Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 28 Feb 1947

Vol. 104 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 21—Stationery and Printing.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim breise nach mó ná £10,830 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú Márta, 1947, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig an tSoláthair; chun Páipéarachais, Clódóireachta, Páipéir, Ceangaltóireachta agus Leabhra Clóbhuailte i gcóir na Seirbhíse Poiblí; agus chun Ilsheirbhísí Ilghnéitheacha lena n-áirítear Tuairiscí ar Dhíospóireachta an Oireachtais.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10,830 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1947, for the Salaries and expenses of the Stationery Office; for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Book for the Public Service; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Oireachtas Debates.

The additional financial provision required for the Vote is due to the fact that certain commitments which could not be foreseen when the Estimate was framed were contracted during the financial year. The prices quoted in respect of new contracts placed for the printing for registration officers under the Electoral and Juries Acts proved to be much higher than anticipated. Due to increased demands for Departmental printing, which gave rise to a considerable increase in paper consumption, purchases necessary for the maintenance of paper stocks were much higher than the requirements originally estimated. Additional Hollerith machine equipment ordered for the Irish Land Commission in 1942, the delivery of which, owing to the war situation, was deferred indefinitely, was received in the current financial year. Supplementary provision under sub-head J, Miscellaneous Office Supplies, is necessary to defray the cost of this equipment. The increase in salaries and wages following the consolidation of bonus settlement has also contributed to the general excess expenditure which made recourse to a Supplementary Estimate unavoidable. The additional expenditure anticipated on the gross Vote is modified by additional receipts from Appropriations-in-Aid resulting chiefly from sales of waste paper, advertisements in official publications, costs recovered from local authorities in respect of electoral printing, and enhanced sales of customs forms.

What is the purpose of the particular machine for the Land Commission which the Minister mentioned?

It is one of those machines that turn out notices on a mass production basis.

How many workers will this machine displace?

It is not a question of the number of workers that it will displace, but that it enables the Land Commission to do the work accurately and with speed.

Is it not true that it will displace workers?

Yes, I suppose it is, but it does the work more accurately and speedily.

I am asking how many workers it will displace?

I would require notice of that question.

Does the Minister think it is wise to put in this machine when men and girls can do the job and, I presume, have been doing it efficiently? I understand there is a machine installed over there already which turns out demands for annuities.

Why not get back to the reaping hook?

We are not talking about reaping hooks but about the staff of the Land Commission.

It amounts to the same thing.

It is unwise to put in these machines and I think the Minister should consider that aspect of the problem. To-day we notice that the daily papers are calling attention to the fact that our population is falling. Yet, the Minister's policy is to put in a machine to displace a number of workers in the Land Commission.

I must say that I am surprised at Deputy Hughes. It is very hard to please him. If I came in here with a Supplementary Estimate for more civil servants, there is nobody would growl with greater vigour than the Deputy, but because I come in here for a very small sum of money which will enable the State Department to do its work accurately and with speed and at the lowest possible cost he is still growling. I cannot please him and I do not propose to try.

Has the Minister satisfied himself of the efficacy of this particular machine in the light of its performance in large industrial and commercial firms? I have some knowledge of this machine and I know of one instance in which it has been working for nearly 15 years. A good deal of manual labour had to be employed to follow up the work of the machine. I am prepared to say that the efficacy of the machine is questionable so far as its relation to manual labour is concerned.

How often do the machines that are there break down?

The Deputy had better ask the Land Commission that question.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn