Vol. 28 No. 2
I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £2,500 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Costaisí i dtaobh Longlainne Inis Sionnach.
That a sum not exceeding £2,500 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for Expenses in connection with Haulbowline Dockyard.
This is like the previous Estimate; it is completely a paper Supplementary Estimate. If the exigencies of strict accounting could be reconciled with the ordinary man's ideas of common sense, there would be no necessity at all for this Supplementary Estimate. It arises from the practice which the public accounting system occasionally requires of transferring the figures on one side of the account of a particular sub-head to another, or in some cases to another Department, leaving the other side untouched. This Supplementary Estimate is made up of a sum under sub-head A, Dockyard Maintenance, with an additional sum required of £2,300. This was originally under sub-head D and it was required to pay wages of maintenance staff, and under that particular sub-head there is actually a big saving of £2,500 which more than wipes it out. The next item is under sub-head B, Ship Repairing Work. The original Estimate was only a token Vote of £100 and the revised Estimate was £1,500. If we were allowed there to take into account as an Appropriation-in-Aid the amount of money saved we would also have a big saving amounting to £4,467 to date. It will probably be more at the end of the financial year—another £500—but this has to be transferred to the receipts payable to the Exchequer. As regards sub-head C. this is accounted for by the fact that we have a certain amount of inferior coal which was dumped into this dockyard by another Department. We cannot in this particular Vote take credit for the fact that at the present time coal can be purchased at a lower price. There was a question of writing that off originally, that extra amount, but apparently in order to carry out the system of accounting necessary, it has to be shown here as a loss. It was originally purchased by the Department of Industry and Commerce so that, in reality, there is no necessity for the Supplementary Estimate. It is only a paper Vote.
After the amazingly clear explanation, the House knows that it is going to vote what is quite unnecessary. What Department sold Haulbowline coal at an uneconomic price? Question No. 1. How much was paid to that Department, and at what price, and why? For fuel, light and water, the original Estimate was £1,900, but the actual expenditure was £4,200. Cannot any of these Departments estimate within 100 per cent. of their requirements? Who uses this fuel, light and water? How many people are living on Haulbowline Island? Who are the people living there? What rents are they paying, and why are those who are not paying rent not doing so? These are all questions which arise upon the Estimate, and no single one of them has been answered. I understand that there was about £4,500 spent on the transport of 77 men from a place where they were supposed to be employed to a place where they were not supposed to be employed. How much of this fuel, light and water went to that funny little game?
There was nothing only fuel involved.
There was no water in the boiler.
Not in this supplementary.
There was no water during the time of the Supplementary Estimate. "Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer in respect of (a) the hire overseas of a tugboat attached to the dockyard, the cost of equipment of which is charged to sub-head (b) of this Vote.""Ship Repairing Work"—original Estimate, £100; revised Estimate, £1,500. Now £2,500 for the hire of the boat is put against that. The cost of the equipment is charged, but the Estimate has been raised by 150 per cent. If that is the sort of account which the Dáil is content to receive from its Ministers, this House deserves to receive it.
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary as regards Item B, "Estimated Extra Receipts," whether it is to be taken as a general principle that when a saving is brought about in a Department by a sale of some asset, where something is sold for a cash return, that that particular item brought in in exchange for the asset is revenue.
In this particular case that has not been done.
It refers to the sale of surplus machinery. Whether it is surplus or not, it is an asset.
We are not taking credit for that.
I agree with Deputy Flinn that Haulbowline cannot be said to be a purely economic business proposition. I understand that a good deal of one-time valuable machinery is being scrapped and sold at scrap prices. If that process is to continue, I very much fear that we will have to say good-bye to anything in the nature of progress in what was once a very progressive dockyard. I do not want to make a cheap joke at the expense of the Government, but in view of the promises made at a very recent general election by the Government candidates and their supporters, and the very rosy pictures that were painted of the future prosperity of Haulbowline when certain developments of the Shannon scheme would take place, I would suggest very seriously that the Minister should consider the manufacture there of many accessories and other electrical plant which will be necessitated by the Shannon scheme. Such work, in my opinion, could be usefully undertaken in Haulbowline. I do not believe that the country is bankrupt in good business men and good business brains, and I have every hope, if the Government were seriously to contemplate Haulbowline and were to use the resources provided there by the present plant, it would not be the white elephant it appears to be. I am not going to stand up for inefficiency or for a policy that would suggest that the Government should spoon-feed every industry in this country. I recognise my responsibility to the State just as much, perhaps, as the Minister for Finance. I can quite understand and appreciate the attitude of the Minister for Finance, or any other Minister who is charged with the responsibility of Government. I do not want to indulge in any cheap sneers at the Government Departments because they do not indulge in uneconomic adventures, but because of my convictions, and because of my practice not to attempt to exploit either party politics or party prejudice, or to play to the gallery in any way, I wish to suggest certain things to the Minister with all seriousness. The Minister for Industry and Commerce indicated in his speeches, and I am convinced that he examined the question seriously, that we might expect developments at Haulbowline from the Shannon scheme.
Would the Deputy come to the Supplementary Estimate?
I am attempting to deal with that. I say that there is a big difference between the amount of the original Estimate of £100 and the revised Estimate of £1,500. I believe that that money will be very usefully expended, but I ask the Minister to bear in mind the future possibilities of Haulbowline in relation to the utilisation of electrical power from the Shannon, and to see whether something cannot be done to make Haulbowline the hive of industry it once was.
There is one question I would like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with the estimated extra receipts payable to the Exchequer in respect of two items. Is it possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to segregate the total amount receivable from the two items so that we may know how much is going to be received from the hire of the tugboat or how much is being received from the sale of surplus machinery? They are lumped together here. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary ought to be able to state what amount is going to be allocated to each heading.
I would like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to sub-head B, under which it is stated that the sum includes the cost of equipment for hire overseas of a tugboat attached to the dockyard, the receipts for its hire being credited direct to the Exchequer. Could the Parliamentary Secretary give any indication of the amount credited to the Exchequer for the hire of the tugboat?
I have not got the item in respect of the hire of the tugboat.
We might postpone the Estimates until the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to give the House some information which would enable it, with a sense of responsibility for the present financial position of the country, to consider an Estimate of this kind.
We will have to wait until we send down to Cork for this or any other silly information. We will have to wait to send down for some information asked for about a porter or clerk. I cannot say off-hand what he receives in tips or otherwise.
I think we must protest against that observation. The Parliamentary Secretary ought to withdraw that statement about a silly question. I think it is not proper for the Parliamentary Secretary to address the House in that manner. He has made a remark in reference to orderly questions, questions which you, A Chinn Chomhairle, assumed were orderly or you would have protested against them. He has expressed his opinion that these are silly questions.
I withdraw the remark.
The question I put to the Parliamentary Secretary was how much the Department expected to receive in respect of the hire overseas of a tugboat attached to the dockyard, in view of the fact that there follows this statement: "The cost of equipment for hire overseas of a tugboat is charged to a sub-head of this Vote." We wish to know, if it is worth while spending money under sub-head B, how much money has been received from the sale of surplus machinery apart from the hire of the tugboat. These are perfectly legitimate questions.
I agree; I can give you that information. As the Deputy put the question at first I did not understand it. The amount received from the hire of the tugboat "Dainty" was £1,887; from the sale of plant and old stores, £2,568; ship repairing work, £111; rent, £32; firewood, etc., £59, making a total of £4,657.
Has that revenue accrued during the present year?
Yes.
I do not know what purpose the Parliamentary Secretary or his Department had in suggesting to the House that whereas they had actually up to date received £4,657 they were going only to receive something like £2,500. I think that is even from the point of view of ordinary commercial candour and plain straight dealing with the House, very wrong. After having heard that admission from the Parliamentary Secretary we are now able to understand his mentality when he stated that this was a mere paper Estimate.
And so it is.
We now realise the spirit in which this Department and the Department with which it is associated come to this House. It is only, I think, something less than four months ago since we were called upon to pass the original Estimate in which there appeared this sum of £100 for ship repairing work, £1,900 for fuel, light and water, making altogether, with the amount of the Vote under sub-head A, a total Vote of something like £17,000. Within three months we are asked to increase that by £2,500, and in respect of one of the items we are asked to increase it by something more than 125 per cent. over the original Estimate. In order, as it were, to cover up the absolutely loose way in which this Department handled public monies, we are told that there will be, in respect of sub-head B, a total saving of £3,500. Now we find that so far from there having been any sort of saving, actually realisable assets to the value of £2,568 have been sold, and so far to date there has been only credited against this Estimate, a sum of £2,500. In addition, a certain sum of money amounting to £1,887 has been received as a result of the hire of a tug, but the net effect of it is this, that whereas we were told in order to provide fuel, light and water on that island for a certain number of people the State was to spend £1,900, we are asked now to increase that Estimate to £4,200. In addition the fact is concealed from the House, or would have been concealed from the House were it not for the "silly questions" that were put, that a sum of £2,157 had been received but had not been admitted in the Supplementary Estimate.
It was not known at the time. An estimate is different from actual fact. We know the facts now but we did not know them then.
When was this information received?
That information was got by me yesterday from the Department.
When was the Supplementary Estimate prepared?
Certainly earlier than that information.
Would it not have been advisable from the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary to have disclosed to the House that he had received this £4,657? Would not that have been a more judicious course for him to have taken?
Again I would like to direct attention to the questions raised by Deputy Flinn. How does it come that this Vote is charged with £4,200 under sub-head C, fuel, light and water, whereas the original Estimate was for £1,900? Has the actual expenditure on fuel, light and water been increased from £1,900 to £4,200?
That is a point I can explain. Originally we estimated on the assumption that we would be allowed credit for the surplus amount we had to pay. Owing to the fact that we had to take over a certain quantity of surplus coal that was originally purchased years ago by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce at the time of the fuel famine it was purchased at a higher rate and is of much inferior quality to anything we can get now. It was discussed whether it could be written off or not. Eventually it was decided that it could not be written off, but that the Estimate would have to bear the full amount. It is only a paper transaction, and if the amount did not appear here it would have to appear somewhere else. The coal was purchased during the year 1926.
This Estimate is for the year 1928-29. Had the matter been under discussion between the Department of Finance and the Board of Works?
It is only this year that it came under this particular department of Haulbowline.
We are not to assume therefore that actually there has been paid out of this Department, at the request of this Department, by the Exchequer the sum of £4,200 during this year for coal.
No.
To whom will the £4,200 be paid by your Department?
That amount was expended in 1926. It is only a departmental matter now for the purpose of adjusting accounts.
Surely this £4,200 is in respect of coal you propose to use this year?
Yes, that is quite right.
You purchased that coal, I believe, from the Department of Industry and Commerce. It was dumped on you, and your Department will pay the Department of Industry and Commerce. Is that the point?
Yes.
In spite of the explanation Deputy MacEntee got from the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not gather from the Parliamentary Secretary how that can be possible. You are introducing a supplementary estimate now for actual expenditure. In fact, there is going to be no expenditure, but a book-keeping transaction. I cannot see that.
So far as we are concerned it is expenditure, but so far as the State is concerned it is not.
As far as this Estimate is concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary's Department will have full power to spend every penny of that £4,200. If it is a case of making up to another Department or making up for a previous year's deficiency arising out of extra expenditure owing to the high price of coal, I contend that should not come under this Estimate at all, but should have been dealt with in a previous year. This money can be spent and will be spent. In other words, it is owing to another Department.
We cannot spend it without getting authority to spend it.
Would that be the correct way? It is now due.
I presume that is the correct form for putting it down. It is purely an accountancy matter.
Are we to understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that this White Paper was prepared before details regarding this came into his Department?
Yes, before full details came in.
