|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Céadaoin, 6adh Bealtaine, 1936.Wednesday, 6th May, 1936.The Committee sat at 11 a.m. Members Present:
Mr. S. Mag Craith (Ard-Sgrúdóir), Mr. O. J. Redmond (An Roinn Airgid), Mr. T. S. C. Dagg and Mr. C. S. Almond called and examined.VOTE 41—LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH.Mr. E. P. McCarron, called and examined.Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General, paragraph 22: “Section 4 of the above Act (Acquisition of Land (Allotments) (Amendment) Act, 1934) provides for the recoupment to local authorities, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, of losses sustained by them by reason of letting allotments to unemployed persons or to certain associations at reduced or nominal rents. The expenditure and receipts by the local authorities in connection with the provision of these allotments are verified by Local Government Auditors. I observed that in some cases in which recoupment was made in the year under review, the auditor’s certificate did not cover any receipts by the local authorities concerned in respect of rents. As full recoupment of the audited expenditure was made and as it appears that under the Act rents, reduced or nominal, must be taken into account, I have addressed an inquiry to the Accounting Officer in the matter.” 129. Mr. McCarron.—I should like to explain that the cases referred to relate to schemes carried out during the 1934 season by the Cork Corporation and the Waterford Corporation. I shall deal with the case of Cork first. They provided 201 allotments and selected—as they were entitled to do by statute—as their policy to charge what are called nominal rents; that is, rents of 1d. per plot. It appears that the City Manager did not, in fact, collect the penny a week, because, on account of their being nominal rents and the people, I suppose, being unemployed, he probably did not think it necessary, or something of that kind. At all events, the fact of the matter is that the sum of 16s. 9d. was not deducted from the total expenditure of £108 16s. 9d., and we propose to deduct that 16s. 9d. in the next year. We have taken the matter up with the City Manager in Cork. In the other case, that of the Waterford Corporation, 50 allotments were let in like circumstances, and a nominal rent was fixed at 1s. a plot. In that case I think the full amount of 49 plots at 1s. a week has been deducted, and I think there is no question here for the Comptroller and Auditor-General except possibly the question of 1s., as there seems to be some doubt as to whether there were 49 or 50 allotments; but I think there is nothing in that. I have also a letter at the moment from the Department of Finance asking for explanations on this whole matter. I received the letter yesterday or the day before yesterday, and I shall answer it as soon as I can. Deputy Goulding.—It is hardly worth wasting the time of the committee over the amount concerned. 130. Chairman.—Very good. The next item is Motor Tax Account. It is paragraph 23, page ix, and reads as follows: “A test examination has been applied to the Motor Tax Account with generally satisfactory results. The certificates and reports of the local government auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of the local authorities were scrutinised, in so far as they were available, but in some cases the audit had not been completed at the date of the test examination. The gross proceeds of the motor vehicle, etc., duties in 1934-35, including £6,067 19s. 1d., attributable to fines, amounted to £959,276 6s. 0d. A statement of the gross and net receipts of the Motor Tax Account, and of the payments thereout to the Exchequer, appears on page 13 of the Finance Accounts, 1934-35. Four cases of deficiencies of revenue arising from misappropriations, etc., have been reported to the Department of Finance. The total amount of the deficiencies, as certified by the Local Government auditors, was £1,171 16s. 7d., of which £1,053 0s. 7d. has been recovered. Application has been made to the Department of Finance for authority to write-off the balance, £118 16s. 0d.” Mr. McGrath.—It will be seen that, of the total amount involved, the sum of £1,053 0s. 7d. has been recovered. There only remains one county council— the Wexford County Council—who have to account for the sum of £118 16s. 0d. There was a burglary, I understand, in this case, and it seems that the thieves have not yet been traced. I take this opportunity each year to bring this matter before the notice of the Dáil. Deputies will notice that it is not a portion of the Local Government Appropriation Account, but it is the only occasion on which I can bring this matter forward for the information of the Dáil. 131. Chairman.—Has the authority for the writing-off of this been granted yet? Mr. McCarron.—I may explain that that was the case of a burglary in Wexford, and the efforts of the Gárda Síochána have not been successful yet. We do not like to get the money written-off until we are satisfied that it is irrecoverable, but, of course, application will be made, as soon as it becomes evident that the money is irrecoverable, to have it written-off. 132. Deputy Crowley.—How did the misappropriations occur in the other cases?—They occurred in Galway, Laoighis, and Limerick. They were cases of defalcation on the part of offers connected with the collection of duties. 133. Deputy Crowley.—And those have been recovered?—Those amounts have been collected, and I think in each case the official concerned has been dealt with and criminally prosecuted. 134. Chairman.—In connection with Galway, how are the funds there? Are they now in the hands of the proper Department, or what is the position?—The position in Galway at the moment is that the official concerned has been suspended from duty and the papers are in the hands of the Attorney-General for prosecution. The money has, in fact, been paid up, but the prosecution of the delinquent is going on. 135. Deputy Goulding. — I presume that these officials are covered by sureties?—Yes. Deputy Haslett.—With regard to sub-head J (2)—Grants for the supply of milk to necessitous children—it would seem we are going against the popular idea in that way. 136. Deputy Crowley.—If I might be permitted to go back to Sub-head B (Travelling Expenses of Inspectors), I should like to ask if that refers to medical inspectors?—That includes all the inspectors—the medical, the engineering and the other inspectors. 137. In connection with blind pension cases, I find that some cases are left over for more than 12 months before the medical inspector can call on the applicant to determine whether or not he is entitled to a pension?—That is so. There has been delay in the inspection of cases where there was doubt as to blindness. 138. But 12 months is a very considerable time to keep a man awaiting the determination of his claim?—Yes. 139. Deputy Goulding.—How many inspectors have you in that connection?— We have only one inspector who usually deals with blind pension cases. 140. For the whole country?—Yes. 141. That is probably the cause of the delay?—Yes; of course all cases are not inspected. VOTE 42—GENERAL REGISTER OFFICE.Mr. E. P. McCarron further examined.142. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General makes no comment in his Report with reference to this Vote. As regards sub-head C—Superintendent and District Registrars—can you tell us, Mr. McCarron, why there was an overestimation in that case—is it that there was a reduction in the numbers of registrars or district registrars, or what?— There was no reduction in the number of registrars. The reduction is principally connected with travelling expenses of registrars. At one time we used to have hired cars for which we would pay mileage. Now nearly all the registrars have their own motor cars. The quarterly claims in a good many districts are down by half on that account. VOTE 44-NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.Mr. E. P. McCarron further examined.Chairman. — The Comptroller and Auditor-General makes no comment in his Report in reference to this Vote. 143. Deputy Haslett.—With regard to sub-head F (2)—(Sickness, disablement, marriage, maternity, and additional benefits (Grants-in-Aid) )—does the saving mean that there was a tightening up in the giving out of benefits?—No. The original Estimate was based on the benefit experience available at the date of preparation of the Estimates. The expenditure during the first nine months of the year showed a considerable increase over that expected, and it was found necessary to obtain a Supplementary Estimate. As a matter of fact, there was an unexpected decrease in the last three months of the year. 144. Chairman.—Under “Extra Receipts” (paragraph 2), in page 115, “Disposal of Balance in Insurance Committees’ (Abolition) Adjustment Account … of Statutory Rules and Orders, 1934, No. 28,” there is an item of £7,663 8s. 2d. What is that exactly?—I am afraid, Sir, I will have to ask you to address that question to Mr. Duffy, the Chief Accountant in the National Insurance Department. I am not familiar with it myself. 145. Chairman.—You can explain this, Mr. Duffy? Mr. Duffy.—It was for Sanatorium Benefit. The former benefit given under the Act was abolished under the Act of 1929. The moneys for Sanatorium Benefit amounted to seven-ninths of the benefits made to the societies. At the same time two-ninths of the grant was paid into Sanatorium Benefit. When these benefits were abolished—that is when the Sanatorium Benefit ceased— there was a balance, and of that, two-ninths had been paid in by mistake. Before distributing the balance for Sanatorium Benefit, part of it was used for compensations and the rest handed over to the Local Government Department for tuberculosis grant. We had to refund the amount of State grant which had been formerly paid over by the Exchequer. There was considerable delay in making the adjustment, so that the matter was not completed until the time these accounts were made up. Deputy Goulding.