives of the citizens of this country. A few nights ago a case was raised where in a particular village a man's life was in danger by a shot fired by a soldier, and from the discussion that ensued, it would appear that the State Department represented by the Minister was negligent in instituting, on behalf of the State, as the preserver of the lives of the citizens, an inquiry. I would like to understand from the Minister whether in that particular instance any action was taken by his Department, and if action has not been taken, who is responsible? The case referred to was a case of the shooting of a civilian in the village of Killenaule, in Tipperary.

Will the Deputy give the date of the incident referred to?

It was the subject-matter of a debate a few nights ago here, at which the Minister was present. It took place in August, 1924.

Perhaps the Deputy will let me say that he has exemplified very well one of the points I have made and one of the pieces of advice that I was giving to Deputies. If he intended to raise a matter of general policy, as to the action or the inaction of the Minister's Department in August, 1924, he might have given notice of that. Because, obviously, without making the Minister's case, a question like this requires some investigation.

Quite so. But might I point out that this is the beginning of this year's Estimates and that this particular procedure has not been put into practice so steadfastly as I hope it will be in future. You state that general questions, questions of policy, can be raised. This is a question of policy.

I do not want to argue with the Deputy. This is not a question of policy, if we consider the matter strictly. It is a question from the point of view of the Deputy of the remissness of the Minister in a particular case. Anyway, Deputies in the future might remember that it will be more possible to get information from the Minister, and more possible from the point of view of Deputies themselves to make their own case against the Minister, if they give him notice.

I would like to ask one question with regard to your suggestion that the Minister will reply to several speeches at once, which I agree in general is the most convenient procedure, but when a definite amendment is moved by a Deputy. I think that Deputy should be entitled to a reply from the Minister as to the argument or lack of argument with which the Deputy supports the amendment.

That is a case where the Minister has a special amendment to reply to. I presume the Minister would speak on that amendment at the time the Minister thought he should intervene.

The Minister for Justice indicates that there is a saving of £5,700 this year as compared with last year in his Estimates. Without going into the details of the staffs and all that sort of thing, I would like to refer to the fact that for the past few years the Department of the Minister has been exceptionally busy. All the court procedure and regulations have had to come before the House, and the entire reorganisation of the legal procedure has been arrived at. Now, broadly speaking, perhaps the Minister will not mind my saying it in this way: that if a general staff of, say, 76 was the staff that was required for the years that are gone by, and the Minister puts before us a proposal that a staff of sixty-nine is adequate now for the purpose and that a reduction of seven, temporary clerks mainly, is a sufficient economy, if I might put it that way, in connection with the enormous amount of relief that his Department must get by the settled procedure in connection with the courts as compared with the work involved in the past, it is a matter on which we would seek for information and enlightenment.

The changes made so far are mainly concerned with temporary clerks, but this would seem to indicate that a staff of 69 is required in these offices in the future. Perhaps the Minister would enlighten me on the point, but I imagine that the economy in personnel is hardly adequate to the relief that the office will get through the changes that have taken place. I do not want to go into the matter in detail, but I am making the broad criticism that the changes in the Minister's Department must have been very considerable, and that the work in the future cannot be nearly so heavy as it was in the past. Therefore, I cannot see how he has come to the conclusion that a staff of 69 will be permanently required for carrying out the administration of this office.

I move that the Vote be reduced by a sum of £750, which is approximately two and a half per cent. of the total sum asked for. It is on general grounds of a financial character rather than of a departmental character that I am moving this reduction. It is based on the Estimate of the Minister for Finance, who, taking all the Estimates together, thinks there will be a saving of £650,000, or say 2½ per cent., on the average. It may be that this particular department will save more than 2½ per cent.

It may be that it will save less than 2½ per cent., but we are in the peculiar difficulty of not being able to put our fingers on any particular Vote. In any case, if there is to be an excessive expenditure on any Vote the Minister will have to come to the Dáil for a supplementary Vote. If, in the case of the Department of Justice, it turns out that there is no saving whatever, we have to assume from the Estimate of the Minister for Finance that there will be a greater saving on some other Votes. I do not think it would be a very great hardship for the Minister to have to come back to the Dáil towards the end of the year and say that the Estimate now presented to the Dáil for a sum of £29,822 was just sufficient to cover the expenditure, and that our reducing it by £750 obliges him to come back again. I do not think that would be a great evil or a great hardship on the Minister, while it will give the Dáil an opportunity of reviewing the administration some time later in the year, and that will not be a fault. Therefore, on the score of departmental inconvenience I do not think there is any loss to the Department by reducing this Vote by 2½ per cent. I think we are justified in assuming that on each of these Votes there is an over-estimation of 2½ per cent. It is certainly undesirable that we should be asked to grant a sum of £29,822 if the administration can be carried on for an even sum of £29,000. Consequently, I am asking the Dáil to agree with the Minister for Finance that the sum required for this Vote and all the other Votes is the sum named in the Estimates less 2½ per cent.

The Minister for Finance, in his defence of this over-estimation, suggested in his Budget speech that there was something not pleasant in having to come back to the Dáil with the supplementary estimates. I do not agree with that at all. I think it is a greater fault to ask us for too much than to have to come again for a little more. The Minister has indicated in this Estimate under the sub-heads what he thinks will be actually required to conduct his department. If we take our judgment from the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance that there is a likelihood in all these several votes of a 2½ per cent. saving, that we reduce the vote by that sum, and if it turns out that the Estimate of the Minister for Justice as to his actual requirements is a correct one, he will have a very good case, indeed, and will not require to produce any great argument in asking us for the balance of his account. That is really what it means. I, therefore, move that the sum asked for be reduced by 2½ per cent., or, say, £750.

