Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1936 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1934 - 1935

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 10adh Meitheamh, 1936.

Wednesday, 10th June, 1936.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Members Present:

DEPUTY McMENAMIN in the Chair.

Mr. S. Mag Craith (Ard-Sgrúdóir) called and examined.

VOTE 1—GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott, called and examined.

763. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on this Vote.

Mr. McElligott.—There is a saving on the Vote, as explained on the face of the account, due to a change in the private secretaryship and the fall in the cost-of-living bonus. The private secretary, who was an examiner in the Estate Duty Office, was replaced by a clerical officer.

764. Deputy Haslett.—Is the allowance for a motor car (£300) given as a lump sum, or is it calculated according to a scale?—It is given as a lump sum. Formerly, when the Governor-General’s cars went out of commission, we used to replace them. Now we give a lump sum and the Governor-General makes what arrangements he likes. We are freed from the responsibility of maintaining as well as providing cars.

765. Chairman.—This sum includes allowance for a driver?—Provision is made for a chauffeur on the Gárda Síochána Vote, as mentioned on the face of the Estimate.

766. That is not included in the sum set out here?—No; that charge is borne on the Gárda Síochána Vote.

VOTE 2—OIREACHTAS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

767. Deputy Haslett.—Is the sum set out under sub-head J (Oireachtas Restaurant) given as a round sum?

Mr. McElligott.—It is given as a round sum. At the foot of the account, you will notice, there is a receipt of £534 0s. 6d. entered as “Repayment on account of grants-in-aid to Joint House Committee.” That repayment was made when the catering in the Oireachtas Restaurant was handed over to an outside firm. I think that practically all the advances to the Restaurant Committee have now been repaid.

768. Would that indicate that the Restaurant is not being run at a loss?— I do not know how the present caterers are faring. We have provision in the Estimates for a small payment to the caterer in respect of any loss that may be incurred in the running of the Restaurant. The amount is £150 for 1936-37 and it was £500 for 1935-36. It is explained in the Estimate that “payment will be made to the caterer of such amount as the Minister for Finance may determine in recoupment of the expenses of catering as shown by certified accounts.” In future, all payments under this sub-head will be made on certified accounts. That is not to say that accounts have not been prepared in the past. The Joint House Committee has, I think, seen to that. The loss incurred will, I think, be substantially less than it was.

769. Mr. McGrath.—This sum of £534 0s. 6d. is a refund from the old Committee?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes. It is a refund in respect of previous grants-in-aid. That has nothing to do with the present caterers. That was a repayment made by the Joint House Committee in respect of previous grants-in-aid from the Exchequer.

Mr. McGrath.—This sum of £534 0s. 6d., added to previous refunds, equals the amount advanced from the Exchequer previously but that does not mean that the Restaurant paid for itself, because certain services were given by the Board of Works and purchases were made of delph and other things which were not charged up against the Restaurant. The actual cash advanced on account of the Restaurant has been refunded.

770. Chairman.—This sum deals exclusively with the catering?

Mr. McGrath.—It includes bar and everything but it has to do with the work of the old Committee as distinct from the outside firm. This sum of £500 charged up in the 1934-5 accounts is an advance to the firm doing the catering.

771. Deputy Smith.—It would not be correct to say that the Restaurant paid before it was handed over, because it was getting certain services free.

Mr. McGrath.—It would not be correct to say that it paid for itself.

772. Chairman.—No account was taken of structural alterations or improvements?

Mr. McGrath.—Leaving out of account capital expenditure, it would not pay. Delph, light and coal were not charged up previously.

773. Chairman.—And new equipment was not charged?

Mr. McGrath.—No.

774. Mr. McElligott.—Under the present arrangement, the State undertakes liability for maintenance of the permanent equipment of the restaurant, and the provision of light and heat other than the heat required for cooking. The State is also responsible for the cleaning of the restaurant.

775. Deputy Goulding.—The present caterers are guaranteed against loss?— Not against an indefinite figure. The figure cannot exceed the provision made in the Estimate—£150.

776. Deputy Haslett.—Is the caterer in control of the staff?—The caterer controls the staff.

777. And the employment of the staff?—Yes.

778. Chairman.—Was this accounting year the first year in which the accounts of the outside caterer entered into our consideration?—The arrangement with the caterer was entered into in March, 1933, but it only became fully operative in the year 1934-5.

779. Do you know how they did in the past year—the first full year of trading?—I do not know how they have been doing latterly. I know that they incurred substantial loss on the first year’s trading.

780. What is the liability of the State under the agreement?—In respect of the loss during the period up to May, 1934, the caterers accepted a sum of £500 as a complete discharge of our liability.

781. I have a note here that another committee is reporting on this matter and that the report is available elsewhere. It is available to the Deputies of the House. Is not that so?—I do not think there is much use in pursuing the matter here. It is being pursued elsewhere.

782. Deputy Beegan.—How does this contract compare with the previous arrangement?—The position is that we may be losing no more money than we have lost in the past. Our grants to the caterer are much less than his losses, so that the Exchequer has gained by the new arrangement.

783. Deputy Haslett.—I think Mr. McElligott was proceeding to tell us how it was that the caterers’ losses were incurred the first year and why they were incurred?—The prices charged were low, the wages bill was high and the business was said to be spasmodic. There is only a rush of business two days in the week. During the remainder of the week the restaurant is idle, with the expenses of the staff running on all the time.

784. Chairman.—You have got a staff to run the place at full pressure for six days in the week and for only about three days in the week, at the best, is there any business being done there. Is not that so?—Yes, I am afraid it is not feasible to run it without some contribution.

Your overhead charges are running while the business is closed. You could not do that in an ordinary business. Anyone who would think it could be run without a subsidy would be a person who would know nothing about the management of a business place.

Deputy Haslett.—There is more substance in the reason given as to the spasmodic nature of the business than in the reason setting out that the prices charged were low.

Deputy Smith.—Most of us would disagree with that.

785. Chairman.—If they were doing a full business during the entire year, it would be different. I am not prepared to say that the charges are too low?— The charge is in relation to the number of meals served. If they were to put on to each meal the full charge for each service, the charge would have to be high.

786. When the number of meals is small, obviously bigger prices will have to be charged, but if that were carried to its logical conclusion, no meals would be served in the restaurant at all because Deputies would find that they would get cheaper meals outside in houses open seven days in the week and carrying on business on economic lines?—The present position is that our losses are limited. We pay only a fraction of the losses incurred by the caterers.

