In connection with this section, Deputy Sweetman asked me whether the sum represented by the maximum to which we now propose to raise the limit of the moneys provided for CTT had any capital content. After the Deputy left yesterday, I explained to the House there is no capital provision in the funds provided under this Bill or the last Act for CTT. The limit that has already been imposed was £1 million, of which sum £850,000 had already been spent. That £850,000 was made up as follows: 1959-60, £97,000; 1960-61, £266,000; 1961-62, £241,885; 1962-63, £245,000, making a total of £849,885—all voted moneys.
Committee On Finance. - Export Promotion (Amendment) Bill, 1963—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I understand that all the sums paid to CTT so far had been voted on Supply Services Estimates. I did not understand why, when they were being paid on annual Estimates each year, there was an overriding limit. It is not usual to have an overriding limit when it is voted on annual Supply Services Estimates instead of being expenditure out of the Central Fund. If there is expenditure out of the Central Fund, there is always an overriding limit. The Minister will remember that before he shrugged off the ESB that was the position in relation to them and in relation to CIE. In relation to voted Supply Services it is not usual to have the limit referred to. On that account I thought there was a segregation of the annual voted amounts of grants for capital purposes, such as the buying of property envisaged in Section 4. Do I understand from the Minister that the £850,000 is the total of all voted moneys, whether used for the transient purpose of a stand at the Dusseldorf Fair or for the purpose of buying premises in London or elsewhere that will endure for the next 20 years? How do they hold their offices here in Dublin, for example?
On lease, for which they pay an annual rent.
There is nothing for purchase money at all?
No. The same applies to Bord Fáilte. They get annual voted moneys.
Who built the building at Baggot Street Bridge, for example?
Bord Fáilte are the main occupants of it.
Are there no moneys like that spent by CTT?
No.
Then they are asset-less people?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
They are not going to be asset-less in the future. Are they?
No, they will get it on lease, subject to an annual rent. They are not being empowered to invest capital money in buildings.
The word "acquire" seems to be an odd one to use in line 22. It usually implies purchasing. Regardless of whether it does in the export trade, it does in the home legal trade.
Section 4 will supplement it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Is this another way of saying we are going to make certain that the difference between the rent you pay and the rent you get over the next period of years will be made up out of Estimates each year?
Yes.
It seems very complicated to have a section like that just to say that.
Since they are asset-less people, a prospective landlord in London might require such a guarantee as is provided for in Section 4.
I should have thought the State Guarantees Act would have been a simpler method. Perhaps it cannot be used for annual rent.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.