I am in agreement with the general substance of Deputy Johnson's argument that over-estimating is an evil, and that it is an evil that ought to be checked, but whether it can be checked by a mechanical and automatic reduction of 2½ per cent. on every vote I very much doubt. Before even the Minister for Finance made his Budget speech, I went through the estimates with some care looking for signs of over-estimating. I found them in a number of departments, and I have embodied my discoveries in a series of amendments, but I do not think you can go and put an automatic rule and say cut off 2½ per cent. everywhere. The best indication by which we may judge whether a Department over-estimates or not is by observing how its estimates in the past have compared with its expenditure. I do not entirely agree with Deputy Hewat that the Department of Justice has had abnormal claims on it in the past which have now ceased. There is, for instance, the matter of the new rules of court.

They were promised long ago.

But the promise has not been fulfilled, and I do not want to delay its fulfilment further by depriving the Minister of the staff necessary to produce them.

The Deputy knows the reason.

Deputy Hewat may, but I do not.

It was given very clearly.

What I want to do is to compare, as far as we can, the Estimates with the Appropriation Accounts and see what the Department of Justice costs. Two years ago it cost £31,251, of which about £2,300 was abnormal expenditure in connection with the winding up of the Dáil courts, and the salary of a Dáil judge. If you take away that sum of £2,300 you find that it then cost about £29,000. That was the actual expenditure. The Minister has now brought the total estimate of two years ago down to a total of £29,822. It may be that he has over-estimated, but the general indication of his estimates do not show a serious over-estimate. It is nothing compared with some other Departments I am going to deal with another time. I rather dislike having the point of my spear blunted by Deputy Johnson taking up a not very strong case and putting it on the shield the Minister for Justice can interpose.

This will not prevent you. The case that the Deputy would like to make would be on specific items. I cannot deal with these matters, but I submit I am right in assuming that at least 2½ per cent. is going to be unspent on many of these accounts because there will be a balance to make up. Some will be less than 2½ per cent. and some more, if the estimate of the Minister for Finance is to be fulfilled. I want to test the Ministry in this matter, and find out from the several Ministers where the Minister for Finance has the expectation of getting £650,000.

Heaven forbid I should defend the Minister, but I do think Deputy Johnson's method is unscientific and undiscriminating. If I may use a military parallel, Deputy Johnson wants to attack all along the line with equal force at every point. I want to find the weak point to ram my forces home. I do not think it is on this Estimate, because any increase that there is in it is an increase in the accounts branch. I think Deputy Johnson knows, and the Committee know, that it is false economy to stint the accounts branch, and that you will get more economy by having a thoroughly sound working finance branch looking into the Estimates submitted by other departments, and cutting them down within limits than by reducing them. On this point I cannot vote for Deputy Johnson's motion. On many other occasions he will be only reinforcing the conclusion I have arrived at, but on this particular Estimate I shall abstain.

May I take Deputy Cooper as taking up the cudgels for the Minister for Justice?

It is quite unneccessary.

Deputy Cooper says there is no evidence to show that the Minister for Justice has over-estimated. If you take up the Appropriation Accounts for 1924-25 you will there find that the grant given to the Department of Justice was £36,738, and there was expended £31,252, showing an over-estimate of £5,485. I think judging by that we cannot, on the face of it, accept it that there is not an over-estimate in the present case.

Deputy Baxter asks for some other information with regard to staff, and I think the exact location of the new officers. There are 25 transferred officers. Three of these are principal clerks, and one is a clerk in charge of accounts.

Is he a higher clerk?

Yes, he would be on the £550 to £700 scale. Seven are higher executive officers; five are junior executive officers; one a superintendent of registry; six, clerical officers; one superintendent of typists; and one shorthand typist. There are four reinstated officers, and one of these is the head of my Department. He was a civil servant prior to the Treaty. The three others are clerical officers.

Are they lower clerical officers in the Accounts Branch?

Yes. With regard to the new officers who came in, 21 by open competition, and 2 by limited competition or otherwise, I find that 15 men and one woman are lower clerical officers.

On the scale of from £60 to £200?

Yes. One is a writing assistant; three are shorthand typists, and one an ordinary copying typist. Of the two others, Mr. Finlay, ex-District Justice, is assistant secretary in my Department, and the other is a junior administrative officer. In reference to the matter of my personal secretary, it is right perhaps I should mention that he was a first honours graduate of the National University, and a barrister, and the necessary certificate was issued by the Civil Service Commission on the ground that he had the necessary educational qualifications, and that he had given very valuable service over two years in his capacity as secretary to the Ministry.

As to Deputy Baxter's point with regard to the shooting at Killenaule in the month of August, 1924, I think it was unfortunate that I was not present for the debate on the adjournment yesterday evening. I think it is a little unfortunate, too, that if Deputy Wilson had intended to raise the matter he did not give some notice, for just at the moment it would be idle for me to pretend I could discuss the matter authoritatively. I was not prepared to have that incident raised, and it would simply be wasting the Deputy's time and mine if I were to try and weave a certain number of words about it.

The incident is of such a peculiar nature that one would imagine from the Minister's position as preserver of the lives of the citizens that it would have indelibly impressed itself upon him.

We have had incidents of a very peculiar nature within the last two or three years, as the Deputy knows.

I am interested in the Killenaule incident also, and I would like to know if the Minister will give an opportunity for discussing it on some later vote?

Certainly. If the Deputy thinks it appropriate I will be quite prepared to deal with it on the Gárda Síochána Vote, or at any time the Deputy wishes to raise it on the adjournment I will deal with it. All I need is some little notice.

If sufficient notice has been given to the Minister we can discuss it to-morrow.

Very good; that will probably be sufficient.

I do not like the idea. Deputy Heffernan has already raised the matter with regard to the military and the Minister for Defence has answered. If there is any other aspect dealing with the Gárda Síochána the Minister for Justice would deal with that. I think the Deputy should raise the question on the adjournment rather than on this year's Estimates. I would prefer to have the thing segregated. I think it would be better for the Deputies to have it discussed in that way rather than on the Estimates.

I think the other way is better. It is a matter of policy. The information I have is, that certain officers were placed under arrest and no action was afterwards taken by the civil authorities in regard to those military officers. That is the point of policy in connection with the matter. Therefore I think it should be taken on the Estimates.

I do not like to differ with the Deputy, but this is hardly a point of policy. Deputies may allege, for example, that it is the policy of the Minister never to arrest soldiers. That is a question of policy, but really if you take a particular incident anywhere, at any time, you can hardly say it is a question of policy. We ought to have every opportunity of discussing this matter, but I have serious qualms about the discussion, on the Estimates for 1926-27, of a specific incident going back to August, 1924. There is no difficulty in the matter because the Deputy has raised it once from a particular angle. From the other angle he will get an opportunity to raise it again, but I do not like to see it raised on Estimates.

Might I point out that when it is raised on the adjournment the Deputy has no right to call for a division, but when it is raised here on the Estimates he can move a reduction of the Vote if he considers the explanation given is not sufficient? That is the difference.

On a point of order, I submit for your consideration that inasmuch as certain Deputies have only now been placed in possession of the evidence in the matter and that there appears to have been a disregard, or rather that it is assumed there has been a disregard, of the interests of the public by the Department, it is germane to the discussion on the policy of the Department, to find out whether the incident in question, the failure to prosecute in that case, is part of the Ministerial policy in such matters.

Might I say that I gather that Deputy Wilson's and Deputy Heffernan's complaint is the failure to prosecute persons charged with certain offences? If that is so, does it not come under the Vote for Law Charges which includes the salaries of the Attorney-General and also of the prosecutors? Could it not be raised on that Vote?

I think it could.

I do not want to keep the matter from being discussed, but I want to get it discussed in the proper place with proper notice and with proper regard for all the circumstances. If Deputy Wilson or Deputy Heffernan desires to raise this matter and consult me on it, and tell me what exactly it is, I am sure I could give them a great deal of assistance. I do not think it ought to be raised on the Estimates. If it is important, the more important it is the more reason why it should not be raised in any casual fashion. I think I should be given an opportunity of hearing what this point exactly is, and then I will decide what the proper place is for raising it.

Deputy Hewat said if the Minister could do with 76 people some months ago, in view of the improved condition and the relaxation in his Department he should be able to do with less than 69 now, that is to say, a sum in proportion which Deputy Hewat works out to his complete satisfaction. Of course, there are other explanations which do not suggest themselves to the Deputy. A year or two ago Departments were very seriously overstrained and were working at a tension which could not possibly be accepted as a normal state of affairs. Officials were in Government Buildings up to late hours in the night. There was any amount of overtime. Men would not stand that strain and were not standing it. Matters have eased somewhat since then. Except in some very special circumstances there is an absence of that serious overtime work, which really is not proper, and does not make for the greatest administrative efficiency, but there is a certain amount along that line. If the strain has eased it is right it should have eased, because it could never have lasted and men could not have stood it. There is less overtime work in my Department. And I think that refers generally to the other Ministers who, of course, will speak for their Departments.

It is a little discouraging to hear Deputy Hewat saying that the rules of court were promised long ago. It makes one agree with the lady character in the Abbey play, who remarks from time to time, "Where is the use in talking?" I have told the Deputy again and again that the rules of court cannot be brought into the Dáil until the Court Officers Bill is signed by the Governor-General and becomes law, because rules of court deal with officers and offices that will not have a statutory existence until the Court Officers Bill is law. Therefore, the rules of court have to wait for that Bill.

My interjection in that matter was really because some Deputy behind me was referring to the fact that the rules of court were still a burden on the Minister, but I disclaim that I am immediately behind that.

I recognise, of course, that it was only a ghoul, and some ghouls should not be taken too seriously. But it is a bit of a shock to hear, after an explanation which is after all, a perfectly good and sound explanation and has been given about ten or twelve times to the Dáil, that a situation arises calling for a repetition of that explanation. Deputy Hewat, Deputy Johnson and Deputy Cooper have already had a hot engagement, and it is very encouraging at this early stage of the Estimates to find the enemy quarrelling among themselves. I rather incline to leave it between them and not to spoil a good fight by superfluous intervention. Deputy Johnson has moved a reduction and has applied the peculiar argument that if the Minister for Finance anticipates that on the Estimates, taken generally, there will be a surplus of in or about £600,000, that means that a particular Estimate might well be pruned by 2½ per cent. Under the present system of financial control I disagree with that line of thought. Supposing you had such a system of control that if I were to find myself with too little I could go to some other Minister who had too much and borrow from his wealth, or surplus, there might be logic and soundness in the Deputy's point of view. But, under a system of control when each Department is run as a water-tight unit, it is scarcely sound to say that if the Minister for Finance believes, viewing the Estimates generally, that there will be found, in some quarter or another, he not being able to put his finger on any one quarter just at present, to be a surplus of £600,000, that the Deputy must come along now with his reduction vote on my Estimate of the very meagre sum of £750. If the Deputy was going to have a reduction in my Estimate I would have been glad if he had put it higher. However, it is really scarcely a point for me to grapple with. The Deputy in moving his reduction did not imply any censure on the Department, did not put up anything which I could be reasonably called upon to defend. Having moved this reduction of £750 to my Estimate, we must assume that he will proceed logically and move a proportionate reduction to every other Estimate. That will, no doubt, be very amusing to the Deputy and intensely interesting to the Dáil, but I do not see that I am called upon to do battle with him on that position and I refuse to do so.

I think the Minister's position is a perfectly sound one. He has presented what he conceived to be the absolute minimum amount of money required to carry on the work of his Department, and all the other Departments have done the same. But the Minister for Finance comes along and says: "That Department will not spend as much as the Minister is asking, by a certain sum of money." But somebody has to say what the amount that is required will be. I am backing the Minister for Justice against the Minister for Finance in this. I think he knows better than the Minister for Finance what he is going to spend. Supposing the Minister for Justice is right in his Estimate, supposing that other Estimates are right, except, let us say, the Army—

Oh, that is quite right.

—where is the Minister for Finance going to get his £650,000? If the Minister for Finance is near about right, some of the Votes are going to be very much more over-estimated for than 2½ per cent., but I do not know which is, unfortunately, and I want to find out from the Ministers responsible for the various Votes which is the weak spot.

I want the Minister for Finance to say which of these Votes is over-estimated; where he thinks the over-estimation is to be found. Surely it is unreasonable to think that he can save £650,000, say, on the last six Votes on the list, because all the others, according to the Ministers responsible for them, are not over-estimated. Who is wrong in this matter? I think the only thing the Dáil can do is to reduce every Vote by 2½ per cent. Of course, we will be wrong; we cannot be right in every one of them, but if we reduce them all round by 2½ per cent. the total sum we vote will coincide with the estimate of the Minister for Finance of what he wants, and as far as the Dáil is concerned, we shall be justified in not voting away the people's money in a way that the Minister for Finance says is not justified. I think it is quite a fair statement to say that there is no reflection upon the Department to ask the Minister to come back in six or nine months' time for the balance of the account which he rendered to us in April, 1926. If he comes in January and says: "I asked you for £29,822 nine months ago. You only gave me £29,100. I now want the balance, and I have justified the claim that I put before you in April last," that would be a perfectly legitimate position for the Minister to come to, and we should not be asked to vote to the Minister for Justice more than the Minister for Finance says he requires, and I say that in reference to all these Votes.

For the first time in my life since I have been in the Dáil I find Deputy Johnson both ignorant and innocent. Ignorant—he has not studied the Estimates. He wants to apply this hopelessly unsystematic, unscientific method of a 2½ per cent. cut all round, including Charitable Donations and Bequests, including Hospitals and Charities, and things of that kind. If he had worked on the Estimates as I have worked on the Estimates, if he had even studied the amendments that I have placed on the Order Paper, he would find that the Estimates could be cut down by over £650,000.

That may be additional.

It may be additional, but at any rate it is a better method than going around and cutting 2½ per cent. off everything. I put it to the Dáil in reason that every Minister must have a certain margin on his Estimate. If any of us were taking on a contract we would inevitably allow a certain margin——

You have given it away.

Deputy Cooper was talking about ignorance a few moments ago.

Now I understand why Irish business men are so unsuccessful. I never heard of anyone taking a contract and not allowing a certain margin for bad weather, strikes, and things of that kind.

The Deputy has a good deal to learn yet.

The Deputy is, fortunately, younger than Deputy Good and will, no doubt, learn it in time. I agree with what Deputy Johnson says about over-estimating, and I think Departments are too frightened of coming here and asking for Supplementary Estimates. You cannot fix your expenditure in Estimates to the last farthing. But the consequences of Deputy Johnson's policy of an all-round cut of 2½ per cent. would be that each Department, in framing its Estimate, would allow for that cut beforehand and inflate its Estimate by 2½ per cent.

Do not attack the enemy—if I may call the Ministers the enemy for the time being—where he is expecting to be attacked. Attack him where he does not expect it. Look for his weak points and attack him there. That is the way to reduce expenditure. When I see Deputy Johnson coming under the prophetic mantle of Deputy O'Mara and Deputy Duffy, with their absolutely crude, ill-considered suggestions of all-round cuts of 2½ per cent., which will, no doubt, in time grow to 25 per cent., I can only think, just as the Queen of Sheba said to Solomon, that the half of Deputy Johnson has not yet been told me.

I do not know when we will get through the Estimates if we are to have a long discussion on items in connection with which not one Deputy can point to an over-estimate. Any one of us can say generally that the salaries of certain people should be cut down. It is a waste of time to be talking so much over an Estimate in which no particular items can be pointed to as unnecessary.

I think this is the right way to protest against the policy of the Minister for Finance in assuming that there is £650,000 over-estimated over the whole of the Estimates. There is no other way that I know of in which the House can make that protest. It cannot be brought up on the Finance Bill, and it cannot come on the further discussion of the Estimates. It is the only way a protest can be made, to my knowledge.

What about taking it off the Vote for the Department of Finance?

You could not do it.

Take it all off.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 56.

Tá.

  • Seán Buitléir.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraic O Máille.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár,

Níl.

  • Earnán Altún.
  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Próinsias Bulfin.
  • Séamus de Búrca.
  • John J. Cole.
  • John Conlan.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • James Dwyer.
  • Michael Egan.
  • Desmond Fitzgerald.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
  • Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
  • Liam Mac Cosgair.
  • Seán Mac Curtain.
  • Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
  • Patrick McGilligan.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Michael K. Noonan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Mícheál O Dubhghaili.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Eamon O Dugáin.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Donnchadh O Guaire.
  • Aindriú O Láimhín.
  • Séamus O Leadáin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Domhnall O Mocháin.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Seán O Raghallaigh.
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.
  • Liam Thrift.
  • Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Corish. Níl: Deputies Sears and Dolan.
Amendment declared lost.