—That is purely a departmental matter. Chairman.—That disposes of this Vote. VOTE 22—STATIONERY AND PRINTING.Mr. J. B. Whelehan, called and examined.146. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has a note on this Vote. It is paragraph 17, of page vii, and reads: “The Minister for Finance has, under section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1921, directed the preparation of a trading and profit and loss account and balance sheet for the Government Publications Sales Office. The accounts for the period 15th September, 1930, to 31st March, 1933, are in course of examination. Accounts for two years ended 31st March, 1935, have not yet been received.” Have you anything to say on that Professor Whelehan?—Well, Mr. Chairman, at the moment we have practically completed the accounts up to the 31st March, 1934, and I think I am in a position to assure you that the next time we appear before the Public Accounts Committee, we will have that account completely up-to-date. The Sales Office in its initial stages suffered very considerably because of the fact that the manager appointed at first underwent a very protracted illness and ultimately died. The vacancy created by his death took a considerable time to fill. With increasing sales in the Sales Office matters got into arrears. These sales of Government publications have been almost doubled since we opened the Sales Office. The staff was not quite capable of coping with the work, and we have recently got authority from the Department of Finance for the appointment of another assistant who will act as book-keeper. I think the Comptroller and Auditor-General will probably find that by this time 12 months the accounts will be practically up-to-date. At the moment we have almost completed the work up to the end of 1934. 147. Deputy McMenamin.— From a business point of view, does that not show a considerable amount of delay in the bringing of the accounts up-to-date?—It does, but of course it could not happen if the Sales Office were run by a body of civil servants, because irrespective of running it on commercial lines, civil servants would take every care to see that the accounts were kept up-to-date, but the assistants in the shops are not civil servants. I think that practically during 50 per cent. of the time of the first manager’s service in the Sales Office he was ill. As I have already said, he has died. Ultimately the Stationery Office staff had to go down there and work through the accounts and bring them up-to-date. I quite agree that there was a considerable delay. 148. Was there not a substitute appointed to discharge the manager’s duty while he was ill? Why is not the substitute responsible for having the accounts completed in the proper time?—That is his responsibility but, as I mentioned to the Chairman, the staff appointed was appointed to deal with a certain volume of business. That volume of business, within a very short time, was double what we had anticipated. We were not quite satisfied that that volume of business was likely to be maintained, but in fact it has been maintained. 149. Chairman.—Professor Whelehan, you have answered the question asked, and you are giving an undertaking that the accounts will be in order for the next financial year?—Yes, we hope to have them in order. As a matter of fact, through the activities of the accountant in the Stationery Office, the position in the Sales Office has been practically cleared up to the end of 1934, so they should be fully up-to-date by this time 12 months. 150. Deputy McMenamin.—If the accounts are not up-to-date it is utterly impossible for anybody to make an audit of them when the stocks and everything else are not kept up-to-date?—I do not think the Auditor-General would find it impossible to make an audit because the Stationery Office makes an audit of the stock in the Sales Office, and one stock will check the other. Chairman.—When the Auditor-General did not say anything about it, Deputy McMenamin will find it is all right. 151. Deputy McMenamin.—You want to know what is the position of the business up to a particular date. When the audit is two years behind hand how are you to get any record of the stocks? How are you to get to know what stocks are on the Sales Office? How can they be actually checked? Mr. McGrath.—The stocks were taken at the end of the financial year in each year, but it happened that the accounting system, within the Sale Department, was not effective. We are getting into proper shape now and, as Mr. Whelehan says, we will have the accounts up-to-date soon. I certainly agree with Deputy McMenamin that it is almost impossible to make an audit when the accounts are not up-to-date. I know it creates a lot of unnecessary difficulties when the accounts are in a backward state as they are. Once we get the matter up-to-date we will see that the accounts are properly kept. 152. Deputy McMenamin.