787. The only point I see is that if they were given such a sum from the Department of Finance as would cover the whole losses, they could go on and squander up to that limit. If they thought they had the Department of Finance behind them up to any sum, it would be a case of turn on the tap and off you go?—We have agreed to recoup them, in the event of losses, up to half the amount of the total expenditure on fuel.

788. Then they lose as much as the Department of Finance loses?—More.

789. Deputy Goulding.—Do I understand that only £150 of a loss was incurred last year?—Yes, £150.

790. Deputy Smith.—When does this contract terminate?—It is renewed annually on the 1st April. It was renewed for a period of one year as from the 1st April, 1934—that is the year under review, and since then, when it fell in each year, it was renewed. The renewal was subject to the arrangements which we made as to the contribution in regard to half the total expenditure on fuel and a further payment not to exceed half the loss. At all events that sum of £150 is our estimate of our liability in the current year.

791. Chairman.—When the restaurant is not open, is the staff employed elsewhere by the caterers?—I think the caterer has to keep them there.

Deputy Smith.—Most of them are only part time. There are only one or two girls in the restaurant on days other than the days on which the House is sitting.

Mr. McGrath.—The kitchen staff are always there.

Deputy Smith.—Yes, they are.

Chairman.—There is no use in ignoring the fact that they have to be subsidised.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

792. Deputy Haslett.—Does this Vote pay the income tax on the President’s salary?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

Mr. McElligott.—In the Estimates for the year, provision is made for £250 to meet that.

793. Deputy Smith.—I do not think the President’s liability for income tax is anything like £250?—That is a round figure put in the Vote. There is a standard provision made in the Estimates for £250 for income tax in the case of the President and £150 in the case of the other Ministers. They are merely round figures and have no necessary relation to the facts. This is a maximum figure that has not yet been reached in any particular case. This represents only income tax liability in respect of salary. It does not cover tax in respect of the President’s other income. The President and the Ministers have to pay income tax on their private incomes.

794. Chairman.—There is an estimated income tax liability for £250?—That is in the case of the President and that affects only his salary, minus, of course, his allowance as Deputy, which is tax free. In the case of all Ministers, their allowance as Deputies is tax free. That has always been the case.

VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

795. Chairman.—Is sub-head E and F, Paymaster General’s Office (including Teachers’ Pension Office), an addition?

Mr. McGrath.—No, that was always included in this Vote.

VOTE 8—LOCAL LOANS

Mr. J. J. McElligott, further examined.

796. Mr. McElligott.—There is an enormous saving in this Vote, as the Committee will see. The saving, however, is more apparent than real. The new arrangement set up by the Local Loans Fund Act of 1935 superseded arrangements of financing the Fund by means of grants in aid on a Vote. The Fund is now financed by means of issues direct from the Exchequer under the Local Loans Fund Act of 1935.

797. Chairman.—I would like you to explain the position now as compared with the position that existed before, particularly with reference to the management of the Fund. That might simplify matters?—The Local Loans Fund is under the management of the Minister for Finance. It is fed by issues from the Exchequer. The purposes for which local loans may be issued cover all kinds of schemes, such as housing, drainage, public health works of all kinds, the erection of educational buildings, teachers’ houses, land improvement and so on.

798. Under the Local Loans Fund Act of 1935 the management of the Fund is different. Before that was it not a sort of fund that financed itself with the interest on the loans advanced—it was a fund in itself paying for itself?—The position as it existed before the passing of the 1935 Act was that the Exchequer did not get proper benefit out of the advances it made to the Fund in the shape of interest on these advances. Now we have so arranged matters that we get interest on the full amount of the advances made in the past and we will also get full interest on future advances.

799. Could you tell me the approximate figure of interest accruing annually on the advances outstanding prior to 1932?—I would not like to hazard a guess; I could mention a figure, but it would only be a guess. We were not charging interest on our advances from the Exchequer to the Fund up to 1935, but the Fund itself was earning interest.

800. The people were paying interest? —The Fund itself was earning interest from the people to whom advances were made. That interest did not go back to the Exchequer. It was used to make further advances from the Fund.

801. It was a self-contained Fund?—It was not self-contained because the interest was not at all sufficient to finance the further advances. In fact, very heavy advances had to be made from the Exchequer.

802. It was intended to make it self-contained?—I am afraid we had not very much hope that it would ever be self-contained. In 1931-32 the advances amounted to £570,000; in 1932-33 the amount was £550,000; in 1933-34 the advances totalled £2,150,000 and in 1934-35 the amount was £400,000. The interest on these advances came back to the Fund and was used to finance other advances.

803. Deputy Haslett.—Have you a limit to the type of advance you make?—The purposes for which we advance money are practically all defined by statute. They cover a wide field in the line of public health works, housing, drainage and land improvement.

804. Do loans to industry come under this fund?—No. I have some figures here which may throw a light on that particular aspect.

805. Deputy Smith.—In the matter of the improvement of lands, an advance would only be made in a case where a local authority would be interested—No, private individuals.

Chairman.—Loans would be made for the purpose of fencing, putting up houses and hay-sheds.

806. Deputy Smith.—I was referring to the improvement of lands. I thought that in a case of that kind it would only apply to where a local authority was interested? —It applies to individuals anxious to do fencing work, carry out drainage, erect out-houses, farm buildings and so on. The loans average about £75 each and they are repaid by an annuity, the maximum period of repayment being 35 years.

807. Deputy Goulding.—Does the interest vary?—The interest does not vary over the period of the loan.

808. But does it vary for different classes of loans?—Do you mean from the Local Loans Fund generally?

809. Deputy Smith.—Is it not a matter for surprise that you would permit that in view of the fact that there is another institution there for the purpose of making money available in this connection? I could understand the Local Loans Fund giving advances to local authorities, but I cannot understand advances being made from it to private individuals for more or less agricultural purposes when you have another institution set up for the purpose of financing people, where desirable?—These loans have been made for a good many years. After the Agricultural Credit Corporation, which I assume is the institution to which you are referring, was set up, we entered into discussion with them, and there is an arrangement at present whereby if the valuation of a holding is over £20, the application goes automatically to the Corporation; if it is under £20, it is handled by the Commissioners of Public Works, so the former are getting the cream of the business.

810. Chairman.—With regard to the equity of this, there are cases in which the Land Commission could not advance money. Take the case of a man having freehold property, an estate that is freehold, that is outside the jurisdiction of the Land Commission.

Deputy Smith.—I am not talking about the Land Commission; I am talking about the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I thought there was in this, as in other Departments, a tendency to overlap. You had loans being issued from this body and the Agricultural Credit Corporation.

Chairman.—I am not fully conversant with the ramifications of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, but in the main do they not advance money for replacing stock?

Deputy Smith.—And for housing— building houses—and all agricultural purposes.

Chairman.—They are an ordinary finance house.

Deputy Smith.—I suppose they are, but the conditions in regard to giving money are much the same.

Chairman.—Perhaps there could be some co-ordination.

811. Deputy Smith.—As regards a valuation exceeding £20, could you tell me the reason you hand this to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and why you deal with those under £20 through the Local Loans Fund?—Because they would not take all the applications from us; they want only the good ones.

812. You take a greater risk then?— We take a greater risk with the small ones. There is more trouble and little profit. The overhead expenses are high on the small ones. The small loans give you as much trouble as a big loan.

813. What kind of security do you ask for?—We have a charge on the holding.

814. Do you ask for security apart from the charge?—Not as a rule. The Agricultural Credit Corporation may and probably do ask, but we do not.

815. You just take a charge on the holding?—Yes, that is the position.

816. Deputy Goulding.—Your rate of interest would be lower than that of the Agricultural Credit Corporation?—They have recently reduced their rates. Now we should be about on a level.

VOTE 9—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

817. Chairman.—The items under sub-head A, concerning the Central Savings Committee, have relation to organisation and propaganda work connected with the Savings Committee?—Yes, Sir. The Savings Committee is a voluntary body. It was formed at the beginning of the Savings Certificate movement in order to popularise the sale of Savings Certificates. They have succeeded very well in their job; in fact, a little too well from the point of view of the Exchequer, as the Savings Certificates are rather an expensive form of borrowing which we are not particularly anxious to encourage.

818. Deputy Goulding.—Not particularly anxious to encourage?—We are not anxious to encourage it on an unduly large scale. What has happened is that people with substantial incomes have been attracted by the income-tax concession attaching to Savings Certificates and have bought them up to £500 worth, which is the maximum. We started the movement to encourage thrift amongst the smaller people and we cannot rule out the other people. We have a maximum which is applied all round. Even within the maximum we have got very heavy subscriptions in the aggregate to Savings Certificates. Our total liability in respect of them now must be something, between principal and interest, in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000.

819. Chairman.—In the rural areas anybody who has any sum approaching £500, instead of leaving it in the bank, is buying Savings Certificates?—The bank rates of interest have fallen very considerably and, in consequence, many people are being attracted to Savings Certificates. As regards the Post Office Savings Bank, we are getting money into that bank which has a fixed deposit rate of 2½ per cent. which has not been altered for the last fifty years. None of the banks is giving 2½ per cent., so people turn round and put their money into the Post Office Savings Bank. Again, that is rather serving a purpose for which the bank was not intended. The idea originally was to encourage thrift amongst the poor people, the small depositors.

820. Are you considering the dropping of propaganda work in regard to Savings Certificates?—We have several times thought about it, but we have taken no action in the matter. The Committee is a voluntary body and it has done a good deal of excellent work.

821. Circumstances played into their hands?—The fall in the rates of interest, of course, has helped the sale of the certificates, but it would seem a little ungracious to dismiss them summarily. I agree with your view that the expenses are rather heavy in proportion.

Chairman.—Especially when you are getting more money than you want.

822. Deputy Haslett.—What do you reckon the payment of interest on these Savings Certificates costs you?—I take it that the Deputy is referring to the present issue of Savings Certificates. It costs about £3 1s. 6d. per cent. if the certificate is held for the full period. The holder gets no interest if the certificate is cashed in the first year, but in the subsequent years interest is payable. If a certificate is held for the full period the holder gets the maximum return on it.

823. Deputy Goulding.— From that point of view it does not appear to be good finance to be encouraging the sale of Savings Certificates?—From the narrow Exchequer point of view it is not, but from the social point of view it is probably wise to encourage thrift amongst poor people and to suffer a little loss in the process.

Chairman.—We are now, I am afraid, getting on to policy, and that is a matter that this Committee cannot discuss. It is a question for the Dáil.

824. Deputy Goulding.—Is it not a question of dispensing with expenditure? The work of the Central Savings Committee involves an expenditure of close on £5,000?—If the Committee wish, I could pursue the matter with a view to seeing what savings might be effected on that particular Service.

Deputy Haslett.—Would we not be quite within our rights as a Committee in saying that this propaganda should end?

Chairman.—That is a question that should be raised on the Vote in the Dáil.

825. But we are here examining the Accounts?—It could be raised on the Accounts if the Committee wish it.

Chairman.—I think we may pass from it.

826. Deputy Goulding.—With regard to the Irish Manuscripts Commission, is this a continuing Commission or has its work ceased?—I am afraid its work has not ceased. The Commission was given very wide terms of reference and, amongst other things, was asked to report on:

The nature, extent and importance of the existing collections of manuscripts and papers of literary, historical and general interest relating to Ireland, and on the places in which such manuscripts and papers are deposited, and to advise as to the steps which should be taken for the preservation and publication of such manuscripts and papers, whether in public collections or in private ownership, and for the collection of any such manuscripts and papers as may be in danger of being lost or obliterated....

The preparation and publication of calendars and catalogues of such manuscripts and papers.

The editing and publication of hitherto unpublished texts in Old Irish, Middle Irish . . . .

The publication of photographic facsimiles of important codices, in particular of those in the possession of institutions or individuals outside Saorstát Eireann.

The revision and republication of important works already published but now out of print or difficult of access.

827. These are very wide terms of reference?—They are. I do not see any early prospect of a termination of the Commission’s labours.

828. Deputy O Briain.—Are you able to say whether the Commission deals with all manuscripts that may be available, not only in Ireland but in libraries on the Continent?—I think the position is that if any of sufficient interest are brought to their notice they will pursue them anywhere.

This is a Commission that is doing very valuable work.

829. Chairman.—In the case of the County Donegal Transport Committee, this was a Committee that pursued certain investigations in relation to County Donegal?-It inquired into transport facilities both by land and sea in the County Donegal and has now reported.

830. Chairman.—Does any Deputy wish to raise a question on the Inland Fisheries Commission?—That Commission has also sent in its report, which has been presented to the Oireachtas.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

831. Deputy O Briain.—On sub-head A (2)—Examiners—are you able to say if there is a special staff of examiners?— There is not. The examiners are selected from panels and, of course, vary according to the difficulty of the examinations and the subject of the examinations. The matter is entirely in the discretion of the Civil Service Commission. We, in the Department of Finance, do not know anything about their arrangements except in a general way.

832. Deputy Haslett. — Would the Selection Boards come under this sub-head? The travelling expenses of members of Selection Boards are included under sub-head B. They occasionally get lunch if they are kept all day at their work, but they get no remuneration.

833. Chairman.—These examiners have to go all over the country, I take it?—I was rather thinking of the people who set examination papers. I thought they were the people Deputy O Briain was referring to.

834. Deputy O Briain.—Sub-head A (2) covers remuneration for examiners who set papers. That, I take it, is correct? —Yes. It covers the fees of examiners, the fees of superintendents, and the fees of attendants employed in the examination-room for the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission.

835. Deputy Beegan.—Are the fees paid by applicants for positions lodged to the credit of this account?—The fees paid by candidates are not credited to the account of the Civil Service Commission. They are credited to the Exchequer and are accounted for at the foot of the page in the note “Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer”. Deputies will see that the amount realised was £4,538 19s. 1d., and that the Estimate was £4,536 0s. 0d.

836. Deputy O Briain.—That was very good estimating. What does sub-head C —Examinations—cover?—The printing of examination papers, the advertising of examinations, and the hire of rooms both for the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission.

837. Chairman.—What does sub-head D —Incidental Expenses—cover?—That includes telegrams and telephones as well as the carriage of parcels. Special precautions, of course, have to be taken in connection with the sending of examination papers down the country.

VOTE 14—PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

Paragraph 14 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report. Sub-head A— Compensation for Pre-Truce Losses:—

“I observed that attached to an award of £5,500 for compensation for premises destroyed by fire in February, 1921, there was a condition that the sum of £1,800 should be expended on reinstatement of the buildings. A sum of £1,000 was expended on the reconstruction. The rebuilding condition attached to the unexpended balance of £800 was waived and a sum of £400 charged to this sub-head was unconditionally paid in final settlement to the present owners, who bought the premises after they were rebuilt.”

838. Chairman.—In other words, you compromised for £800? That, I take it, is the meaning of the last sentence in the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report? Yes. The Minister for Finance considered that he had power to do so. This was an award by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission in respect of Pre-Truce damage, and all these awards were discharged by the Minister for Finance both where they had rebuilding conditions attached to them and where they had not rebuilding conditions attached. In some cases, a very limited number, we waived the reinstatement condition and compromised the claim on a basis favourable to the Exchequer, always giving substantially less than the claimant would have been entitled to receive had he rebuilt the premises. In the present case it was open at any time to the people who held the award to build to the extent of £800 and recover the total amount from us. They chose not to rebuild and disposed of their premises, and attached to the premises was this award of £800 which they were entitled to dispose of. The Minister felt himself quite free to waive the reinstatement condition, as the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, which made the award, had no statutory basis and the payments were made purely ex gratia by the Minister, and have been always considered to be ex gratia. In fact, it was established by litigation that the Minister for Finance had complete power to pay or not to pay in these cases.

839. Of course, in this case £1,000 was expended upon reconstruction?—Yes. The position is that the premises were burned by British forces in February, 1921. A claim was made to the Compensation (Ireland) Commission and they made an award. The premises were partially reconstructed and, on foot of that reconstruction, a payment of £1,000 was made by us. Then the society went into liquidation in 1926. From time to time in the years that followed various proposals were put forward by interested parties in regard to the purchase of the assets of the Society, including this outstanding balance of £800 in respect of the conditional part of the compensation award. None of these proposals came to anything, and no further payment on foot of the award was made. The position was altered by the Compensation Act of 1933, under which in regard to awards subject to a reinstatement condition made by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, it was decided by the Oireachtas that where rebuilding had already started it should be completed by September, 1934. This award, then, came under the guillotine, and it was necessary that something should be done about it if they wanted to get the claim.

840. To whom was the £400 paid— was it to the original owners of the property?—The £400 referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General was paid to the people who purchased the premises. They purchased them in June and November, 1927, after the Society had gone into liquidation. It has been a recognised thing that where the owner of premises had obtained an award subject to a reinstatement condition, the owner could dispose of the premises with the award still attached to them.

841. That is not this case. The owner here had reconstructed to the extent of £1,000?—Yes.

842. Chairman.—There was an order made by the court that he was to reconstruct to the extent of £1,800. I take it that the reason for the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note is that he considered you had no authority to pay this £400 over in cash, that it should have been expended on reconstruction.

Mr. McGrath.—That is the point.

Mr. McElligott.—As I say, it had been recognised in the past that owners of reinstatement awards could sell their premises with the award attached, and that is all that happened in this case.

Chairman.—I do not think so.

Mr. McElligott.—The position was that there was a reinstatement award of £1,800 attached to the building. £1,000 of that was spent on reconstruction.

843. In other words, we may take it that the reconstruction order made by the court was not completed?—The point I was making earlier was that there was no court order on the subject. There was simply an award by this informal body called the Compensation (Ireland) Commission.

844. They were a court?—Not in the legal sense of the term.

845. Was there not an order that these premises would be constructed to the extent of £1,800—they made an award?—They made an award.

846. And that all this money was to be expended on reconstruction?—The effect of the award was that if money was spent on reconstruction it could be recouped to the extent of £1,800. But, as I say, it has been decided by the courts that the Minister for Finance is quite free to pay these awards or not as he likes.

847. Chairman.—What happened is that somebody bought an asset from the Committee. You may take it they bought it at its market value. Having secured that, they produced this thing and extracted £400 more. I take it that is your point, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

Chairman.—That is the net issue to which we must keep.

Mr. McElligott.—The net issue was that the award was an asset attaching to the premises of which the Committee was fully aware.

848. Were the premises sold as such?— The Committee were as fully aware as we were that that was an asset and they were conscious of it in their arrangement with the new purchasers. They disposed of it as an asset.

849. Before you paid over the £400 was there any document that the sale indicated there was a contingent asset attaching to the premises?—We have ample proof of that. Our files show that. We had a long correspondence with them. They were fully aware of the position. At any time up to September, 1934, the owners could have spent £800 on reinstatement and we would have had to pay £800. They knew that, and they knew also that they could sell their interest in the £800. That is what they elected to do. They sold their interest in the £800 and transferred it to the new owners, whose title to the award was as good as that of the original owners. Then the new owners approached us with a view to fixing up an arrangement about the award and we compromised by paying them one-half of the award—£400. The asset, as I say, was disposed of for value by the original owners. They were fully conscious of the fact that the £800 award still attached to the premises and would pass with the premises when the premises passed.

850. It seems rather a curious arrangement?—I do not see that, granted that the Minister for Finance has power to vary the reconstruction condition. It has been affirmed by the courts that he has the power.

851. The man who gets the award reconstructs the premises and puts them up for sale. X buys them at their market value and comes back to this thing, which was only attached to the original owner who had reconstructed?—Of course, the position was that he had not completed the reconstruction. He was aware that he had not completed the reconstruction, and he sold the premises with the incomplete portion of the award still attached to them.

852. Mr. McGrath.—In order to get this on the records I should like to put it as the Audit Office views the case. In this case the purchaser and his colleagues acquired for a consideration of £500 (a) the interest of the Co-operative Society in the premises, on which over £1,000 had been expended in rebuilding; (b) the good-will, fixtures, fittings, stock-in-trade and other assets of the Society, including book debts of £630; and (c) were paid by the Department of Finance £400 for their interest in the balance of the award for rebuilding, in respect of which it was alleged that a sum of only £100 was spent. There was no proof that that £100 was spent. From this it will be seen that the beneficiaries did very well, as by getting £400 from the Department of Finance their bargain only cost them £100 net.

853. Deputy Smith.—It was a very good bargain, but at the same time, I take it, it would not affect the Department of Finance in this way, that if the reconstruction was fully completed the Department of Finance would be obliged to pay £800, I understand?

Mr. McElligott.—Exactly.

854. Deputy Smith.—Of course, the deal that the purchasers made with the Co-operative Society, with all the conditions of sale that you have read out there, was no concern of the Department of Finance. The Department simply said that if the reconstruction was carried out they were liable for £800, and that they would settle for £400 and let the purchaser do what he likes with the £400.

855. Deputy O Briain.—When did the place come into liquidation?

Mr. McElligott.—In 1926.

856. When was this sale completed?— It was completed in two stages, in June and November, 1927. As one of the Deputies mentioned, we are not concerned with the details of the settlement between the purchaser and the seller. That is a matter for arrangement between themselves. If one man makes a good bargain and another man a bad bargain, they cannot blame us. We made a good bargain from the point of view of the Exchequer, as we got out of a liability of £800 for £400. We did that without infringing any condition or recognised practice or precedent.

857. Deputy Smith.—In the sale as between the purchaser and the Co-operative Society, the purchaser made a very good deal, but looking at it from the point of view of the Department of Finance, I take it that they, too, made a reasonably good compromise.

858. Chairman.—If there is a reconstruction clause attaching to an award the money is paid over on the certificate of your engineer?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes, when reconstruction is carried out; but we are quite free to waive the reinstatement condition and compromise on the amount to be paid, and have done so in a good number of cases.

859. Deputy O Briain.—There are precedents for this?—We have in many cases waived that reinstatement condition. They are not numerous in proportion to the total number of cases, but we have waived in many cases that reinstatement condition.

860. Deputy Goulding.—As reconstruction was not carried out you simply paid £400?—Exactly.

861. Chairman.—Was it the person who became bankrupt that reconstructed?— It was the Society that reconstructed, and they went into liquidation in 1926.

862. Did they pay 20/- in the £?—I am afraid I could not tell you.

863. If they did not, were not the creditors defeated to the extent of £800? —I could not say what steps the creditors took to protect their interests.

864. If the creditors were made to believe that the £1,000 expended covered the total amount of the award, because if there was not full reconstruction the rest of it went, and they were defeated to that extent, it would be very inequitable?—It would but I am pretty certain, from my knowledge of the case, that the creditors and debtors knew exactly what the position was in regard to the outstanding balance.

Chairman.—We are not sure of that. The creditors were defeated to a certain extent.

Deputy Smith.— But the creditors benefited to the extent of the purchase price which was enhanced by the fact that this condition attached to the premises.

Chairman.—There was a sum of £1,000 spent on reconstruction and they only got £500.

865. Deputy Smith.—You say that by reason of the fact that this sum of money was paid over to the purchaser, the creditors were done in that amount. I say that the creditors would only have got the difference between £400 and the purchase price, that is, £100, if it were not for that condition attaching to the sale of the premises.

Mr. McElligott.—We had a good deal of correspondence and there is a fairly bulky file on the matter.

Deputy Haslett.—In the case of that type of building, which is built for one purpose, it is not always possible to sell it to the best advantage for something else.

866. Deputy Smith.—Having regard to what the Comptroller and Auditor-General has read out for us, I should imagine it was a very poor kind of deal from the point of view of the co-operative society.

Mr. McGrath.—Very poor.

867. Deputy Haslett.—There were many poor deals made and a lot of shareholders badly let down.

Mr. McElligott.—Following the point made by one of the Deputies, the principal asset of the business was this undischarged award because the sum of £1,000 spent on the premises was badly spent. The re-building had taken place at a time when building was very expensive and material very poor. The sum of £1,000 expended was very badly spent and there was very little value to show for it. The much more valuable part of the asset was the £800 undischarged award.

868. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General sub-head B—Compensation for Post-Truce Losses:—

“In the course of my audit I observed that a sum of £150 was paid on foot of two Reports made under Section 15 of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act 1923 in favour of a trader for shop goods damaged and stolen in the months following the truce, under circumstances which did not admit of payment of compensation, as the claims were not apparently within the provisions of the Act.”

Mr. McGrath.—With regard to sub-head B—Compensation for Post-Truce Losses—I understand that the Attorney-General ruled afterwards that the judge who made this award misdirected himself in law in admitting the claim, inasmuch as it clearly did not fall within the terms of Section 15 of the Damage to Property Act, 1923. In face of that, I thought it was a matter that should be brought to notice.

869. Chairman.—You did not know that, Mr. McElligott, until payment was made?—We did, I am afraid. This was rather a peculiar case inasmuch as it was a case of damage by British forces after the Truce. There was only one other case, so far as my knowledge goes, like it. In that case the previous Minister for Finance, after considerable consultation, had decided to make the payment, and in the present case we felt that no payment should be made. We consulted the Attorney-General about it, and he agreed with our Departmental view, but on account of the unique character of the case, and as payment would not establish any precedent that would be injurious to the Department, and as in fact there was a judicial finding to the effect that loss had been suffered, the Minister felt that the equities of the situation required a payment, and we accordingly made payment, as stated in the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s minute, of a sum of £150.

870. The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s point is that it did not come within the section?-I quite agree that it does not come within the ambit of Section 15, but I submit it comes within the ambit of the Property Losses Compensation Vote, which states that it is an estimate of the amount required “for payments in respect of destruction of or injuries to property under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Acts, 1923 to 1933, and otherwise.” I submit that it comes within the “and otherwise” reference. Of course, we have narrowly interpreted the scope of those words, and it must not be taken that we are trying to widen it unduly.

871. Chairman.—It would require to be kept pretty tight.

Mr. McElligott.—In the present instance, I think the fact that there was a judicial decision that loss had been sustained—

872. Chairman.—The inference from that is that loss was proven.

Mr. McElligott.—The judge apparently misinterpreted the section.

873. Chairman.—I know, but he was satisfied that there was loss.

Mr. McElligott.—He was. In fact, he made two reports, one for £140 and the other for £37 10s., and we reduced the amount he recommended.

874. The loss was proved before him? Yes. It would have been taking advantage of a technicality to have ruled out payment altogether. Payment was really made on the equities of the case.

875. Deputy O Briain.—How is it that only £3,645 was expended out of the £16,000 in sub-head A?—It relates mainly to awards to which a rebuilding condition is attached, and it has been very difficult to get on with the small remnant of rebuilding that waits to be done. That was one of the reasons why, in the Damage to Property Act, 1933, we put in September, 1934, as the latest date by which reinstatement conditions, already partially complied with, should be completed, and 30th June, 1936, as the final date by which the conditions had to be satisfied.

876. Chairman.—In order to get this thing wiped out?—Yes.

877. Deputy O Briain.—With regard to sub-head B, is that an Estimate for compensation under the 1923 Act?—Yes.

878. You have £61,596 10s. 4d. of that Estimate unexpended. Have there not been quite a number of awards? Is there undue delay in payment?

879. Deputy Smith.—They are only reports.

Mr. McElligott.—They are mostly in the form of reports and they have to be examined in the Department. Also the Department concentrate on getting cases heard in court rather than on paying awards actually made. We wanted to get them all disposed of. There were approximately 6,000 claims lodged under the Act of 1933. The majority of these have now been heard and many of the awards have been paid, while others are in process of examination.

880. Deputy O Briain.—Some have not?—Some have not, I agree, but as they are all in the nature of reports and not decrees, they have to be submitted to examination in the Department. We are making every effort to expedite payments because we are as anxious to get the thing finished as anyone else. If there are any claims in which members of the Committee are particularly interested, I will do what I can to expedite disposal of them.

VOTE 15—PERSONAL IN JURIES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

881. Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General:—

“The charge to sub-head B includes a sum of £173 9s. Id., being a gratuity awarded on marriage to a female officer whose services had been terminated on political grounds and who was reinstated in 1933. The award was made in anticipation of a proposed Superannuation and Pensions Bill, and is subject to review on the enactment of that measure.”

Mr. McGrath.—To get a marriage allowance, a civil servant must have given six years’ work, but in this case the official was only two years employed. That is one of the reasons I wrote this paragraph, and another reason is because of the statement that the award is authorised in anticipation of a Superannuation and Pensions Bill which it is proposed to introduce at an early date, and will be subject to review on the enactment of the necessary legislation.

882. Deputy Beegan.—What was the length of time between her dismissal and her marriage?

Mr. McGrath.—This lady was employed in the Local Government Department from 8th September, 1921 to 30th September, 1922. Then she was reinstated and worked from 2nd January, 1933 to 5th February, 1934, so that she really had only two years’ service. At the bottom of the award, it is remarked that the award is authorised in anticipation of a Superannuation and Pensions Bill which it is proposed to introduce at an early date.

883. Mr. McElligott.—The reference there was to the fact that, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General states, the lady in this case who had been awarded this gratuity had only two years’ actual service, and that we proposed, in the Superannuation Bill which is now under consideration, to introduce a clause which would allow us to reckon for her service a period during which she was outside the Civil Service. She had been an auditor in the old Dáil Department of Local Government, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General has stated, from a date in September, 1921, to a date in September, 1922, and when she was reinstated in 1933 the lady was given an undertaking that the period of her absence would, subject to the passing of the necessary legislation, reckon for pension purposes.

884. Chairman.—The payment is not legal for only two years’ service?—No. Of course, we have acted in anticipation of legislation in the matter, but we followed a precedent—in fact, two precedents—which had not been challenged by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

885. Chairman.—But, of course, it did not follow that anybody should challenge it. In other words, the payment is not correct in law—that is, to make a payment in anticipation of legislation?

Mr. McGrath.—Perhaps, before Mr. McElligott goes any further. I should explain that there is no legislation in connection with marriage allowances. I understand that they are on the basis of an old Treasury Order.

Mr. McElligott.—Yes. All these marriage allowances are extra-statutory. They are made under a Treasury Minute of 1894 and, 1895.

886. Chairman.—Under what Statute? —Under old Treasury Minutes of 1894 and 1895. The purpose for which we really want to get legislation is to allow these years, during which the lady was outside the Service, count towards the six years that are necessary, and a Superannuations and Pensions Bill has been introduced.

887. Deputy Smith.—Of course, that Bill will affect many more people than the lady in question?—Oh, yes. It is a very big Bill.

888. Deputy Haslett.—Has the money actually been paid to this lady?—Yes.

889. Deputy O Briain.—You say that there are precedents for this?—Yes. There are two precedents in which we had acted —one of them in the case of the Superannuations and Pensions Act, 1923. Prior to that Act we had granted a marriage gratuity to a reinstated officer, who had not the full service, in anticipation of legislation, and, as I say, our action in the matter was not queried by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Then a similar award was made in October, 1933, in the case of a third officer. Of course, I am not attempting to justify it on that ground. I quite agree that it is a power that should be exercised very sparingly, and I hope that a similar occasion will not arise again.

890. Chairman.—You admit that it is a very dangerous thing?—Yes. I quite agree that it is very undesirable that action of this kind should be taken, and in future we hope that such an occasion will not arise.

891. In other words, although there might be a hardship in a particular case, it is better that one should suffer than that the door should be open to that kind of thing in future, as it might lead to abuse?—Yes.

892. Deputy O Briain.—With regard to sub-head C — Compensation Allowances under Article 10 of the Treaty—is that an annual sum?

Mr. McElligott.—It includes lump sum payments as well as annual payments, but it is all in respect of Article 10 beneficiaries.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GO VERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 19—TARIFF COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

893. Deputy Haslett—Is this Tariff Commission operating now?

Mr. McElligott.—It is operating, but not so much as a Tariff Commission as in connection with other matters not related to tariffs. The Commission has been engaged recently, on an inquiry into pig industries, as the Pig Industries Tribunal, and it has also been inquiring into the marketing of fruit and vegetables, an inquiry which is still incomplete—at least a report has not been presented yet.

894. Deputy Goulding.—It has a sort of roving Commission?—Yes. It has been engaged on a number of miscellaneous duties, possibly more difficult than tariffs.

895. Chairman.—But the Commission is alive somewhere?—Oh, yes.

VOTE 20—EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT AND THE JURIES ACT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 21—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

896. Deputy Goulding.—With regard to sub-head B—The National Theatre Society, Limited (Grant-in-Aid)—is that the Abbey Theatre?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes. The Abbey Theatre.

897. Deputy O Briain.—There is no control over this?—No. Once we pay the money we have no control.

898. Chairman.—But the Minister has a nominee on the Board?—One of the Directors is appointed with the consent of the Government, but once the money is paid we have no power to pursue the matter any further. I should like to say, with regard to sub-head B— Grants to Gaeltacht Students—that that service has now been transferred to the Department of Education, and this is the last year in which it appears in the Miscellaneous Expenses Account.

899. Deputy O Briain.—Is that for University Scholarships in the Gaeltacht? —Well, yes—mainly for University Scholarships.

900. In Galway?—Yes, in Galway particularly.

901. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head F—The Saorstát Plate—is that connected with racing?—Yes. The Saorstát Plate, of 100 guineas, is run annually at the Curragh. It used to be the Governor-General’s Plate, who used to present the money, but it is now presented as an Executive Council contribution.

902. Deputy Haslett.— Is this an annual affair?—Yes, it is run annually at the Curragh.

903. Chairman.—Of course, hitherto the Governor-General presented a plate under that title and, when he ceased to be Governor-General, the Executive Council thought it was a wise thing to continue this race?—Exactly.

904. Chairman.—You have a note here, Mr. McElligott, with reference to the saving due to the non-issue of the Grant-in-Aid to the Irish Folklore Society. Have you anything to say on that matter?—Yes. That is in Vote 49, which is the Vote for Science and Art, under the Department of Education. The money was not really saved. It was issued out of another Vote.

VOTE 25—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

905. Chairman.—These are two additional agricultural grants, I presume, that are made during the year over and above what is estimated for?

Mr. McElligott.—There are really three additional agricultural grants. There is an agricultural grant of £599,011 on the Central Fund, and then there are these three additional supplementary grants. The total agricultural grants for that year were £1,970,000. That is, the three grants plus £599,011 issued from the Central Fund.

VOTE 26—LAW CHARGES

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

906. Chairman.—On page vii there is a note which reads as follows:—

18. The account shows an excess of expenditure over the gross Estimate of £546 17s. 5d., and a surplus of receipts under Appropriations-in-Aid of £963 3s. 0d. An excess Vote will, therefore, be required to authorise the application of surplus receipts to meet the excess.

The excess was due to the charge to a losses sub-head of sums totalling £1,006 16s. 1d. misappropriated by an official. It appears that the defalcations were facilitated by the non-observance of Departmental regulations relating to the receipt and control of official moneys.

I have inquired whether the total deficiency has yet been finally ascertained and also whether the gross loss has been, or will be, reduced by recoveries.

Mr. McElligott.—When the defalcations came to our notice we set on foot an inquiry which revealed such a state of affairs that we decided on having a thorough and formal investigation of conditions in this office. We set up a committee of inquiry, and that committee reported on the circumstances in which the defalcations had taken place. It stated that the rules laid down for the receipt and control of money and the checking of the monthly accounts in the Chief State Solicitor’s office had not been carried out, that there was in fact, a general failure to comply with them, and that that failure conduced to the creation of an atmosphere favourable to the default which had occurred. The monthly accounts had not been properly examined, and a comparison of the remittance receipt book with the counterfoils of receipts issued by the office had not been carried out, and generally such a state of affairs was revealed that we felt that public funds should not be at the complete loss of this sum of £1,006 16s. 1d. We recovered, or are in process of recovering, sums totalling £485 from officers that we considered had been remiss in the enforcement of proper checks and controls.

907. Chairman.—Is it your Department which has control of these funds?— No; the Chief State Solicitor has control of his own office in respect of its administration and internal organisation. He had in fact laid down certain rules for the staff as far back as 1925. These included rules for the control of money in his office, but they were not observed, and it was non-observance that led to the defalcations by the particular officer concerned. There was only one officer criminally concerned in the actual defalcations, but the remissness of the other officers in exercising functions of control facilitated the operations of this misguided person.

908. You are recovering some of the penalty from them?—Yes.

909. Of course, the amount will be spread over?—Most of the £485 has been paid. In the case of some of the officers on lower salaries, the sum has been deducted in monthly instalments.

910. Deputy Smith.—Why £485?—We thought it would have been unfair to recover the whole lot of it. The officers from whom we recovered these sums were certainly guilty of gross negligence, but we felt we would be pursuing them a little too fiercely to recover the full amount.

911. Deputy Goulding.—Have you recovered anything from the defaulter?— He was sent to prison for a long term.

912. Chairman.—The regulations were not enforced. That is one of the things you cannot pass in the case of people in responsible positions. That is what happened in this case?—Yes.

913. Were the defalcations going on over a considerable period?—Yes, over a long period. They started away back in 1929.

914. There will be always dishonesty in the world. You are satisfied that those in charge did not enforce a check?—This started in 1929. In 1929-30 it amounted to £11; 1930-31, £95 11s. 6d.; 1931-32, £149 3s. 6d.; 1932-33, £127 9s. 0d.; 1933-34, £209 6s. 0d.; 1934-35, £365 15s. 1d. There were some separate sum in various months during that period. These were smaller amounts but the total came to £1,006 16s. Id.

915. Deputy Smith.—How many officers were involved in the recovery of the £485? —Seven.

916. How was the amount averaged?— Off one Department of Finance officer and six officers in the Chief State solicitor’s office.

917. Was it a uniform amount?—No, graded according to the salary of the individual; the bigger the salary the bigger the fine. We did not call it a fine. We called it a recovery, the maximum recovery from one officer being £200 and the minimum £25.

918. Mr. McGrath.—In the Appropriation Account, Deputies will find that the total grant was £66,204 while the total expenditure was £66,750 17s. 5d. There was excess expenditure over the gross estimate of £546 17s. 5d. It will be necessary for the Dáil to vote this amount.

Mr. McElligott.—I agree that an excess vote should be introduced in the House as soon as possible.