I just want to ask a question of the Minister on sub-head A as to the saving that he proposes in the total of salaries. It is a special reference to the point that was raised in connection with the appropriation accounts. The question I want to ask the Minister is whether the saving, as estimated for now, is really due to an attempt to approximate more closely what he actually found necessary for his expenditure. If he turns to the Appropriation Account of 1924-25 he will find the estimate under the head of salaries, is £5,000 more than was necessary. That was for a staff of 66. The following year it was found necessary to increase that 66 to 76, owing to circumstances that he mentioned. We do not know what was the actual expenditure that year. The sum estimated for, I think, was about the same as that of the previous year. Now this year he is asking for £27,000 instead of £30,000 asked for in 1924-25, the numbers now being 69, getting back towards the original staff of 66. He is asking for £2,000 more than was necessary in 1924-25, presumably because there is still an increase in staff as compared with that time. But is this £3,000 saved on salaries due to an effort on his part more closely to approximate in his estimate to what was actually found necessary in 1924-25?

I would like to ask the Minister what is the position in regard to this protective force. There is the provision for messenger staff and protective force service—£747. I would like to have some information as to the position of the protective force, and whether there is any change as compared with a year ago. I would like to ask for some information with regard to the contemplated additional staff. Is an addition actually contemplated, or is it merely a provision for a possible additional staff? Perhaps some information on this point could be given to enable us to discuss this matter.

In reply to Deputy Johnson's query this provision for messengers and a protective force is really a matter that is looked after by the Department of Finance. Some of it represents our contribution, our share of the cost, but this is not a service specifically in my Department. It is the messenger staff generally attached to Government Buildings and provision for adequate protection.

I am not quite sure on which vote it occurred, but there was a discussion a year ago in regard to this particular force. I think I am right in saying that it was a survival and was being got rid of. There should be no necessity, now, for a protective force outside the Gárda Síochána, or the police force under the Department of Justice. If this is taken to be a special protective force still existing and running through the Estimates in different departments then it requires some explanation from one or other of the Ministers.

There is no protective force of the kind the Deputy refers to, in existence, apart from the regular police. There would be the uniformed Gárda Síochána plus the detective branch which is part of the Gárda. I am not quite clear that the reference to the protective force is not really an error in the Estimates carried forward from last year. Subject to possible correction, I think it should be read as applying to the messenger service in my Department. There is no separate protective force in existence now. Any special protection that requires to be given is given by the police, either the uniformed police or the detectives associated with the police.

Would the Minister say to whom he proposes to pay this £747?

To the messengers and cleaners.

Of your own Department?

On my own floor attached to my own portion of the building.

If Deputies would look at the Department of Finance estimates they will see that it is set down for cleaners and servants besides those of the Minister for Justice. I think it is simply a verbal error. Last year there was still the remains of the old protective force on duty in Government Buildings. It has been dispersed since. Some of the members were discharged, others found employment as messengers, and I think one or two found places in the Gárda Síochána or detective division. What is found in the vote this year is simply the words remaining in error.

The verbal error apparently occurs in the Estimates for other Departments.

Yes, in the Department of Industry and Commerce.

As to the cost of messengers and the protective force, I think some instructions should have been issued before the Estimates were prepared.

It will be found in Estimates Nos. 3 and 5 that the necessary eliminations have taken place.

That brings us down to £747. Is that to be added to £412, making £1,159 for cleaners?

It is much more. You will also find that on other Estimates.

Can we take it as positive that where the words protective force occur throughout the Estimate they should be deleted and that no sum is being voted for the protective force?

Is it possible for the Minister to tell us the total sum allocated for messengers and cleaners in Government Buildings throughout all the Departmental Votes?

I could not tell the Deputy now, but I could tell him in the morning.

Perhaps that should be italicised. In the columns that follow you have the sums for two years. I think the words "protective force" should probably have been italicised with a note that that portion no longer applied.

It is here the £600,000 is lost.

The rest is portion of the general messenger service which would include attendance when callers arrive at the office of the Department at Government Buildings, as well as messengers on the respective floors.

I presume, in addition to the £747 and the £412, that a sum is included for bonus.

I should mention that my Department has an out branch —an Accounts Branch—which is not accommodated in Government Buildings, but has an office in Fitzwilliam Street. The attendants there, and the messengers would, of course, be included in addition to the staff of that kind in Government Buildings proper. Deputy Johnson asked about the £650 additional that was contemplated for additional staff. I think I explained that that was to cover the salaries of two junior officers who have been on loan from their own Department to my Department.

I missed that.

It was finally decided that their salaries will be borne on the Vote for my Department in future. Deputy Thrift asked for more precise information about the numbers required in the Department this year, and contrasted the numbers with those of 1924 and 1925. I think the explanation lies in the fact that there is now a firmer conception of what our requirements are. It is almost true to say that up to this year we were a growing Department, and could not have definitely stated to the Minister for Finance at a particular time that our needs were going to be X in the matter of staff. I think that stage has now been reached when we can say to him that we can run the service for which we are responsible with a headquarters staff of that kind.

In connection with this sub-head I should like to put up a request to the Minister that films of an educational character should be excused from import duty. Such films still pay the censorship fee, and pay the fee for storage in bond. The sum is a trifling one, but it is not inconsiderable to the small scientific departments that have occasion to import such films. Inasmuch as the censorship office more than pays for itself by these fees, and as far as I can judge from the figures in the return, there is a surplus returned to the Minister of about £700 over cost of maintenance, I would suggest to the Minister for Justice that he should not let himself be outdone in generosity by the Minister for Finance, and that he should forego these small fees.