—At the end of the financial year it is very hard for the Auditor to get the exact state of affairs when the accounts are not up-to-date. Mr. McGrath.—The stocks are kept at retail prices, and the stocks on the 31st of March each year are on record. These stocks are checked by the subsequent sales. If there was anything wrong with the stock two years ago, it would be shown in the stock at the end of the last financial year. I am not defending the thing at all, but I want to show that the position is not as bad as Deputy McMenamin thinks. 153. Deputy McMenamin.—The position is not bad at all. I expect it is perfect. That is not my point at all. But when you have loopholes in the matter of keeping the accounts and the stock, it is hard to have a proper audit? —I think I can agree that difficulties will arise on that stock position. We have found that certain difficulties did arise. But we are quite well able to deal with these, because our outward stock from the Stationery Office proper to the Sales Office is checked by the stock going through. When we deduct the sales and see what returns we should have at the end of the year, we straight away have a check on the amount of stock which ought to be in the Sales Office at a particular period. 154. Deputy O Briain.—As to provincial establishments, has the Stationery Office agents?—That would be for various establishments of the Department of Industry and Commerce, such as Labour Exchanges, and also the Civic Guards, etc. 155. As to F (6)—Production of a Volume Illustrating Early Christian Art in Ireland—when is that volume likely to be published?—The plates for the volume are printed for a considerable time, but unfortunately, the editor, Dr. Mahr, of the National Museum, has not been able to give the introductory matter. Of course, as the committee will appreciate, the matter is of a highly technical kind. 156. With regard to F (7)—Publication of Irish Translation of the New Testament (Grant-in-Aid)—this appears every year. Is any progress being made?— That is Canon O’Leary’s Bible translation. Considerable progress was made during the past year. An editor was appointed with the approval of the executor. Two of the Gospels are complete. The proofs of the remaining two have been corrected and sent back to the press. A lot has been done on the Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles. One of the Epistles has not been done. Here again, of course, the committee will appreciate that it is highly technical work—work of scholarship. I think that a very fair year’s work was done by the editor. The unfortunate position we are in now is that the editor, Rev. Father Langford, died last week. As the committee will appreciate, this particular work has to be done by a clergyman conversant not only with Biblical studies and knowledge, but with a number of European languages, as well as the classics. We had hoped that the Bible might have been completed before the end of this financial year—at least the New Testament. While we still hope, we have not so much ground for hope at the moment, because it is by no means easy to find an editor. The committee will understand that we are not entirely free agents with regard to this either. 157. The executor has to be consulted all the time?—Yes. 158. As to F (8)—Printing, Paper and Binding for an English-Irish Dictionary —that was published during the year?— Yes. I am glad to say that we are approaching the period when we shall have to have a second printing. 159. With regard to G—Grants to newspapers and periodicals published in Irish or publishing current news in Irish —how many newspapers are getting these grants?—At the moment three, but the number varies. Of course a committee was appointed. I am not on that committee, but there is a representative of the Stationery Office on it. From time to time a newspaper drops out—it does not fulfil the conditions and, of course, then cannot get any grant. The maximum number at the moment would, I think, be three. 160. Are they weekly or monthly?— Monthly. Of course some weekly papers in the Gaeltacht or Breac-Ghaeltacht are entitled to grants, and there are one or two getting grants for the publication of news in Gaelic. 161. Deputy Beegan.—What papers are they?—The Connacht Tribune, Galway, and the People’s Press, Donegal. 162. Chairman.—As to the note—“Deficiencies amounting to £16 12s. 0d. arising out of transactions in the Publications Sales Office were written off”— how did these arise?