919. Chairman.—You are taking steps to do that?—Yes. I may inform the Committee, as they appear to be concerned about this matter, that as much as possible of the accounting work has been taken away from the office of the Chief State Solicitor, and is now being handled by the Department of Finance. Revised regulations have been issued in connection with the remaining accounting arrangements in the office of the Chief State Solicitor, not that the accounting requirements in existence, if put into force in 1926 were not sufficient to have brought the defalcations to light at an earlier stage if enforced. Unfortunately they were not enforced, and hence this man pursued his misguided activities for quite a long period without being discovered.

920. Chairman.—Of course he should have been discovered at the end of each year.

921. Deputy O Briain.—Sub-head B— Undersheriffs—I take it that that is a declining service and that that expenditure will cease?—Yes, it is a declining figure.

922. Deputy Goulding.—Sub-head F-Defence of Public Officials—what is that for?—These are expenses in actions taken against district justices and other public officials for acts done by them in the execution of their duty. We do not pay the expenses in all cases. We only pay where we are satisfied an official acted bona fide and in what he considered to be the proper discharge of his duty. We do not at all regard ourselves as committed in advance.

923. Chairman.—Are you not committed to defend in certiorari proceedings?—As regards paying costs, but not as to where our costs will ultimately be borne.

924. When a district justice is named in a certiorari proceedings there is an obligation to appear?—If he does appear we do not bind ourselves in advance to pay his expenses.

925. Of course, he leaves it to the Attorney-General?—Yes.

VOTE 28—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

926. Deputy O Briain.—Arising out of sub-head C of this Vote—Grant to Trinity College—is there any other grant available for Trinity College?—No, this is the only grant.

VOTE 29—ELECTRICAL BATTERY DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

927. Chairman.—The report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with this Vote states:—

“The total sum advanced up to the 31st March, 1935, for electrical battery research and development was £71,913, in addition to which a grant of £1,800 was made from the Relief Scheme Votes for the years 1932-33 and 1933-34. I understand that the terms and conditions of repayment of the advances have not yet been determined.”

The reason that that note is made by the Auditor-General is because the following note appears on page 102 of the Estimates proper:—

“Issues will be made from this grant to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on his certificates as to the sums required by him from time to time. The amount (together with sums issued for the same purpose in previous years) will be repayable at such times and on such terms and conditions as the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, may determine at the date of the issue or subsequently.”

Mr. McElligott.—The Minister for Finance has not yet determined the time at which, or the terms and conditions on which, the grants are to be repaid. The amount of the grant has been reduced in years subsequent to 1934-35. For the current year the total of the grant is £8,000. The reason that we have not yet decided on the conditions of repayment is that the commercial exploitation of the invention has not yet taken place. It is still in the development stage, and it would be, perhaps, a little premature to compel the company to make arrangements to repay the advances. It is not in fact in a position to do so.

928. Chairman.—To cut the matter short, you are keeping this thing in mind?—Yes. It has been a source of anxiety to the Department of Finance. We have the matter continually in mind.

929. I suppose you could not very well lay down any regulations until you see what stage of development the battery has reached?—Of course it has required a good deal of time to get patents for the battery protected all over the world. That has been an expensive and a lengthy process. The advances which have been made to the company have been spent very largely in protecting the patent position and in research work. All that expenditure was really part of what you might call the operating expenses of the company. There has been no reproductive expenditure. The money has been spent partly in meeting the opposition in different countries from people who were opposing the grant of patents. The opposition has in all cases so far been successfully overcome. It is expensive work. It means the employment of patent agents and patent counsel.

930. It would be impossible to lay down conditions in regard to repayment until the company is first in a position to repay?—I should not like to raise the presumption that what I have said means that we are satisfied that we shall eventually get all the money repaid.

931. Deputy Smith.—You may never get it?—It was largely in the nature of an experiment.

VOTE 30—QUIT RENT OFFICE

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 31—REMUNERATION FOR COST OF MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

932. Deputy Goulding.—Is this a stereotyped charge?—The charges are stereotyped as the Deputy says, except that they expand according as the public debt expands. The arrangement for them remains the same.

VOTE 69—RELIEF SCHEMES

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

933. Deputy Crowley.—Why was such a large amount left unexpended under this Vote?—There were a number of cases in which grants had been sanctioned and where the work had been started but the grants were not fully paid at the end of the year owing to the work not being completed. The money was re-voted and spent in the subsequent year.

VOTE 70—EXPORT BOUNTIES AND SUBSIDIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

934. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, but that will arise again.

Mr. McGrath.—That need not be referred to until Mr. Twomey comes along.

Mr. McElligott.—The Department of Finance accounts generally for the full sum, but, as I stated previously to the Committee of Public Accounts, the Department of Agriculture spends much the greater part of the sum voted. The Department of Industry and Commerce also spends a certain amount but by far the greater portion of the total Vote is spent by the Department of Agriculture and, as has been pointed out to the Committee, it is the accounting officer of the Department of Agriculture who answers for the Vote. Any assistance I could give would be in the most general terms.

VOTE 71—REPAYMENT OF DAIL EIREANN EXTERNAL LOANS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

935. Deputy Crowley.—Does this expenditure include any portion of the payment of these loans?—No. This is purely for office expenses.

VOTE 72—ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE FUND.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 74—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

936. Chairman.—Particulars of these repayments will be found on page 236, on which there is a form of balance sheet. These receipts and payments, I take it, have been checked and are in order?— Yes. The idea is to keep the capital of the Contingency Fund at or about £20,000.

937. Mr. McGrath.—It is usual when an Excess Vote has to be taken, that an interim report be made to the Dáil. The Committee reports that during the year ended 31st March, 1935, an expenditure in excess of the amount voted for a certain purpose was incurred. I presume the Committee, or the Chairman and Clerk, will prepare the necessary report.

Chairman.—It is merely in stereotyped form. When an excess takes place the Ministry of Finance produces the necessary Vote?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes, as a matter of fact we have been waiting until I should appear before the Committee so that the Committee could make its interim report. We shall follow that up with a Vote.

Mr. McGrath.—It is only for a nominal sum, because the Department happened to have money on hand at the time, but it has first to come before the Dail to get authority.

Mr. McElligott.—There was an excess on Appropriations-in-Aid which would have been in fact sufficient to cover the deficit caused by this man’s defalcations, but we are not allowed to use excess Appropriations-in-Aid in that way. We shall be happy to arrange the terms of the Estimate with the Comptroller and Autditor-General if the Committee agrees to make the report.

The Committee adjourned at 1.15 p.m. until Wednesday, 17th June, 1936.