Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1938 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1936 - 1937

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 17adh Mí na Samhna, 1938.

Thursday, 17th November, 1938.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

Mr. Seóirse Mag Craith (Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 1—GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

No questions.

VOTE 2—OIREACHTAS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

564. Deputy Brasier.—With regard to sub-head I—Inter-Parliamentary Union (Saorstát Eireann Group) Grant-in-Aid— what exactly is the nature of the expenses under that sub-head?—There is an annual subscription made by the Irish group of the Union to the central body at Geneva, fixed at 2,000 Swiss francs which, at the normal rate of exchange prevailing at the time the Estimate was drawn up, would have amounted to £125, but owing to the de-valuation of the Swiss franc, this payment of £93 5s. 0d. was equivalent to 2,000 Swiss francs. Hence the saving on the sub-head. The Inter-Parliamentary Union itself is a group of the different national Parliaments which are associated together for common action. They hope by this association to obtain the co-operation of different States in order to strengthen and develop on a democratic basis the international movement for peace and world partnership. It is also intended to study all these problems of international law which can only be solved by parliamentary action. The membership of the Union is confined to members of Parliaments, including past members. They hold annual conferences at one or other of the different seats of Government and the delegates representing the different national Parliaments attend, when discussions are held on matters of universal public interest.

565. Chairman.—Was this vote of £125 made to the Saorstát Eireann group of the Union, or was the vote for so much as the Saorstát Eireann group would have had to pay by way of annual subscription to the central body?—It represents the subscription which the Saorstát Eireann group would have to pay to the international body.

566. The estimate on page 3 of the Book of Estimates appears as a grant-in-aid with the note:—

“The expenditure out of this grant-in-aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General nor will any unexpended balance of the sums issued be surrendered at the close of the financial year.”

Would not that suggest that the saving which was effected might have gone legitimately to the funds of the Inter-Parliamentary Union group in Saorstát Eireann rather than back into the Treasury?—The basis on which we prepared the Estimate, as I said, was that they would have to pay the equivalent of £125. Owing to the fall in the Swiss exchange, the equivalent was £93 5s. 0d., and we considered that the saving ought to go to the Exchequer.

567. But does not the note itself on the face of the Estimate suggest that it should not go to the Exchequer? There is an express statement that no unexpended balance will be surrendered at the close of the financial year?—The contribution was 2,000 Swiss francs so when that was paid, there was no balance.

568. It would appear that the money, according to the Appropriation Accounts, in fact never issued to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Saorstát Eireann group. All that issued was £93 5s. 0d. and the Estimate provided for £125?

Mr. McGrath.—That Estimate was based on a certain quotation between the Swiss franc and the Saorstát pound. If the Swiss franc deteriorates, I think the Exchequer should get the benefit because the Estimate was made out on a certain basis—that so many Swiss francs should be paid over. The number of francs was actually paid over as estimated for, so that if the exchange goes in favour of the Saorstát pound, the Exchequer had a right to expect the difference.

Mr. McElligott.—If I may supplement what the Comptroller and Auditor-General has said, if the Swiss exchange had moved against the Irish pound, we would have had to make up probably something more than £125.

569. Chairman.—Would you not have to do it by way of Supplementary Estimate?—We would have to do it by Supplementary Estimate. The loss on the exchange would fall on the Exchequer, so that I think it is entitled to reap the benefit whenever an opportunity arises.

570. Chairman.—The point I want to be clear upon is this, if an appropriation appears in the Estimates for a Grant-in-Aid of such a nature as appears here, it would seem to me that it is the duty of the Exchequer to pay over that Grant-in-Aid to the Group and allow the Group to meet their expenses out of it?—We do not do it automatically in that way. As a matter of fact, we examine the accounts of the Group and we look at the numbers of the Group and if we find that the Exchequer is not getting what we consider sufficient value for the money, we would not give it at all. If the membership of the Union fell below say a certain figure, or if there were no subscriptions coming from other members of the Union, and if the whole burden fell on the Exchequer, I think we would be very much inclined to stop the grant altogether.

571. Chairman.—I have no desire to be discourteous and I am really only looking for information. It appears to me that if Dáil Eireann directs the Department of Finance to pay £125 to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Department ought to pay out that amount. If the Department deems it prudent afterwards to make certain representations to the Minister for Finance as to the payment of this money, then it is a matter for the Minister but I feel that the Department when directed by the Dáil ought to have paid this money.

Deputy Smith.—It does not direct them to pay out £125. It directs them to pay out 2,000 Swiss francs which, at at the time the Estimate was prepared, represented £125. It so happened that the exchange was in our favour at the time the payment was made and it was only necessary to expend £93 5s. 0d. to purchase 2,000 Swiss francs. I cannot see why the balance then should be paid.

Chairman.—We must not bother Mr. McElligott about the merits of the case. We are merely seeking information. Had the Department received instructions to issue 2,000 Swiss francs they would have issued that amount in Swiss currency but they did not receive any such instruction. The Inter-Parliamentary Group went to the Minister and told the Minister the circumstances and said that they expected that a 2,000 Swiss francs subscription would cost £125. On that representation, the Minister directed a subscription from State funds of £125. It subsequently transpired that this sum bought 2,000 Swiss francs, and left a balance. I suggest that the function of the Department of Finance was to operate on the £125. I suggest that is manifest. If the £125 had not bought 2,000 Swiss francs, you could not have issued the Parliamentary Group a sum in excess of the £125 without a Supplementary Estimate?—We could not without a Supplementary Estimate. I take it that you base your contention on the phraseology of the note on page 3 of the Estimates. I submit that that note is capable of another interpretation. The note reads:—

“The expenditure out of this Grant-in-Aid will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General nor will any unexpended balance of the sums issued be surrendered at the close of the financial year.”

The words “unexpended balance,” I submit, refer to the balance in hands of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and not the balance in the hands of the Exchequer because the surrender could only take place to the Exchequer. The Exchequer could not surrender money to itself.

572. My submission is that under the direction contained in the Estimate you should have issued £125. That would have left a balance in the hands of the Group and not in the hands of the Treasury. You did not in fact issue £125. You issued £93 5s. 0d. That appears to me to be at variance with the terms of the Estimate. I understand that a Grant-in-Aid, subject to a note stating that any unexpended balance will not be surrendered and that the grant would not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, implied a direction to issue the money and to allow the person to whom it was issued to spend at discretion?—I have never considered that that rule applied, even in a case where there are notes of this kind, because these notes refer to the recipient of the grant and relieve him of the necessity for surrendering the unexpended balance.

573. You never gave him the chance of operating on the balance because you never let him get near the balance?—If we had, in fact, issued the whole of the £125, the Inter-Parliamentary Union would not have been under any compulsion to surrender the balance and then the note would have become operative.

574. Precisely. You never gave the note an opportunity of becoming operative?—Nor was there any compulsion on us to let them have the unexpended balance.

575. Chairman.—We are much obliged to you for the information you have given us. We shall consider the action of the Department in this matter when we come to draft our report.

576. In regard to sub-head J—Oireachtas Restaurant—is the Oireachtas Restaurant an economic enterprise now? —I am afraid not, Sir. It still continues to receive assistance from public funds. The grant provided for in 1936-37, the year to which these accounts relate, was £150 but in the current financial year, 1938-39, the estimated contribution is £500.

577. Deputy Cole.—How do you account for the loss in the running of the restaurant?—By the fact that a full staff has to be kept, and that the meetings of the Dáil are not sufficiently frequent to keep the staff fully employed in the provision of meals, etc., which would enable the overhead, etc., expenses to be covered. The overhead expenses are too high in relation to the number of days on which the staff are kept working.

578. Deputy Walsh.—We handed it over to a private concern but apparently they have not made a success of it. We are losing just as much money now as when the restaurant was being run by a Committee of the Dáil. I think it actually paid a profit one year when it was run by a Committee of the House?— It may have been better supported then by members of the Oireachtas.

Chairman.—It must be borne in mind that in the current financial year we had a general election and that we have had a long period of inactivity arising out of the negotiations in London. That made the running of the restaurant more uneconomical than usual.

