Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Aug 1956

Vol. 46 No. 10

Appropriation Bill, 1956 ( Certified Money Bill )— Second and Subsequent Stages.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill considered in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Kissane

I should like to make a few remarks, because, as the House knows, this Bill gives the Minister power to borrow money over the next 12 months and I notice that during the whole course of the debate we have had, not one single reference was made to this question of borrowing. It is because I regard this question as being of very great importance that I should like a little clarification from the Minister as to the policy to be pursued in connection with this borrowing.

I notice that the figure mentioned is £73,093,280. That appears to me to be a very large sum and I do not know what amount of that sum the Minister has in mind to borrow during the course of the year. I think the Minister stated in the Dáil that it was his intention to float a loan sometime in the autumn, but, as would be expected, he did not indicate the conditions of the proposed loan.

One thing which emerges from the discussion that took place in the Dáil is that certain semi-State bodies who hitherto had the power and authority to borrow money in their own right will not now have it under whatever arrangement the Minister has come to. I, for one, regard that as a very great departure from the traditional method that has been operating over the years and whether the seriousness of the times that presents itself to us justifies that departure is the question. These semi-State organisations such as the E.S.B., C.I.E., as well as Dublin Corporation, had their autonomy and this appears to me to be a definite step towards depriving them of their autonomy and of the authority they had to regulate their own affairs. I do not know—and the Minister has not told us —if this is to be a permanent feature of legislation for the years to come——

Mr. Sweetman

Does the Senator mean Section 2?

Mr. Kissane

I am dealing with Section 2.

Mr. Sweetman

I wanted to be quite clear. I understood the Senator wanted to know if Section 2 is to be permanent?

Mr. Kissane

No; I want to know if this policy of the Minister to reserve to himself the sole right of borrowing, taking the right to borrow from the different bodies I have mentioned, is to be a permanent feature of the Government of the country over the years? I think the Seanad would like a little clarification on that point from the Minister.

Mr. O'Reilly

May I say that, it was the Minister who introduced legislation into this House giving powers to the E.S.B. to borrow in their own right as a corporate body—powers they did not have before—in the hope that they might borrow for their own capital expenditure? Now, after it has floated one successful borrowing, the Minister is, without legal power, I suggest, dictating to the E.S.B. so that they may not borrow without his consent. That is the point involved.

Mr. Sweetman

I am afraid the Senator does not understand the point involved, but that is not it. Apart from the other consideration, the consideration of legal power is quite simple because the Minister for Finance must guarantee the issues, or would be asked to guarantee the issues of these other bodies and possibly also be asked to underwrite them, and he would have the power that he would exercise in respect of that guarantee or underwriting arrangement.

I perfectly understand the point made by Senator Kissane now—I did not understand it at first. What is done in relation to capital issues at any time must be a matter to be determined by the position of the capital market at the appropriate moment. If I had been asked last year what I would consider to be the appropriate disposition of the capital flotations for this year, I would have answered in exactly the same way as I am answering now. It is difficult enough to see ahead for a matter of six or nine months to the end of this financial year, but it would be quite impossible and quite wrong that I should endeavour to suggest to the House that I was able to see the position in the capital market sufficiently clearly to be able to tell what should be done in the next financial year. All I could do is say what I consider should be done in the circumstances of this financial year as they exist and as far as we can forecast them for the moment.

So far as Section 2 itself is concerned, the amount that is included there is the aggregate of the appropriations which are summarised in totals on page 9 of the Bill at £114,797,738 less the sum of £36,200,000 that was voted already in the Vote on account and confirmed in the Central Fund Act. The practice has grown up over the years—it has always been the same—that the amount put in Section 2 of the Appropriation Bill is the total of the appropriations, less the amount already voted on account, and there is no further significance in the £73,093,280 that is included in the section than that. Why exactly the practice grew up like that I cannot say. I should have to make some searches into history to discover that, but the Senator can be quite happy in the knowledge that I have no intention of borrowing £73,000,000. It was put in like that originally, I suppose, in case not a penny of revenue came into the Exchequer and it was necessary to cover it. It then became the pattern that was followed year in, year out. Some time it might be worth while seeing whether it is worth changing it or not. It is not a thing that does any positive harm, but I can appreciate the Senator not knowing why it was there. I may say I did not know why it was there the first time I brought an Appropriation Bill to the House, but I inquired and that is how I happen to know.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Murphy

I do not want to make any speech at all, but the Minister said that the alternative facing us in regard to public transport at the moment was complete curtailment of private transport. I think that was a slip on his part as I do not imagine he is trying to confuse the issue by suggesting that the term was used by anybody, least of all by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Probably he said "complete" in error and I am just raising the question at this stage.

Mr. Sweetman

Actually, I think what I said was that there were two ends of a scale, a complete abandonment of the railway service at one end and the complete restriction of private —I thought I said "commercial"— transport at the other. Whether I said "commercial" or not, does not matter very much, because what I intended to imply was not that we wanted to choose one end or the other, but that they were at either end of the scale, and that it was between the two ends of the scale that we had to endeavour to see where a solution lay that would not be inimical to the national economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

Schedules and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation; received for final consideration; and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.