asked the Minister for Finance how it is proposed to use the £467,154, voted for agricultural grants by the Dáil in 1977, but remaining unissued at 31 December 1977; why it has remained unissued; and if he will give an assurance that the money will be used for agricultural purposes in accordance with the vote of the Dáil.

Moneys voted by the Oireachtas for the public services are based on estimates of expenditure prepared before the commencement of the year to which they relate. It is not unusual for actual expenditure to be somewhat different from the amount originally estimated for a particular service. In the instance referred to by the Deputy the difference was not large, being little more than 1 per cent of the amount voted, which was £41.2 million.

Under standard Government accounting practice any excess amount voted for a particular year but not needed for the purpose intended in that year is automatically surrendered to the Exchequer. There can, therefore, be no question of the surplus amount referred to being made available specially for agricultural, or indeed any other, purposes.

Would the Minister not agree that in approving the Estimate concerned the Dáil voted £500,000 for agricultural grants which was not used for that purpose and that by absorbing the money into the general fund he was not acting in proper accordance with the Vote of the Dáil?

No.

Why?

It is obvious from the answer I have already given. It is a question of estimating as best one can and in this case the Estimate was extremely accurate, given the amount involved. It is a question of estimating in advance of the year concerned what is likely to be required. It could be reasonably argued that the Dáil in voting the money was endeavouring to ensure that the sum available would be adequate for the purpose required, which it turned out to be. It does not follow that the Dáil was saying this sum was to be voted for this and no other purpose and spent in this year and no other year. This is the implication of what the Deputy is suggesting.

Was the House duly informed of the fact that £500,000 voted for a particular purpose was not used for that purpose in this instance?

In this instance the usual practice was followed, which is the same as in any other case.

Was there a Supplementary Estimate in which this saving was brought to the attention of the House? If not, would the Minister not consider it was unsatisfactory that failure to use money for the purpose voted should have been allowed to occur without the attention of the House being brought thereto?

The usual practice is a reasonable one and I do not find fault with it.

Would the Minister say what actually happened in this case?

No, I cannot say offhand.

Cross-questioning the Minister across the floor is not in order.

That is what Question Time is for.

Definitely, but through the Chair.

I took it as read that my questions were directed through the Chair.

I am referring to what the Deputy would wish to do.

Through the Chair, I would ask the Minister to reply.

I cannot give the Deputy that specific information in relation to this item, other than the information I have already given. If he wishes further information in relation to this item he may put down a question.