Deputy Corry.—But these accounts are for the year ended March, 1937.

Chairman.—Mr. McElligott has told us that for the current financial year the contribution will be even greater, £500.

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

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

579. Chairman.—In regard to sub-head E.—Allowance to President for Motor Car—is that sum just paid to the President of the Executive Council, as he then was, and he pays all expenses in connection with his motor car, or is there a chauffeur supplied?—There is a chauffeur supplied. The allowance is intended to cover all expenses under ordinary headings incurred by the President in using his car for official purposes. Wages and uniforms of chauffeurs are provided under the Civic Guard Vote. Two chauffeurs are provided from that Vote.

580. How is the car provided?—The car is provided by the President himself. He pays for the car and this is the annual allowance. We changed the basis of charging this expenditure in 1925. Our experience is that the system of paying an annual allowance in respect of a car is cheaper than providing a car and paying vouched expenditure on it.

581. Mr. Corry.—That is cheaper?— Yes.

582. Deputy Cole.—Does this include petrol and oil?—The President has to pay for petrol and oil and all expenses, as I say, except providing chauffeurs.

VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

583. Chairman.—In regard to this Vote, Mr. McElligott, the Committee would be glad if you would give us your views in regard to the matter that was mentioned in paragraph (3) of the Report on this Vote, which reads:

“The balances to be surrendered out of Votes for the public services for 1935-36 amounted to £2,288,572 1s. 2d. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered to the Exchequer.”

That paragraph refers to the practice of over-estimation and it directed your attention to the fact that the Supply Services for 1935-36 amounted to £28,328,889 and that the net expenditure for the year amounted to £26,050,016 15s. 10d. That was an over-estimation of £2,278,872 4s. 2d.; the latter item had to be surrendered. It appears to us to be quite impossible for the Department of Finance to exercise its functions scrupulously in reviewing Departmental Estimates if this discrepancy were to continue. Have you any remarks to make on that?— We deplore over-estimation, and we have tried in the past to get the Departments to estimate their requirements more closely. We exercise as much control as possible over the Departments in the drafting of Estimates and before the Estimates are finally approved. But there are over 70 Estimates and these 70 Estimates all contain a large number of sub-heads. In drawing up the Votes the various Departments usually provide a certain margin for contingencies or for unforeseen expenses of various kinds under each sub-head. There is an inevitable tendency here for each Department to prevent an excess on sub-heads. If there is an excess they have to go to the Department of Finance for sanction. The Accounting Officer of the Department is put through the mill in trying to explain the excess on the aggregate Vote and why they did not foresee that excess when drafting the Estimate. There is the fear of having to apply for a Supplementary Estimate and perhaps that has driven the Departments to provide a margin on every sub-head on each of the Votes. As there are over 70 Votes, the collective total of all these margins is usually very great. We have recognised that in our Budgetary system of financing because we usually make reductions of £1,500,000 each year, in respect of over-estimation. Even that reduction of £1,500,000 was insufficient in the year to which you refer. The total surrenders amounted to £2,288,000 odd in that year. Most of this surplus occurred in respect of five Votes, I mean the surplus referred to in paragraph (3) of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. These five Votes are Public Works and Buildings, Agriculture, Army, Relief Schemes and Export Bounties and Subsidies. In the case of public works and buildings, there is always provision for a large amount of new expenditure. It sometimes happens that owing to delay in drafting schemes and plans and getting them approved, the expenditure, which at the time the Estimate was prepared looked almost certain to be incurred during the financial year, does not arise. In the case of Agriculture and Export Bounties and Subsidies, there were quite a number of different schemes. Take Agriculture first. They have a large number of schemes in Agriculture of which they cannot foresee the magnitude or the expense likely to be incurred in advance of the financial year. It must be remembered that the Estimates for 1936-37 would be normally drafted and prepared in November, 1935. These would be printed and presented to the Dáil in the following February. They are sometimes prepared in the previous October. This, of course, means that the Departments find great difficulty in visualising the actual conditions in the financial year to which the Estimates relates. The Estimate as drafted provides a margin of safety as far as possible. It is a very difficult matter, for example, to forecast the export trade of the country in a particular financial year; yet the export bounties and subsidies are bound up completely with the export trade for the year.

584. In Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings—in the year under review you have a net surplus, an unexpended balance of £215,255 14s. 10d.?—That is in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings?

585. Yes. Is not that a large item, too large still?—I think it will always be found that in this particular Vote there is a considerable element of over-estimation. I think the building strike of last year affected the surplus. A contingency of that kind can hardly be foreseen.

586. There is a point occurs to me and on that I will be glad to hear your views, Mr. McElligott—how can the Department of Finance exercise the restraint which it is meant to exercise on the demands on the public purse, the size of the Budget, if every essential Estimate shows a far greater demand on the public purse than in fact is needed or arises?— We deduct generally a sum of £1,500,000 from the total Supply Services, in order to provide for savings. We may rely on the Departments each year producing a number of Supplementary Estimates. We make no provision for these Estimates in the Budget allocations of revenue. In these two ways we hope to reduce the amount of the surplus. Thirdly, in our Estimates circular each year, we enjoin in the strongest possible terms, on all Accounting Officers, to draw their Estimates as closely as possible. I would be very glad if the Public Accounts Committee were to advert strongly to this point so as to reinforce our appeals to the Accounting Officers of the Departments.

587. Is it the opinion of the Department of Finance that it would be sounder finance to have the Estimates prepared in such a way that there should be a surplus or an excess rather than have the various Departments bringing in Supplementary Estimates?—We do not encourage Supplementary Estimates and we do not want to have a deficit but we would prefer the Departments to run the risk of having a Supplementary Estimate rather than having large margins of unexpended sums in the original Estimates.

588. Having a Supplementary Estimate creates no danger whatever in the finances whereas if there is a large excess in the Vote the situation would be different?—I agree but if there is a large margin in every Vote they would not be looking for a Supplementary Estimate.

589. Deputy Smith.—Is it not rather hard to expect the Department on receiving a circular from you to be very careful in preparing their Estimates, that on your own admission you say that if they come forward afterwards you put them through what is known as real third degree methods?—We have not reached that stage yet.

590. It is only reasonable that a Department, if it thinks that it should be called upon to look for a Supplementary Estimate, would always keep in mind at the beginning of the year in preparing these Estimates—knowing by experience the difficulty about getting a Supplementary Estimate—the making of adequate provision so that the necessity of looking for a Supplementary Estimate would not arise?—There has been altogether excessive recourse to Supplementary Estimates here. That was a point to which the Banking Commission Report adverted. It destroys the possibility of any close Budgetary control by the Department of Finance. I think that Departments ought not to go for Supplementary Estimates in the course of the financial year. The Budget is framed on a certain basis of expenditure and except an emergency arises or some unforeseen or sudden crisis develops, the Department should stick to the proposals they put forward at the beginning of the financial year and if they want expenditure for other purposes they should be able to show economy in the Vote.

591. Chairman.—An excess of £2,288,572 1s. 2d. is a temptation to the Departments who have spent all that was voted to them to apply for a Supplementary Estimate in order to get their share of this excess?—It must not be supposed that because the money is provided in the Estimates here the Departments are relieved from the necessity of applying for sanction to the Department of Finance for expenditure. A priori if the Vote is extravagantly drawn and there is a substantial margin there will be no necessity to have a Supplementary Vote.

592. I see that point, but suppose we have five Departments producing amongst them a surplus of £1,457,000 and another Department other than one of these five having spent its annual appropriation, is not the existence of that £1,457,000 an invitation to that other Department to look for a share of the excess monies in the way of Supplementary Estimates? Does that not weaken the influence of the Department of Finance in the matter of control?—Certainly I agree with that. The existence of large surpluses on some Votes is an invitation to the Departments controlling other Votes to look for part of the surplus.