We do not return any surplus and we are not allowed to do so by the Act which constitutes the Film Censor's office. The explanation of this will be found in the footnote which mentions sums of £10, £28, and £725. These are respectively included in the provision under sub-heads C and D and allied services.

It is hard to know the meaning of that. I was taking the receipts as estimated at £2,130, and I made out the total expenditure at £1,384.

If the Deputy looks at sub-head C he will find in connection with the Film Censor's Office a sum of £10 for incidental expenses. Included in sub-head D you have a sum of £28, and also a sum of £725. A sum of £80 has to be paid by way of rates, £580 for accommodation, £40 for stationery and printing, and £45 for Post Office. There is no real surplus on the working of that office, and I think that under the terms of the Act constituting the office we would not be entitled to have anything going to the Exchequer in respect of that particular service. If there were a surplus it would, I think, have to be returned to the trade, and that actually happened last year.

I think the terms of the Act are to the effect that the fees are to be so calculated as to provide for the upkeep of the Censor's office.

Yes. But what I am at is that these figures do not show a surplus of £700 odd. On the point which the Deputy has raised, if a surplus is found to exist and if the office is any more than self-supporting, I would be glad to consider the request that these educational films should be exempt from the fee. That is something about which I would hope to get the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. There is not any real controversy as to the merits of what the Deputy has raised, and it is really a question whether a surplus exists.

Then I will put it to the Minister later.

Is the Film Office obliged to demand a fee from the owners of any educational films? Could not there be an arrangement by which the owners of such films would be permitted to have the charges remitted before they are paid? The sum accruing from this source must be very small, and it would not go very far towards the upkeep of the office. If the Minister has power, under the Act, to do this, why is it not done?

I am prepared to look into the matter, as I would not like to say off-hand what the position is. It is a legal point which would need looking into. As I am situated at the moment, the position is that complete figures as regards the cost of this service for last year are not yet available. Our view departmentally is that, having regard to the fact that there was a reduction of fees in February last year, there is not much likelihood of there being a considerable surplus. There may be some surplus, and if such appears to be the case on the working of the office, we could consider whether remission could be given along the lines which Deputy Alton suggests.

I should point out that these films are not matters for censorship and are not intended for the public. The Censor can see at a glance that they are outside his scope.

Regarding sub-head A, I would like to know why the fees received by the Ministry on account of film censorship are not recorded as appropriations-in-aid? There is no appropriation-in-aid in this Vote and it seems to me that there ought to be.

Is there any other estimate outside this estimate of £1,384 —from the Board of Works or other charges? Reading this, one would think that this was the only charge.

On page 52 the Deputy will find reference to the Film Censor's Office, such as maintenance, supplies, furniture, and so forth, and if the Deputy will look at the foot-note on page 106 he will see the sum of £580 for office accommodation; stationery and printing, £40; and Post Office, £25.

That is additional to A.A.?

So it would appear from the foot-note.

Surely the cost of this service will be met out of the censorship fees. In the next Vote you will find that from the total estimated cost the receipts are deducted and the figure is a net figure. It would appear that there is some discrepancy here.

There is a discrepancy to the extent that you must provide the service, and the receipts are anticipated.

Mr. BYRNE

Does the Minister not think that this extra sum of £580 is rather extravagant?

Is the Deputy referring to the sums detailed in the foot-note? That is a matter which he can raise on the Estimate of the Board of Works. The rent of the office and the cost of the furniture and fittings are not borne on this Vote.

Deputy Johnson may be sure, I think, that two and a half per cent. appropriation is going to come from this source at any rate.

Deputy Heffernan's point is simply a technical finance point. There is nothing in it beyond that. It is simply a matter of preference, and the Finance Department exercises its preference in a particular direction. I could not really tell the Deputy on what grounds the decision was come to.

I did not really put that question. Would the Minister explain where the amount received is shown?

Under "Miscellaneous Revenue" in the Revenue Accounts. I might say that the whole question of appropriations-in-aid is one to which some consideration was given by the Committee of Public Accounts, and it is one which has been under consideration, to some extent, in the Department of Finance. There is not at present any great method in the way in which sums are shown sometimes as appropriations-in-aid and sometimes treated simply as Exchequer receipts. My own opinion is that the items shown as appropriations-in-aid are rather too numerous than otherwise. In many cases the showing of something as an appropriation-in-aid serves really to disguise the real cost of the service to the public. There are, of course, appropriations-in-aid which have not that effect—for instance, an appropriation-in-aid arising from the sale of surplus property or stores, worn-out stores, or something like that. They do not disguise the real cost of the service, but there are other appropriations-in-aid which do. We took over the Estimates in a certain condition, and we have, I think, improved the form of the Estimates a good deal. We have made them more logical and we have made them simpler in various respects. This question of appropriations-in-aid is one which has not yet been dealt with, but which is due to be considered, and will be considered further.

Is that £580 an approximation of the rent of the buildings in Molesworth Street?

I could not say at the moment.

What does it mean?

Rent, light, fuel, water, heating, and a few other items set out on page 52.

I take it that the £2,130 referred to at the foot of this page is estimated revenue?

Does not the Minister think that, from the point of view of discussing the Estimates and ascertaining exactly where we stand on each Estimate, it would be better, since the expenditure for the Film Censor's office is almost entirely included here, that the appropriation-in-aid under this particular sub-head should likewise be shown?

I am very doubtful whether such a source of income should really be shown as an appropriation-in-aid, because it would remove the cost of the Film Censor's office from the cost of our administration, and there is no doubt that that is a cost that has to be borne by the public.