—These deficiencies arose in the Sales Office, the amounts being £9 3s. 2d. and £7 8s. 10d. In our opinion these were technical deficiencies. We are strongly of the opinion that practically the whole of that money actually came in, but as we had not documentary evidence of that fact we had to receive the authority of the Department of Finance for writing it off. We were quite satisfied with the bona fides and integrity of the two people in question. There were two items treated as book transactions, but we have no clear idea that they were book transactions. We are of the opinion that they were not, that they were sales transactions, and that cash was actually paid for these items. The witness withdrew. VOTE 23—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.Mr. J. Herlihy called.No question asked. VOTE 24—ORDNANCE SURVEY.Mr. J. Herlihy called.No question asked. The witness withdrew. VOTE 67—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.Mr. S. Murphy, called and examined. 163. Report of Controller and Auditor-General:— Paragraph 87. “Certain fees collected by the Department are not covered by the Commissioners for Oaths (Diplomatic and Consular) Fees Regulations, 1934, made under Section 3 (1) of the Commissioners for Oaths (Diplomatic and Consular) Act 1931. I am informed that it is intended to introduce legislation to regularise the collection of the fees referred to. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer concerning certain other matters relating to these receipts which came under notice in the course of audit.” Mr. McGrath.—With reference to the first part of this paragraph, we have written to the Accounting Officer asking him what is being done with regard to legislation in connection with fees for passports, visas and other consular services. My officer was led to believe that these could be dealt with under a section of the Commissioners for Oaths (Diplomatic and Consular) Act, 1931. But it has been found they cannot be so dealt with. I understand the Department is in course of drawing up a Bill which will cover those fees for passports, visas and consular services. 164. Mr. Murphy.—That is so. It was thought that the Commissioners for Oaths (Diplomatic and Consular) Act, 1931, covered these fees. We found that was not so and that we would have to bring in, and get passed through the Dáil, legislation that would deal with the matter. These are fees in connection with estates in various countries from which money comes to Irish nationals. The delay in bringing in the Bill is due to the customs existing in various States. These estates are mainly in the United States of America. We have to deal with this matter according to the law in the various States so far as intestacy and probate matters are concerned. Our idea was to save Irish nationals, entitled to money from relatives in the United States, from being robbed by unscrupulous people. Consequently, we have to make regulations, not to increase but to decrease the expenses of Irish nationals. It is very complicated, because we have each individual State to deal with and we have the varying circumstances within each of the different States. We have, for example, cases where we only intervene at the last moment because some American attorney has succeeded in getting power-of-attorney from some Irish national. Then it is discovered that the power-of-attorney has been given to an unreliable person. The Irish national then comes to us to get him out of his difficulty. Sometimes the estate has by that time almost vanished, and it becomes a question whether the consular fee should be charged at all. In other cases, we do no consular service for the Irish national, inasmuch as the affairs of the estate flow along freely, due to the practice in the State where the money happens to be, and the money is paid into our consular office. Our consul receives the money, and we are in a difficulty as to whether it is fair, in these circumstances—although we may be legally entitled to do so—to charge a fee at all, because we do nothing but receive and post the cheque to the Irish national who is entitled to get it. The reason we postponed legislation was in order to get experience to show where we could charge fees without imposing hardship. We feel the amount of money we are losing is negligible in regard to these particular estates. 165. Chairman.—When do you expect to have this legislation ready? Mr. Murphy.—We have only four consulates in the United States. We are endeavouring to send our consular officers around to the various districts, and the various counties, so that they may get in touch with the legal machinery there and inform us what the particular machinery is in each State. When we have done that we shall be able to draft regulations. 166. You have no idea how long that will take?—I should say we would be able to introduce our Bill in the course of this year. The only difficulty that arises is in connection with the consular services. The visas position is covered by international practice. We do not want any authority for that. The only authority we want is in connection with fees for consular services and the United States is the only country concerned with that. We do not want to be put in the position of having statutory regulations and then, perhaps, having to waive them. 167. Mr. McGrath.—I have been in communication, as I mentioned in my comment, with the Accounting Officer concerning certain other matters relating to these receipts which came under notice in the course of audit. These other matters were in connection with passports issued free. Sometimes they are issued to people abroad, sometimes to people at home. It is with a view to getting the Department of External Affairs to come to an agreement with the Department of Finance as to the accounting procedure to be adopted in these cases, that I made this comment. Another matter is in connection with the amount of fees charged in respect of estates in the United States to beneficiaries in this country. The Accounting Officer has referred to that. There is then the non-collection of 2½ per cent. in certain cases. 168. Mr. Murphy.—We are in communication with the Department of Finance on this matter. The cases to which the Auditor-General refers were only three or four. With regard to fees for passports, we are again in communication with the Department of Finance. It had been the practice, heretofore, that officials going abroad on official missions were given passports free. We had been in the habit of charging 12/6. The suggestion now is we should not charge the fee, that we should charge only the amount of the stamp. Mr. McGrath.—I am quite satisfied. 169. Deputy Haslett.—With regard to sub-head A (5)—Official Entertainment— what does that cover? Mr. Murphy.—It covers the official entertainment of foreigners coming here. 170. Is the whole of that chargeable to this Vote?—Yes. Mr. McGrath.—There is a regular system in connection with this matter. In cases where the cost of the entertainment exceeds a certain sum, the Department gets into touch with Finance and obtains prior authority. Up to this sum, they have authority from the Dáil to spend but, at the end of the year, they send a list to the Department of Finance; nothing is left to chance. 171. Deputy Haslett.—I do not look upon this as excessive at all, but I was wondering whether it covered all the official entertainment of foreigners. Mr. Murphy.—It does. 172. Deputy McMenamin.—As regards sub-head A (8)—Celtic Congress Entertainment Committee, Grant-in-Aid—you gave £287 to the Celtic Congress Entertainment Committee to relieve you of anything you would have to do in that regard?—Rather to relieve them. 173. They were doing the entertaining? —Yes. 174. As regards sub-head B (5)—Repatriation of destitute subjects of Saorstát Eireann-how is that money expended? Does our consul report to you that a certain person is destitute?—Yes. The consuls make a report as to applications from destitute nationals. 175. In the case of people convicted abroad and ordered to be deported, what is the position?—They are deported at the expense of the State in which the conviction takes place. 176. Chairman.—Under the heading of “Extra Receipts” there is an item of £500 “Remuneration of Saorstát Eireann Representative on Imperial Communications Advisory Committee.” Is that paid by the British Government? —It is paid by the Committee to all its members. Each member of the Committee gets £500 a year and our representative, who is the High Commissioner, refunds that to the State. 177. Deputy Smith.—Has that always been the practice?—Yes. 178. Deputy O Briain.—The High Commissioner was not always the representative on that Committee?—That is so. This has been the practice so long as an official has been the representative of the State on that Committee. At one time the Secretary in the High Commissioner’s office was the representative. In these cases the fee was always refunded. 179. Deputy Haslett.—Where does that £500 originate?—I am afraid I cannot answer that. This is an advisory committee in connection with cables and wires, and the members are paid out of the Committee’s funds. VOTE 68—LEAGUE OF NATIONS.Mr. S. Murphy further examined.180. Deputy Goulding.—As regards sub-head A—Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations—I take it that this is an annual contribution which does not vary?—It does not vary in amount but it varies in the cost to the State, because it depends on the rate of the Swiss franc. 181. Under sub-head B—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there was an Estimate of £2,070 and the expenditure was only £622 8s. 6d. What is the explanation of the difference?—We had provided for a special assembly which, it was thought, would take place, but which did not, in fact, take place. There was a resulting saving on that account. Apart from the normal assemblies, we thought that a special assembly would take place. 182. Deputy O Briain.—The item under sub-head C—Additional Loss on Exchange—is in addition to the figure under sub-head A?—Yes. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned at 12.25 p.m. until Wednesday, 13th May, 1936, at 11 a.m. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