Deputy Smith.—I think you could talk about this for months, and I do not see how you will get to the point of having that close estimation for which you are striving. Take, for example, relief Votes. Suppose the Board of Works prepare an estimate for relief Votes on the basis of the registered number of unemployed on the 1st January of the preceding year. That seems to be the only method they could possibly follow. Supposing then, when the moneys are made available to the different counties on that basis, the register for some reason or other does not contain a sufficient number in that year to absorb that money, you cannot blame the Department concerned for over-estimation. Even in the case of public works and buildings. I do not see how you can guard against all the elements that will enter into preventing the Board of Works from spending the money estimated for public works and buildings because a thousand factors enter into that. I do not think there is very much use in discussing it.

593. Deputy O Briain.—You have taken as an example Vote 11. There is provided there on page 38 under sub-head 60— Grants for Building, Enlarging and Enclosing National Schools—£200,000, and the expenditure was only £132,122, which left an unexpended balance of £67,877. Is it not a fact that there are peculiar difficulties, of which many of us are aware, with regard to the expenditure of that money; that the Department of Education and the Board of Works are not the only Departments concerned in the expenditure?—That is so.

594. The question of the local contribution and local agreement to do the work often enters very much into the question of the money being expended?—Yes.

595. How would it be possible for the Department of Education and the Board of Works to say beforehand what would be the development with regard to the local negotiations which have to be entered into before the expenditure can be made? Has not that to come into the thing always?— It has to come in. But every year we find Departments guilty, if I may use the word, of chronic over-estimation. They know from year to year that these factors operate, and will continue to operate, and yet they persistently over-estimate their requirements.

596. Are we not all aware, in regard to the item of schools, that they hang fire for three or four or five years; that there is a hope it will be done this year and it is not done, and there is a hope it will be done next year; that there is the local snag all the time?—I agree that in the case of Vote 11—Public Works and Buildings—and a Vote such as relief schemes, where a lot of outside factors have to be taken into account, over-estimation is almost inevitable to some extent. But, where Votes consist largely of salary payments, grants-in-aid, and other expenditure which depends mostly on internal considerations, that is, considerations restricted to the sphere of government proper, I do not see any reason why an Accounting Officer should not estimate more closely.

597. Deputy O Briain.—Everybody would agree that over-estimation would be inexcusable there.

598. Deputy Childers.—I should like to stress that, perhaps, you will prevent them from getting into the habit of expecting a grant in advance of that kind if, for example, it was known that no Estimate for a school grant can be obtained until the agreement was signed between the manager and the Board of Works and the Department of Education. It might result in the hastening of the making of these agreements, less delay in making them, and be far better for the State and the ordinary citizen if that sort of thing were insisted on. That is precisely an example where Mr. McElligott and his Department will be able to insist on far closer supervision.

Deputy Corry.—In the Appropriation Accounts here, we have over-estimation all round, and I suggest that it is due to the third degree methods applied by the Department of Finance. I would prefer to see a Supplementary Estimate coming before the Department rather than this system, by which every Department is over-estimating. Every single Department has over-estimated. There is a surrender of money from every Department.

599. Chairman.—Would this principle be correct: that budgetary control by the Department of Finance would be easier if based on Budget deficits rather than on the basis of unexpended surpluses?—I think there is a considerable degree of truth in it, because, in order to avoid a deficit on the Budget, we would introduce some additional measure for raising revenue and that might act as a serious deterrent to Departments putting forward any Supplementary Estimate.

600. And strengthen the hands of the Department of Finance to hold at bay estimates which they might not be able to resist if abundant surpluses were available to finance them?—Certainly.

601. Deputy Corry.—If it were pointed out to Departments that they are destroying the amount of pleasure Deputies find in an extra opportunity for cross-examination of the Department on a particular Supplementary Estimate.

Deputy Walsh.—Some of us can call to mind that in Chicago two or three years ago a lot of public servants were without their pay for 12 months due to this very thing that we are trying to bring about.

Chairman.—We are much more efficient in Eire than they are there.

Deputy Walsh.—I do not think that would be a desirable position to bring about.

Chairman.—If such a disaster arose we would depend on Mr. McElligott’s Department to deal with it effectively.

VOTE 9—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

602. Chairman.—As to sub-head A (3)— Advertising and Publicity Expenses—is advertising being reduced there because you are not so anxious to attract money to this form of savings as in the past?—It is more, because we do not think advertising is a very effective means of selling Savings Certificates, but it is also partly due to the fact that we are not anxious to attract subscriptions. The Savings Certificates movement now is concentrated mainly on the promotion of thrift and that is done chiefly in the schools and in factories and workshops. School-children, as a rule, do not read advertisements.

603. In any case, you are not anxious to stimulate subscriptions in this line of country?—We are not.

604. I take it that in times of cheap money subscriptions on the central savings system are not sought so much as in times of dear money?—That is so.

605. As to B (2)—Travelling and Incidental Expenses of the Civil Service (Compensation) Board—is this a disappearing service?—As long as Article 10 lasts, and as long as any transferred officers with Article 10 rights remain in the service, this Board will have to be kept in being, but, as you see, there was no expenditure during the year.

606. With reference to sub-head E (1), is the Inter-Departmental Committee on Public Works a committee for the coordination of all the works carried out by all Government Departments?—No. This Inter-Departmental Committee on Public Works was set up with the intention of investigating what kind of public works might be suitable to undertake and what were the most economical. It presented a number of reports to the Government. It was purely an Inter-Departmental Committee and did not take evidence or anything like that.

607. It does not carry on permanent co-ordination work?—No. It was a purely temporary committee.

608. Is it still in existence?—No, it has finished its work.

609. Is the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Marketing of Fruit and Vegetables still in existence?—It is still in existence, in as much as it has not presented its report, but it has taken all the evidence deemed necessary and is at present considering its report.

610. I hope it will be able to find out why the fruit growers of this country got less for their fruit this year than in any previous year despite the imposition of adequate protection?—I shall make a note to inquire from the chairman.

Chairman.—With special reference to the price of raspberries.

611. Deputy O Briain.—Is the Town Tenants (Occupation Tenancies) Tribunal still in existence?—The public sittings, I understand, are over, but the report has not yet been prepared. At least we have not seen it.

612. Is there any indication when the report will be available?—I have not heard anything as to the date on which they will present it.

Deputy Corry.—Is there any hope of fixing some date for them?

Chairman.—We must not ask Mr. McElligot questions which should be addressed to the Minister in the Dáil. How did a charge fall due for payment in respect of the Commission of Inquiry into the Reformatory and Industrial School system in that year? I understood that that commission had presented its report three or four years ago?—It presented its report in August, 1936—within the financial year.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

613. Chairman.—On sub-head C, are the services of the State Laboratory available to any citizen on the payment of a fee?—No. The services are confined to Government Departments. The State Laboratory carries out work for the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry and Commerce mainly, but also for other Departments that care to apply for its services.

614. Can a local authority apply through the Department of Local Government and Public Health?—Yes, local authorities can apply also.

615. And they would be required to pay a fee?—In effect, as a rule, except it was something the Government Department itself thought should be investigated on Government account. If it was some special service for local authority a fee would be charged.

616. So that a local authority always has the option of employing an independent chemist or of referring say State purchase commodities to the State Laboratory for test?—No. I do not think that is the case. I thought you were referring to some isolated example.

617. No?—If you take local authority purchases, I think that under the procedure of the combined purchasing board the services of the State Laboratory are to be used if it is a case of testing materials or other supplies made to the local authority.

618. There are numerous cases, for instance, where a board of health tests suspected water. Can it have the test made by the State Laboratory or must the samples go to an outside chemist?— The State Laboratory is usually only employed in those cases where there is an appeal from the decision of the local analyst. The local authority is free to go to any analyst it pleases.

619. Deputy Smith.—Inside or outside the country?

Chairman.—It is not for Mr. McElligott to deal with that question.

Mr. McElligott.—I think that, as a rule, it is inside the country, because in the case of specimens that have been sent to an analyst it might be very awkward to send them outside. They might not keep.

620. Deputy Smith.—In the event of a local authority being compelled to take that course, would there be any objection to it?—You mean to send specimens outside the country?

Deputy Smith.—Suppose a local authority——

Chairman.—I really must call Deputy Smith to order because it is quite clear that this is not within the scope of Mr. McElligott’s jurisdiction.

Deputy Smith.—I take it that Mr. McElligott will know when to apply the brake himself.

Chairman.—I must apply the brake. The Deputy is asking him questions relating to a Department for which he has not to answer to this Committee.

621. Deputy O Briain.—Are the analysts who act for local authorities in the employment of the State Laboratory? —No. The State Laboratory has its own permanent staff.

622. Deputy Childers.—Would I be in order in asking whether, in the opinion of Mr. McElligott, there is a sufficient number of established officers in the State Laboratory. Representations have been made to me that, in certain cases, they have not had their salaries raised for years, and that some are on a temporary basis, although they have been five years in the Laboratory. Has there been any recent inquiry as regards the position of the staff?—We have recently reorganised the State Chemist Office in the Laboratory. We have created a new post of superintending chemist, and have improved the conditions generally in the Laboratory.

623. Chairman.—And the number of unestablished officers is not as great as it was?—It is less than it was.

624. Deputy Smith.—What fee would a local authority have to pay in the event of an appeal to the State Laboratory for a test?—I am afraid that I have not got any information as to the charges made by the State Laboratory. The usual case of the kind that arises is under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts and the sale of milk. In these cases the local authority usually brings the prosecution. Where the defendant appeals against the certificate of the local analyst, specimens are sent to the State Laboratory, but very few cases arise in the year—something like half a dozen. I cannot say, offhand, what the fee is that is charged, but I will look up the matter and let the committee know.*

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

625. Deputy O Briain.—On sub-head C —examinations—would Mr. McElligott say if recruitment for the Civil Service is proceeding all the time on the same scale as within the last three or four years?

Chairman.—I hope not.

Mr. McElligott.—I am afraid it is. The Government services have been expanding, and recruitment for the Civil Service is going on, I should say nearly as fast as ever.

Deputy Cole.—May I put the same question with regard to the Civic Guards?

Chairman.—Not on this Vote.

VOTE 14—PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

626. Chairman.—How came it that we paid out £57,000 and estimated for £106,000 for compensation for property losses in the year under review?—There was one big case concerned in this matter. We thought that the legal formalities in connection with the reinstatement would be complied with in the course of the year, but unfortunately they were not.

627. Has the matter since been disposed of?—Yes.

628. Are we near the end of the claims under the Property Losses Compensation? —Yes. The Vote for the current year is only £31,000 as compared with £106,000 in the year under discussion.

629. It is a service that will disappear shortly?—Yes, in the course of a couple of years.

VOTE 15—PERSONAL INJURIES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

630. Chairman.—On sub-head B, is the sum mentioned there a pension or a lump sum payment?—It is in the form of a pension.

Chairman.—And these payments will continue as long as those people survive? —Yes.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

631. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note to this Vote:—

Payments amounting to £2,934 18s. 5d. which had been made prior to the 1st April, 1936, and which had been charged to a suspense account pending legislation have now been charged to sub-head A following the enactment of the Superannuation Act, 1936.

Payments similarly made and amounting to £3,178 8s. are now charged to sub-head B.

The sum of £310 0s. 10d. shown as extra receipts payable to the Exchequer includes £203 0s. 6d., being a refund of the amount of a gratuity awarded by the British Government to an officer who transferred from the British Civil Service in 1929 and to whom a pension based on aggregate service is payable by virtue of the Act.

Have you any further comment to make on this, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—No, except that this paragraph 11 has been written for the information of the Dáil. It will be seen from it that certain amounts were paid out in previous years, and these sums were held in suspense because the Superannuation Acts did not cover exactly the payments. Now, the Act of 1936 fills up the deficiency. We are charging up the sums indicated here, and the matter is now closed.

632. Chairman.—I take it that it is not common practice to pay out sums of £2,934 18s. 5d. without statutory authority.

Mr. McElligott.—No, Sir. It was, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General implies, rather a doubtful matter whether we had statutory authority or not. From some points of view the statutory authority seemed to be sufficient, and from others not. The matter was put beyond doubt by the terms of the Superannuation Act of 1936. The officers affected were people who had given their life service to the present State or to its predecessor, and who had retired from their various offices. They were a mixed number of people—Customs and Excise Officers, Clerical Officers, Junior Executive Officers and Warders, and if it deprived them of a pension they would have been almost entirely without any means of subsistence. So we gave them the benefit of the legal doubt, and proceeded to remove the doubt by legislation.

633. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has this further note to the Vote:—

A pension of £118 2s. 6d. per annum, with effect from the 14th August, 1936, together with an additional allowance of £315, was awarded pursuant to the provisions of Section 11 of the Superannuation Act, 1936, to a former officer of the Civil Service of Dáil Eireann. The award was calculated by reference to the period of service as certified under the section, together with an addition of five years under Section 28 of the Act. As I considered that there was some doubt whether Section 28 could be regarded as applicable to the case of a person in whose favour a certificate had been issued under Section 11, I have communicated with the Accounting Officer on the matter.

A compensation allowance at the rate of £800 per annum, together with a variable supplementary allowance subject to an overriding maximum of £117 0s. 8d. per annum, was awarded under Section 7 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, with effect from the 1st December, 1936, to an officer who had been removed from office for the purpose of facilitating improvements in the organisation of his department by which greater efficiency and economy could be effected.

Chairman.—In regard to the first case, Mr. McGrath, have you any observations to make?

Mr. McGrath.—I wrote to the Accounting Officer, as I had some doubt whether a pension awarded under Section 11 could be affected by Section 28 of the Act. As regards Section 11, the reckoning of established service in certain cases is affected by an age limit. I will give the provision of that section to the members of the Committee, so they will understand my argument. If the Minister, within two years, certifies that a particular person ceased to be employed, and so ceased solely for political reasons, and was unsuitable by reason of age for appointment to an established position, then in such a case it shall be lawful to grant to such a person a superannuation allowance computed (a), on such salary as shall be stated in that behalf by the Minister and (b), on a period of service deemed to have begun not earlier than the date of his first appointment, and to have ended at the date of the passing of the Act, or at the date at which such person attained the age of 65 years. It is the opinion of the Audit Office that Section 11 deals with this particular class of case, and that Section 11 is complete in itself in so far as that it deals with a certain period. It states here that the service shall be counted from the date of his first appointment until the date of the passing of the Act, or until the date when he becomes 65 years of age. Remember, it does not grant a certain number of years; it merely grants him the pension computed in this case, on the period between his appointment and the date when he becomes 65 years of age. Section 28 has to deal with another class of individual. That is the interpretation put on it by the Audit Office, and as there is a difference of opinion between the Department of Finance and the Audit Office on this question, and I must draw the attention of the Committee to that difference of opinion. If the Department of Finance is prepared to send a reference to the law advisers of the Department, and that they advise in accordance with the opinion of the Department of Finance, I will be quite satisfied.

634. Mr. McElligott.—I am quite prepared to accept the suggestion of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to refer the matter to the Attorney-General for decision.

635. Chairman.—I think that course would recommend itself to the Committee. I am sure that is the prudent thing to do.

Mr. McElligott.—We regard Section 11 and Section 28 as not being mutually exclusive. There is nothing in the terms of either section to show that the benefit of the other section shall not apply to individuals concerned, or any individual who was a recipient of benefit under the Superannuation Act of 1936. However, I am quite willing to accept the suggestion put forward by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and leave the matter to the law officers.

636. Chairman.—I think that is a very satisfactory arrangement. With regard to the compensation allowance referred to on page vii, have you any observations to make, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—Section 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1859 empowers the Department of Finance to grant a pension to an officer removed from office for the purpose of facilitating improvement in the organisation of his Department, by which greater efficiency and economy can be effected. In this case an officer was removed and pensioned and another officer appointed to the same post. As it was not clear to me that this change alone could be held to comply with the statutory condition of improvement in the organisation, I thought the matter was one worthy of being brought under the notice of the Dáil. So far as I know, this section has hitherto been used only for reorganisation or improvements or involving greater changes than the substitution of one person by another. The organisation of this Department was the same exactly after the change as before it, and in my opinion this would indicate that the section did not apply. I think the point at issue might be narrowed down to the simple question: Can a change in personnel alone be held to be an improvement in the organisation? I do not think that the Act quoted is clear on this point and its application to cases such as the one I have referred to in my Report is a new departure, so far as I know, and for that reason I considered the charge should be brought to the notice of the Dáil through this Committee.