The point is that we should be enabled to deal with one subject under one Estimate. We pointed out on previous occasions, when discussing these Estimates, that when we came to certain portions of them we were referred to another Department and to another Vote. That is not desirable. The Minister has explained to us to-night that some effort has been made to improve the form of these Estimates. I think this Estimate is capable of considerable improvement. I do not recollect whether this item of £580 appeared last year in the Estimates at all. I am not quite sure whether it is not a new item altogether.

It was £923 last year.

I have no recollection that it appeared under this particular head. It would be very desirable in future that we should, as we come to each Estimate, deal with all that concerns that Estimate. Let us have it all before us and let us deal with it all and have done with it, instead of dealing with portion of it and dealing with another portion, which may appear in another Estimate, later on. It is much the same in the case of the Education Estimate.

The Deputy will realise that the point he is making now touches on the whole question of division of labour, so to speak, among Ministers—the whole question of the division of work between various Departments each with its individual political head. It sounds well to say "Why not take everything under one estimate and show us the whole picture?" But then you would have this position: that whereas I am responsible for the Film Censor and his staff and the degree of satisfaction or dissatisfaction which the operations of the Censor and his staff give to the general public, I am not responsible for the rent and light and equipment generally of the office in which he works. That is a matter for the Commissioners of Public Works, who are represented in the Dáil by the Minister for Finance. It would be only an apparent improvement to put everything down under that head, because you would have much the same position again. One Minister, at a certain stage, would have to say, "There I leave you; that is the responsibility of another Minister." For instance, taking that last foot-note on page 106, you have sums for rates, office accommodation, stationery, and a sum in respect of the Post Office. These are all various phases of administration divided out among different Ministers.

The Minister can see exactly what happens. When we come to the Board of Works Vote we will want to know whether those offices are suitable, whether the rent is too high and whether the position of the office is suitable to this Department. We will be told by the Minister that that is not a matter for him; that he is only responsible for the rent of the office; that whether the office is suitable or whether the accommodation is suitable, is a matter for another Minister. We will be driven from one to the other.

As a rule, if a person wants a house he goes to people who provide houses. He does not go to a stockbroker or a breeder of horses. The Board of Works specialises in providing this particular class of accommodation for the whole of the Government Service. If the Minister for Justice had got to provide himself with an office, he would have to send out one of his own officials, not accustomed to that particular sphere of activity, who would go round from friend to friend or from auctioneer to auctioneer. In the Board of Works, that is the business of a particular officer. There is a man responsible for it and he can be held responsible. But it ought not to be the responsibility of each Minister to make a case for his office and for the rent he pays.

I want to support Deputy Good to this extent: that I think there is a growing tendency on the part of public departments to transfer to the Board of Works, where it cannot be properly discussed, expenditure which should be charged against their own Vote. We have included in the Vote for the Board of Works, items for Agricultural Colleges at Glasnevin, Athenry, Ballyhaise, and Clonakilty. I agree that the Board of Works are experts, but they should be experts in an advisory capacity and when they have given their advice and indicated the office, then the cost should be on the Vote of the Department concerned. Otherwise, you will never get a clear discussion. I have never suggested in the Dáil that the British practice was the best practice because it was British, but I say in this respect the British practice, whereby not the Board of Works, but the Secretary of State for War, answers for new buildings which are required for the Army, new barracks and so on, is a sound one. We see under the Board of Works Vote this year a sum of £40,000 for new barracks at Ardnacrusha. We must discuss that, not from the Board of Works point of view, but from the strategical point of view, and yet it is under the Vote of the Board of Works and not under the Vote for the Department of Defence. I do think that the Board of Works should always be consulted. They can always act as agents. That is what they are there for, just as if we went in private life to take an office or private premises, we would go to an agent and consult him. They should act as agents for Government Departments but the Department concerned should be the principal and should pay the rent, and so on.

The Minister for Defence when he requires a barrack does not call in the Board of Works and say: "What do you think I should build for—one thousand, two thousand, three thousand or five thousand men?" He says to the Board of Works: "I require accommodation for a garrison of a certain number." It is their job to see to that but so far as the responsibility for accommodation and strategical position and all that sort of thing is concerned, it falls on the Minister for Defence. The actual carrying out or the making up of the prescription is the responsibility of the Board of Works.

Will the President say who selects the site? Is it selected by the Minister for Defence for strategical reasons or by the Board of Works because it is the cheapest site they can get in that neighbourhood?

I would say in the case of the position the military would require, it is the Department of Defence, not the Minister for Defence.

I am grateful to the President because that shows that the charge should come under the Department of Defence Vote, and not under the Board of Works Vote.

In respect of one part of it, the policy of it, it would be the responsibility of the Minister for Defence, but the provision, the excellence and suitability of the provision, would be the responsibility of the Board of Works.

I would like to point out that these are estimates of expenditure. There is a possibility in discussing the salaries, wages and allowances sub-head, to discuss policy and to criticise the policy of the Minister in the instance which Deputy Cooper gave, the selection of a site from the point of view of strategy. As the President pointed out, that has nothing to do with the quality of the building, or the cost of erecting that building. I think it is perfectly right that that should come under the head of the Department responsible for putting up buildings, and it is, therefore, in the right place under the Public Works Department. I am not convinced at all of the case made against this form of estimating. As I said, it is an estimate of expenditure for which the Minister for Justice is responsible. That part of his responsibility which is concerned with the film censorship is detailed, but to show that there is a further charge against this service of film censorship, which is provided by another department, the facts in the matter are stated for the information of the Dáil. You are specifically referred to these other Departments by the foot-note.

I think the information that is contained there is necessary for the guidance of the Dáil and for informing the Dáil of the total amount that is being spent for this particular service, but the provision of these means for carrying on the service is not the responsibility of the Minister for Justice. I think it would be quite wrong, and as a matter of fact, would defeat the objects Deputies are seeking, if we placed under the Department of Justice, the cost of the building or the rent of the building in which these offices are situated. After all, the Minister would not be able to answer a question, and he would not be able to have access to all the officials of the Department of Public Works. As is alleged against public officials, the Minister might be hoodwinked up to the eyes. If there are half a dozen different Ministers, each for their respective services responsible for the provision of offices, they could give half a dozen different answers, and there would be very much more dissatisfaction in the presentation of the Estimates under these circumstances, than there could possibly be under the present system. I think if we study the footnotes and recognise that all the information regarding expenditure under other Votes is indicated under the Vote in question, we should be satisfied that all the facts are presented.

On the question of the method of the presentation of the accounts, it has been recognised as essential, that before there is any departure from the method of presentation, the Minister for Finance shall notify or approach the Committee of Public Accounts and get their sanction for any change in the method of presentation. I think if there is any real wish on the part of Deputies that there should be a change in that matter, it might be no harm if they would make themselves acquainted with the practice that has been outlined in some of the previous reports, and also make representation to that Committee as to what they think is worth considering in respect of the change of form of presentation. I would seriously ask Deputies to consider the unwisdom of the suggestion that the respective Ministers should be made responsible for the Vote under Public Works and Buildings. I think it would defeat the ends they are seeking and cause very much more difficulty for Deputies than the present system.

I think also that any change in the system of accounting for the receipts of the film censor's office as an appropriation-in-aid, would defeat the objects of the House, because you would have to provide the service and you would be providing that service although it would not appear in the estimate of expenditure. It is much preferable to show the receipts amongst the non-tax revenue miscellaneous items.

I think this discussion has pretty well proved the necessity for some kind of revision as to the method of putting estimates before the Dáil, because it has been shown that there is no standardisation of method. We have one method in regard to one account and another method in regard to another.

I am dealing with the questions of appropriations-in-aid. I do not know if this is the stage to deal with the general aspect of the accounts, but it seems to me that something in the nature of a revision, or an inquiry into the system of accounting, would be advisable. I would suggest that each Estimate ought to show—and I differ from Deputy Johnson in that respect—the actual portion of the expenses which should be debited to that account, such as office equipment and office furniture. It might possibly be done by way of showing a capital account at the beginning of the account and showing a capital balance on the other side at the end of the account.

That would show us the account as a business account, with the appropriations-in-aid duly credited. I throw that out as a suggestion, although it is not a very deeply considered suggestion. The accounts as given to us are difficult to understand. On this account for the Department of Justice we have a statement showing the different amounts for rates, office accommodation, and other things of that kind. But in connection with the film censorship there are separate items which are not shown in that account. That is the items given in the foot-note on page 106 are not shown in the additional figures given at the end of Vote 31.

In regard to the appropriations-in-aid, we have seen from the statement by the Minister for Finance that there is no standardised or regular method of showing these. In some cases they are shown, and in other cases they are not. I think the appropriations-in-aid ought to be regarded as the earnings of any particular Department and shown as such.

Would the Deputy go so far as to say that the income tax yield should be shown as an appropriation-in-aid on the Revenue Vote?

I cannot see any great difference between the receipts shown here in the foot-note on page 104 for film censorship and, say, the item at the end of Vote 32—payment for services rendered by the police. We have a sum of £1,500 shown there as an appropriation-in-aid in regard to the services rendered by the police. I cannot see that there is any particular difference between the earnings of the film censorship and the earnings of the police. There is a distinct necessity for clarification of the accounts and for presenting them to the Dáil in a manner in which they can be easily understood. I suggest that the time has come for some kind of an inquiry into a new system of presenting the accounts. The fact that a certain system has prevailed in the past is no justification for its continuance, and we ought to consider the possibility of a change which would make them more easily understandable.

I suggest that no simplification can be introduced that will enable Deputies to understand the accounts without reading them with care. There are Deputies who think a system should be devised which would enable them to get over the necessity for reading. In connection with appropriations-in-aid, I admit that a further examination is necessary. As a matter of fact, the Public Accounts Committee indicated that we should wait until we had more experience in connection with appropriations-in-aid before taking decisions in the matter.

Could the Minister tell me why £580 for office accommodation in connection with the film censorship appears as a foot-note at the end of the page, whereas other office accommodation in connection with the Department of Justice appears on page 104 among "estimated amounts included in other estimates in connection with this service"?

I think the reason is that film censorship is a distinct and self-supporting service and there was the desire to show it as a separate item, so that Deputies would be in a position to see that there was no question of revenue accruing as a result of that service. If it were simply bulked generally with the other branches of the Department in the matter of its allied services, that would not be so apparent.

I was not suggesting that. But there is here a line which refers to office accommodation for film censorship.

Deputies would complain if that were not on the same page as the film censorship.

Not merely that, but there is Deputy Cooper's point, as to whether there would be any definite occasion for raising a question of policy whether £580 was not too large a sum to allow for office accommodation.

The Minister said this is shown specially because the film censorship is self-supporting. If it is more than self-supporting, is there any arrangement by which a refund is given back to the film renters?

It is affected by a reduction of fees, and there has been such a reduction already in February of last year.

Mr. BYRNE

What I want to get at is, has the Board of Works put in an extravagant charge for the upkeep of these premises in order that the refund to the film renters will not be anything reasonable?

I do not think so.

Mr. BYRNE

It has been stated that the charge estimated for these premises is higher than that of an ordinary picture-house which employs a big staff. The higher the charge is, the less chance the renters have of getting this refund.

There is no refund.

Question put and agreed to.
Progress ordered to be reported.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Barr
Roinn