637. Chairman.—I take it that, while this may not be the same case, it is analagous to the case which arose in the Embassy in Paris on the Appropriation Accounts of the previous year and in respect of which a note was made in our last Report. Is that so, Mr. McElligott? —That is so.

Deputy Corry.—It seems to be an extraordinary procedure, to say the least of it.

638. Chairman.—Perhaps, Mr. McElligott, you could throw some light on the matter?—That case was analagous to a case commented upon in a previous Appropriation Account in relation to superannuation and retired allowances. The interpretation of the Act of 1859, which is the Act under which this official receives his pension, is a matter of some difficulty, as the Comptroller and Auditor-General points out. The wording of the Act says it shall be lawful to grant persons retiring or removed from the public service, in consequence of the abolition of office, or for the purpose of facilitating improvement in the organisation of the Department by which greater efficiency and economy can be effected, such special allowance as may be considered necessary. It is hard to point to any greater efficiency and economy. They are not even alternatives. You have to have both efficiency and economy—it is not efficiency or economy. My contention must be that a change in personnel is sufficient to justify the application of Section 7, that one must give an administrative rather than a legal interpretation to the section, and that if the continuance of a certain person in the Service is likely to lead to inefficiency or lack of economy, you can say that there is a constructive saving or an increase in efficiency by his removal.

639. Chairman.—I think, Mr. McElligott, you are faced with an insurmountable difficulty by the words of the Statue, which deal with greater efficiency and economy. It is idle to pretend that the terms of the Statute are met if you dispose of a man and employ another man in the same position and at the same salary. It is idle to suggest that that represents economy?—The words efficiency and economy are linked up with improvements in the organisation of the Department and I submit if there is an officer in the Department whose continued service might lead to consequences not compatible with existing efficiency and economy, that his removal does, in fact. facilitate the cause of efficiency and economy.

640. Deputy Corry.—Is this more than the pension that that man would be entitled to in the ordinary course?—It was. in as much as he got certain added years. He got almost five years added to his service. He had about 35 years; as a matter of fact, he had 35 years and 10 months established service and he was given credit for 40 years, so that an addition of four years and two months was made.

641. He was an official whose continuance in the Department, it was thought, would lead to inefficiency and lack of economy. I might say frankly that the attitude of the Department in this matter is far different to the attitude of the Department in regard to public boards down the country. Down there when a man is found to be inefficient he is put out.

642. Chairman.—There cannot be any reasonable doubt that the Department is trying to avoid the letter of the Statute. The Committee pointed out that they do not approve of that procedure. After all, the Department have a remedy. If they want to amend the law they can come before the Oireachtas and do so. It must be unsatisfactory that in individual cases the letter of the Statute can be pleaded against a plea for clemency whereas in other cases the Statute is twisted in order to do something which the Department deems it expedient to do. It is a denial of the statutory right to which State servants are normally entitled?—In this case it would seem we are being arraigned for straining the terms of the Statute, extending them beyond what is reasonable, straining the interpretation in favour of the individual concerned.

643. Precisely. Do you think it is desirable to strain it either to the left or right? Is it not better expressly to do what is in accordance with the terms of the law?—I have not admitted in so many words that we have strained the Statute. I have endeavoured to convince the Committee that in the course of action we pursued we succeeded in avoiding a situation in which there would be loss of efficiency and in which the cause of economy would not be served and that we had given to the Act in question, the Superannuation Act of 1859, an administrative rather than a legal interpretation. I am quite willing to concede that, construed solely in the legal sense, our action is probably a straining of the meaning of the words in the section.

Deputy Corry.—Apart from the legal aspect, take the commonsense side of it. If a man has outlived his usefulness and has come to the point where his continued employment in that capacity would lead to inefficiency and, in your own words, lack of economy in that particular Department. I think that man would be lucky enough in getting out with his pension on the 35 years’ service without getting years added. I do not think it is a case in which the Superannuation Act of 1859 should be brought in to give him an extra allowance.

644. Chairman.—Would I be right in saying that the case bears a very close analogy to the case referred to in the Committee’s Report of last year?—Yes.

645. That is correct?—Yes.

Because—I have no desire to be the slightest degree discourteous—it does not seem to be the slightest use for this Committee to make notes clearly saying that the Committee is not fully satisfied that the circumstances of the present case were such as to justify an award under Section 6 if it is promptly disregarded by the Department of Finance.

Deputy Smith.—I wonder are we entitled to have our recommendation accepted as against some other recommendation?

Chairman.—That is the position exactly, but certainly, far be it from this Committee to express an opinion and in the next breath to say it is perfectly worthless. If it is worthless we should not express it.

646. Deputy O Briain.—Was this case in fact dealt with before our note of last year was presented?—It was dealt with at the end of November and the beginning of December, 1936.

647. Deputy O Briain.—When was our note put forward, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McElligott.—Your note was put forward a good deal later than that.

Chairman.—Subsequent to 9th December, 1937. So that that note had not reached the Department when that decision was taken.

Deputy Smith.—Would it be fair to ask you, if you had this note before you, whether you would have insisted upon pursuing the course you pursued here in relation to this particular officer?

Chairman.—Mr. McElligott would have very carefully considered our note and his decision would have been influenced accordingly.

Mr. Smith.—I was opposed to that note last year. I am relieved from all responsibility.

Chairman.—We have the information we want, I think. We can pass on to the next question.

648. Deputy Childers.—Could I not ask one question?

Chairman.—Certainly, Mr. Childers.

Deputy Childers.—Is there included in this Vote any case of giving gratuities of this kind, or pensions of this kind, where the auditor was satisfied that there was no actual economy in the office? What is the total sum of money paid in pensions under this section, and did any of the pensions so awarded result in actual economy in the office?

Mr. McGrath.—My answer to that is— I am speaking now of the second part of clause 12—that as far as I know this is the first occasion on which this particular clause has been availed of.

Deputy Childers.—I see, yes.

649. Chairman.—Surely this is the second occasion, Mr. McGrath. Had we not a case arising last year?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes, but it is not exactly the same, Mr. Chairman, because it was under the 1909 Act, and there was a certain other irregularity committed in that particular case referred to last year, and it would not be fair to put the two in the same category. This is a straight case. The other case had certain considerations attached to it. This case stands out by itself.

Mr. McElligott.—This is the only case of its kind that has really occurred. The circumstance were entirely exceptional, and I think that they are not likely to recur.

Deputy Smith.—The one point I make is, if a change is made like this that will tend towards greater efficiency and naturally, one would think it would also tend towards greater economy. In producing efficiency you are in fact producing better economy.

650. Chairman.—The only thing that occurs to me is that where very grave doubt arises it is a source of surprise to me personally that the Department do not consult their law advisers and come before us furnished with the opinion either of the law adviser or of the legal department of the Department of Finance to the effect that they acted within their jurisdiction.

Mr. McElligott.—Of course, as I have said, it seems to me that we gave the section the administrative rather than the legal interpretation. The Pensions and Superannuation Code is particularly intricate and we have the most expert people in the country on it in the Department of Finance, and if we were to refer all cases to the Law Officer I am afraid it would tie us up very considerably.

Chairman.—Quite.

Deputy Corry.—I think we should definitely express our disapproval of dragging the Superannuation Act of 1859 into it.

Chairman.—That matter will arise when we discuss our report. We have all the information, I think, we want from Mr. MacElligott.

Deputy Corry.—I suggest a special note should be taken of this case.

Chairman.—I have made a special note of that case.

651. The next matter is under sub-head K—Pensions, Gratuities, etc., to members of the Gárda Síochána (including members of the late Dublin Metropolitan Police Force), etc.

Paragraph 13 is as follows:—

“An increase of pension of £26 6s. 11d. per annum which had been awarded under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, was reduced to £14 per annum, with effect from the 1st April, 1934, following the redetermination of the amount of the pensioner’s annual income. It appeared that the pensioner had been in receipt of the same income for a number of years, and as awards of pension increase has been made during these years on the basis of the lower rate of income I have inquired as to the resulting overpayments.

“An increase of pension of £24 19s. 2d. per annum under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, was awarded to a pensioner with effect from 1st November, 1934. It subsequently appeared that the increase operated to bring the pensioner’s total income beyond the statutory maximum, and payment of pension was withheld from the 31st May, 1936. The pensioner died in December, 1936, and I have inquired regarding the final adjustment of the matter.”

Perhaps Mr. McGrath would explain that.

Mr. McGrath.—The second part of this paragraph is satisfactorily accounted for. The Accounting Officer has informed me that the pensioner has since died but that the Department of Finance have no reason to believe that there has been any overpayment made. As regards the first part of the paragraph, my information is that the allowance was reduced to £14 per annum with effect as from the 1st April, 1934, and my inquiry would go to show that this reduction from £26 odd to £14 per annum should have taken place earlier than it did, but, however, the Accounting Officer has stated in his reply that he thought it would be unduly harsh to adjust the increase of grant in previous years by reference to the valuation made in 1934. The valuation was made in 1934 and the allowance was made, not on the information given by the pensioner himself, but merely on a calculation, I understand, made in the Pension Office. I am, therefore, rather inclined to agree with the Accounting Officer that it would be unduly harsh to adjust the increase any earlier than 1934. I am quite satisfied to leave the matter as it stands. The adjustment is now made and will continue to be made.

652. Chairman.—The error did not arise from any misrepresentation on the part of the pensioner?—No.

653. Have you any explanation with regard to the second case?—With regard to the second case, I am quite satisfied. The pensioner is dead and the Accounting Officer stated that there never has been any overpayment. He withheld payment in that case on suspicion that there had been an overpayment. I do not know whether it would be necessary for me to explain to the Committee the basis of these degrees of Pension.

Chairman.—If you are satisfied, Mr. McGrath, that no improper payment has been made, I think the Committee will accept that certificate. If nobody wishes to ask any further question, we will return to the Vote.

654. In regard to sub-head E, are you getting to a point, Mr. MacElligott, where unestablished officers will no longer exist?—No; there is a good number of unestablished officers in the Service still and it would be difficult to visualise the day when they will disappear. Their number and their proportions to the total Service have tended to contract but there is at present no prospect of their disappearing.

655. Is it the policy of the Department to establish as many officers as they administratively can?—I think the pressure from the unestablished officers is constantly in that direction, and the Department is in the position of trying to resist demands rather than encourage them, but where we are satisfied that an established post is necessary in a Department we usually do not make any difficulty about establishing the particular officer.

656. Are the unestablished people mainly temporary employees?—Mainly temporaries, yes.

657. But the policy of the Department would be, where a person is in a permanent establishment, to make him an established officer?—Certainly. That has been and still is the policy of the Department.

658. There was a very large number of valuable people in the Department of Agriculture who remained unestablished and who retired unestablished, without any pension rights at all?—We made certain provision for them.

Chairman.—I see.

659. Deputy Childers.—Might I ask on that Vote, whether the Department are going to complete some system whereby the disturbance caused in all sorts of districts in Ireland through the disemplacement of people temporarily employed on labour exchanges can be avoided? Athlone, for instance, is seething with every sort of worry and anxiety on the part of people employed in the labour exchange, because people who are established are being moved from Cork to Athlone on the ground of their being redundant in Cork, and other people are being put out of work, people who have served from 10 to 12 years. There is intense dissatisfaction. Could we ask Mr. MacElligott whether there is any principle on which he is working or whether he is going to rationalise the whole position of officials in the labour exchange, so as to avoid that unsatisfactory position?

Mr. MacElligott.—We have established a number of people in labour exchanges on representations from the Department of Industry and Commerce, but we have not been able to grant the demands from that Department completely, as we thought they erred on the side of extravagance, and we are not satisfied that some of the labour exchanges will be a permanent feature in our economy.

660. Deputy Walsh.—Is it right to say that a great number of unestablished officers, such as Customs Inspectors, for instance, do not seem to have any prospect of being established. Aren’t there a great many Customs Inspectors unestablished—people at the ports, for instance, and on the Border?—Customs Officers, as a rule, are established. There is a number of people who are unestablished. Temporary Preventive men, they are called. They are employed by the Revenue Commissioners, but they are only temporary, and we cannot take them on to the establishment except we are satisfied there is a prospect of permanent work for them.

661. Deputy Walsh.—You would not call a man temporary who has been practically 16 or 17 years in the service?

Chairman.—Because, I suggest, Deputy, that the imminent disappearance of the Border will make the services of a great number of these men redundant.

Deputy Walsh.—I am talking about the men at Dun Laoghaire.

Deputy Childers.—That suggests another border.

Mr. McElligott.—There would be redundancies, in any case, if the Border were abolished, and we would be able to put in a permanent man in Dun Laoghaire.

662. Chairman.—In regard to sub-head F, what is the extra-statutory grant? It alarms me as Chairman of this Committee immediately?—In cases of distress and other exceptional circumstances, where a man dies and has dependents, and he is unestablished and has no pension rights, or rights to compensation of any kind, small grants are made to his survivors, but only in exceptional cases. In the year in question there were no such grants made.

663. But doesn’t the Contingency Fund provide for that difficulty, Mr. McElligott? —The Contingency Fund is not availed of for the purpose of such payments as are in the nature of superannuation or compensation. We do not use the fund for purposes already covered by existing Votes. We prefer to deal with these in connection with the particular Votes.

664. Do you regard it as sound Treasury practice to make a provision in an Estimate for an extra-statutory payment for which, presumably, you must come to Dáil Eireann for approval?—Of course we have the approval of Dáil Eireann inasmuch as this is submitted in advance to the Dáil and in advance of the particular year to which it relates.

665. But you could give an amount of, say, £10,000 or £20,000 under this sub-head, I suggest. Is there not virement there?—Well, a grant of £20,000 would be so much out of proportion to the original amount of the sub-head, which is £80, that I think the exercising of virement would not be dreamt of in such a case.

666. But I suggest that in law, under the authority of sub-head F, you could do so?—I do not think it can be said that there is any law governing the use of virement. Here, again, it is a question of administrative discretion, and I think that the small amount provided in the sub-head is a guarantee against any abuses. With regard to the amounts paid out each year, I do not think the sub-head has been exceeded in any year.

667. Well, I am more interested from the point of view of practice. Do you think it is sound practice to give the Department authority to make extra-statutory grants when the Contingency Fund is there from which these grants can be made, subject to subsequent Parliamentary approval?—I agree that it is not, as a rule, sound practice, but the practice in this particular case has not proved to be unsound because the grants have always been very small.

668. I admit that, at the moment, we are rarely blessed in having the Chief Executive Officer of this Department, but I suggest that would be no ground for establishing a reckless practice which might be abused by his successor?—These extra-Statutory Grants are really part and parcel of the Pensions Code. It was a practice inherited from the British Government, and it would have seemed rather heartless to discontinue these grants.

669. Surely, the Contingency Fund would provide for them?—Well, as I say, it is not the practice to use the Contingency Fund for purposes for which there is a Vote already in existence.

670. My argument is that the Vote should not be in existence, that sub-head F is an improper one and that its place should be taken by the Contingency Fund. I hold that it should be one or the other. You, Mr. McElligott, take the view that I am wrong in that?—I think it is a sub-head that we have had right from the beginning of this Vote, and the experience of the last thirteen years has shown no abuse. There has never been a case to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General directed attention or on which the Public Accounts Committee found it necessary to animadvert.

671. Would you approve of the opening of a similar sub-head in any other Vote? —Not in any Vote that was not controlled by the Department of Finance.

672. Deputy Walsh.—With regard to sub-head G, Mr. McElligott—Injury Grants—What does that mean?—They are mainly grants under the Workmens’ Compensation Acts.

Chairman.—We shall now pass to Vote 17.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT 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.

673. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head B, Mr. McElligott—Travelling Expenses—I wonder who was the valiant man who travelled to the tune of 3d.?

Mr. McElligott.—That was the recovery of a tram fare.

674. Deputy Childers.—On that Vote, Mr. Chairman, is it proper to ask Mr. McElligott what is the exact nature of the duties of people who take part in the Tariff Commission at the present time, in view of Government policy?

Chairman.—It is a proper question to ask, but I think it might also be addressed more appropriately to the Minister. However, perhaps Mr. McElligott could give you the information now.

Mr. McElligott.—The Tariff Commission has been engaged for some years past on work quite unconnected with the intentions with which the Commission was originally set up. They conducted an inquiry into the pigs and bacon industry and, latterly, they have been engaged in conducting that inquiry to which reference was made earlier in the morning— into fruit and vegetables. Their connection with tariffs has been very slight. They have also been constituted a Merchandise Marks Commission and have some duties in connection with that business. At present, they are not engaged in reviewing tariffs, either applications for tariffs or applications for reduction of tariffs. That function has passed to the Prices Commission, and it is intended, as a matter of fact, to bring the Tariff Commission to a close. We are under statutory compulsion to have a Tariff Commission, as the Tariff Commission Act is worded, and we propose to introduce legislation to abolish the body.

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 called.

No question.

VOTE 25—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 26—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

675. Mr. Brasier.—With regard to sub-head F—Defence of Public Officials— what does that relate to?

Mr. McElligott.—That relates mainly to actions brought against Civic Guards or other public officials who find it necessary to take certain action in the execution of their duties, and who may be sued by members of the public as a result of such action.

VOTE 28—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott, called.

No question.

VOTE 29—ELECTRICAL BATTERY DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. J. J. Elligott, further examined.

676. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in connection with this, which reads as follows:—

“Including £8,000 in 1936-37 the total amount provided for advances for Electrical Battery Research and Development to 31st March, 1937, was £105,300. The total advanced to that date was £95,913, the balance of £9,387 not yet issued being retained in a deposit account. In addition, a grant of £1,800 was made from the Relief Schemes Votes for the years 1932-33 and 1933-34. The conditions and terms of repayment of the advances have not, I understand, yet been determined.”

Mr. McGrath.—I write that paragraph every year in order to draw the Committee’s attention to the last sentence, which is that the conditions and terms of repayment of the advances have not, I understand, yet been determined.

677. Chairman.—Have they yet been determined, Mr. McElligott?

Mr. McElligott.—It has not yet been possible to determine the conditions and terms of repayment of the advances. As I have said to the Committee in previous years, there is no certain prospect that the advances will be repaid, and of course as time goes on I am afraid the prospect cannot be said to be improving. It is of little avail to fix the conditions of repayment of advances unless they are certain to be repaid, and at the present moment I see no prospect of securing any refund of the advances made.

678. Chairman.—Has the battery been a commercial success?

Mr. McElligott.—Not so far.

VOTE 30—QUIT RENT OFFICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 31—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 69—RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

679. Chairman.—We have discussed this matter already, at the beginning of Mr. McElligott’s evidence, and I presume there is no use in going into it exhaustively again.

VOTE 70—EXPORT BOUNTIES AND SUBSIDIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

680. Mr. McGrath.—I suggest, Mr. Chairman, in connection with this Vote that the procedure adopted in previous years should be adopted now: that is, that Mr. Twomey should answer on this Vote.

Chairman.—Is that acceptable to you, Mr. McElligott?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes, Mr. Twomey has acted before in this connection, and I am quite agreeable that the same procedure should be adopted.

Chairman.—I take it that that is also acceptable to the Committee?

VOTE 71—REPAYMENT OF DAIL EIREANN EXTERNAL LOANS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

681. Chairman.—Have we paid off all of this?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes, it is all paid off, and the accounts have been closed and transmitted to this side for submission to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

682. Chairman.—And are now being examined?—Yes.

683. And will ultimately be laid before Dáil Eireann?—Yes.

684. Deputy Smith.—Is there no possibility of payment being made now in cases where an application had not been inside the prescribed time?—No; claims are statute-barred now.

685. And there is not the slightest possibility of such people getting in by renewing their application?—No. The offices in the United States have been closed down, and the records have been removed.

686. Well, strange to say, in spite of the time you gave for making applications, I have had two or three claims sent on to me that were outside the time?—I am afraid it is now completely out of the question.

VOTE 73—EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

687. Chairman.—On this Vote there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General which reads as follows:—

“The charge to the Vote includes expenditure on a scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture for the supply of agricultural seeds at reduced prices to necessitous smallholders in congested areas. The total cost of the seeds purchased during the year was £40,932 9s. 8d., of which £30,427 10s. 4d. is charged to this account and the amount realised from sales was £18,165 19s. 6d., of which £17,478 18s. 6d., recovered in the year, is included in the sum shown as Exchequer extra receipts in this account.

“I have inquired whether the approval of the Minister for Finance was obtained for the terms and conditions under which this scheme was operated.”

Mr. McElligott.—In this case we gave our retrospective approval, because the schemes were similar as regards terms and conditions to those operated in previous years by the Department of Agriculture. There was no departure in substance from the conditions which had already operated satisfactorily as regards those schemes, so we thought we were justified in giving retrospective sanction.

688. Chairman.—Ordinarily, if there had been any radical change in the schemes, it would have been necessary to submit the altered scheme to the Department of Finance before putting it into operation?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes.

689. Deputy Childers.—As a new member, may I plead ignorance as to what is the difference between Votes 69 and 73?

Chairman.—I think that is a very relevant question indeed.

Mr. McElligott.—I believe that is the first year in which we introduced this new Vote for employment schemes. It has since been introduced each year at the figure of £1,500,000. Hitherto there has been a Vote for Relief Schemes, but the Relief Schemes Vote has been superseded by the Employment Schemes Vote. In regard to 1936-7 a number of schemes were sanctioned from the Relief Schemes Vote of the previous year, which had not been brought to completion or had not been started in the previous year, and the Vote taken for 1936-7 for Relief Schemes really represents outlay on those schemes which had started before the Employment Schemes Vote was introduced.

690. Chairman.—You observe that there is a surplus of £854,865 to be surrendered here, which is about 50 per cent. of the entire Vote?

Deputy O Briain.—There is a note on that at the bottom of the page.

Mr. McElligott.—The Vote was not approved until July, 1936, and it was not possible to institute arrangements for the greatly enlarged programme of schemes, which involved careful planning and coordination, until late in the financial year, with the result that many of the schemes had not reached completion within the year. It will be found if you refer to the Vote for 1937-8, which was £1,500,000, that we actually issued £1,245,000, so that the saving was just over £250,000, as compared with £654,000 in the year under review. That shows a substantial improvement.

691. Chairman.—Did the £100,000 which was taken from the Road Fund find its way into the Exchequer, or was it returned to the Road Fund?—It found its way into the Exchequer.

692. So that actually what happened was that instead of the £100,000 out of the Road Fund being used for the provision of employment schemes it was transferred from the Road Fund into the Exchequer?—We consider the £100,000 to have been spent in the £710,000. We spent £710,000 in the year. A lot of it was spent on road schemes.

693. But surely, Mr. McElligott, the Minister came before the House and asked for £1,565,000, of which he proposed to raise £1,465,000 and take from the Road Fund £100,000. In fact, what he did was he spent less than half what he alleged he was going to spend and collared £100,000 from the Road Fund, which he put into the Exchequer?—Well, the provision of £100,000 from the Road Fund was not related to any particular schemes of work or to the extent of the whole work undertaken out of the Vote. I submit that, as it is only one-seventh of the total expenditure from the Vote, the procedure in fact was not at all inequitable. It is only something like 14 per cent. of the total expenditure.

694. So you are of the opinion that the correct procedure was first to take £100,000 from the Road Fund and spend that, and after that had been spent to turn to the Estimate?—I do not think I have said that, Sir.

695. Does that represent the Department’s view, Mr. McElligott, or would they think that you were first bound to turn to the Estimate and when that was exhausted to turn to the Road Fund?— As a matter of fact we did not take this contribution from the Road Fund until late in the year, and when we had already made a substantial payment from the Vote itself. Our approach to the matter was not such as you indicated.

696. But the approach, I take it, was that it was proclaimed to all auditors that we proposed to spend £1,500,000 on the relief of distress. We in fact spent £710,000, of which £100,000 was contributed by the Road Fund?—Well, that was only 14 per cent. of the total expenditure, and it was not an exorbitantly high proportion, particularly as a considerable amount of the sum which was expended went on road schemes of various kinds. The Department of Local Government alone got an allocation of £500,414 for roads.

697. Deputy Brazier.—What contribution is made by the local authority towards these schemes?—The contribution varies. It is usually not more than 50 per cent., and it often is in the nature of a contribution in kind: for example, the local authority might provide the materials while we pay the wages out of this Vote.

698. I take it that you decide where that allocation goes—that the local authority has really nothing to say to it?—The allocation goes, of course, to the particular scheme. If you are implying that the Exchequer by some method gets the whole of it——

I am not implying that. I only say you have the deciding voice as to where the money goes?

699. Chairman.—Really that is a matter for the Department of Local Government and Public Health, and not for Mr. McElligott.

700. Deputy O Briain.—The local authority submits schemes?—Yes, and they are examined in the appropriate Department; it may be the Department of Local Government or the Department of Agriculture or the special works division of the Office of Public Works. If they approach the local authority for a contribution towards a particular scheme, whether the scheme is initiated by the local authority or by themselves, and if the local authority decides to make a contribution to that scheme, the contribution is expended on this scheme and cannot be diverted to any other purpose.

701. Deputy Childers.—Again, as a new member, I am not sure whether this question is within the ambit of the Committee’s work. I should like to know whether the Department of Finance regards those relief works in the nature of something to relieve unemployment and distress or whether they also regard them in the nature of work of a productive kind, with consequent supervision as to the effectiveness of the money spent, that is as to the number of miles of road which will be built by the efforts of so many people, and so on. I should like to know whether there is any section of the Department of Finance which examines the efficiency of the work done; whether they regard it simply as money inevitably spent for relief and do not care how it is spent so long as the people work, or whether there is some scheme carried out by the Department of Finance to ensure efficiency?—We constantly enjoin the Departments to put up only schemes which give a maximum of efficiency and productivity. I cannot say that we have any section or organisation which carries out any tests of the kind the Deputy suggests, or that we compare one year with another as regards the number of miles of road built and the expenditure per mile. I think it is a suggestion which we might very easily follow up.

702. Deputy Smith.—Is it not a fact that those works are supervised in each county by the engineering staff employed there, and that in relation to those schemes they usually insist on the same degree of efficiency that they get in the normal work for which they are employed by the local authority?—The road schemes certainly in the various districts are looked after by the road staff of the county council. Of course there are a good many other schemes in the nature of relief works, peat development works, land reclamation, sewage and water works, and it is very hard to get any kind of common measure between them.

Deputy Childers.—I think that raises a very serious question.

Chairman.—Yes, but let us not forget that we must not discuss policy here. We must get information from Mr. McElligott, and transfer our discussion of policy to the Dáil.

Deputy Smith.—It would be interesting to know what particular case or type of case Deputy Childers has in mind.

703. Deputy Childers.—The sort of case I have in mind is that if an amount of £8,000 was spent on a road between Ballinasloe and Athlone, an ordinary impartial judge of road work would have said definitely that the money had been badly spent, that the road had been cambered too much, that the sides had fallen away as a result, and that virtually the whole of that money had been wasted. While it did give employment relief, from the point of view of the responsibility of the State it was a serious matter. Is there any overriding authority in the Department of Finance to check up on the local authorities as to whether the money is being wisely spent?—There is not.

Chairman.—Mr. McElligott’s answer is that there is no such supervision. Therefore, Deputy Childers will doubtless raise the matter in the appropriate place at the appropriate time, but we cannot discuss it here.

VOTE 74—COMPENSATION TO NATIONAL GREYHOUND RACING COMPANY

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

704. Chairman.—This matter was fully discussed in the Dáil. When a Supplementary Estimate was introduced by the Minister he explained the circumstances in which he decided to make the payment?—The matter was investigated by a special committee.

It was fuly dealt with by the Minister at the time, and Deputies should look at the report of the discussion that took place in the House?—Yes.

VOTE 75—COMPENSATION TO DUBLIN GREYHOUND AND SPORTS COMPANY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

705. Chairman.—The same remark applies to this Vote?—The debate took place in July, 1936.

VOTE 76—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

706. Chairman.—I had occasion to refer in the Dáil to the delay that took place between payments from this Fund and the introduction of the appropriate Supplementary Estimates to recoup it. Has any such delay occurred in the financial year?—We usually hold over the Vote for repayments to this Fund until the end of the financial year, as we cannot say that contingencies will not arise, contingencies that by their nature do not give advance notice. It does sometimes happen that expenditure will take place from the Contingency Fund which will not be recouped to the Fund until some considerable time after, but always within the financial year.

707. I understood the Minister to say that the Supplementary Vote should be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity?—Yes, in particular cases in which the Contingency Fund is applied.

708. Deputy O Briain.—A separate Supplementary Estimate would have to be taken in each case?—It would mean that, in the case of triplets, we would have to rush a Supplementary Estimate to the Dáil.

709. While it might raise awkward questions, if large payments are made, efforts should be made to regularise them by Supplementary Estimates at once?—The total capital of the Contingency Fund is £20,000. It has never exceeded that sum. As a rule all payments that fall to be met are small. The largest demands relate to stamp duty remitted on deeds and on other instances for public departments. That is purely a matter of routine.

710. Are you of opinion that in the case of payments exceeding £500 or £1,000 Supplementary Estimates should be introduced at once?—No. I do not take that view. I feel that the payments are always small in relation to the total capital of the Fund. For example, in the year we are dealing with, the total payments amount to just over £800 out of a capital of £20,000. I think it would be wasting the time of Dáil Eireann unnecessarily, and would lead to complications, by having to present a number of Supplementary Estimates, if we were to take a Vote for each before the end of the year.

Mr. McGrath.—Taking into account the experience I have had in connection with this Fund, I see from the amount before us for the year 1936-37 that £809 6s. 11d. was paid for sundry purposes. That happens every year. I suggest that the matter would be clearer, if it was agreed upon that these sundry payments should be voted on by the Dáil, say before it adjourns for the summer holidays, but that if say, £5,000 or £10,000—as happened some years in connection with which Electric Battery development scheme was paid from the Fund, the Department of Finance should go to the Dáil as soon as possible after payment out of the Contingency Fund?—I agree with the Comptroller and Auditor-General that in regard to large amounts Supplementary Estimates should be introduced, even before the payments are made.

Chairman.—I agree that where a substantial amount is advanced by the Contingency Fund, it becomes the duty of the Department to present a Supplementary Estimate at the earliest possible moment?—I agree.

VOTE 77.—AIR TRANSPORT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

711. Deputy Brasier.—Does the Government give a grant for the establishment of aerodromes?

Chairman.—What was the grant given for in this case?—For the establishment of a company which was to deal with the development of air transport. The expenditure took place in regard to stamp duty on the capital, and other duties associated with the formation of the company, and the printing of the Memorandum and Articles of Association. No portion of the money was used in connection with grants for the aerodromes or anything like that.

712. Deputy Brasier.—The grant would have nothing to do with Rhynanna or Collinstown aerodromes?—No, the expenditure for these places is provided in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings.

Chairman.—That concludes the proceedings, and we are very much obliged to Mr. McElligott for attending.

The Committee adjourned at 1.25 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, November 24th.

*See Appendix VIII.