Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1941 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1939 - 1940

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 11adh Meitheamh, 1941.

Wednesday, 11th June, 1941.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. J. Maher (Roinn an Ard-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste) called and examined.

VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.

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

892. Deputy Breathnach.—In regard to Subhead D—Travelling Expenses of Seanadóiri—how do you account for the fact that the expenditure exceeded the amount granted?—There is a note to Subheads B, D, F, G, H and J. In all these subheads there were savings, with the exception of D in which there was an excess. The note says that the expenditure cannot be accurately estimated. We have simply to make a shot in advance at the number of times the Seanad and the Dáil are likely to meet and sometimes our estimate proves to be a little out, as in this case. The total savings, as you will see, on the various subheads amounted to £3,407 and the single excess amounted to £265, so on balance we rather overestimated the expenditure. There was one subhead, a Grant-in-Aid for the Inter-Parliamentary Union, where the amount spent was exactly that estimated, £200. The salaries and allowances of Deputies and Senators are, of course, more or less fixed amounts but the travelling allowances depend on the number of meetings, and that is a matter of conjecture.

893. Chairman.—Have you had any representations about the desirability of having the Post Office opened in Dáil Eireann during the forenoon?—No, I have not heard of any.

894. A great many Deputies and Senators do their correspondence in the forenoon, but one must walk about with letters in one’s pocket until 3.15 because there is no means of buying stamps as the stamp machine is generally out of order, and there is nobody on duty in the Post Office until after the House sits. Would it be an unreasonable luxury to suggest that the Post Office should be manned during the forenoon on days on which the Dáil sits?—That is a matter I can take up, if the Chairman wishes, with the Secretary of the Post Office. I shall speak to the Secretary of the Post Office this afternoon.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 5—OFFICE OF MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 9—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

895. Chairman.—In regard to Subhead E—Commission of Inquiry into Land Drainage—that Commission has completed its labours?—Yes. The report has been printed and it is at present under consideration by the Government.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 14—PROPERTY LOSSES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 15—PERSONAL INJURIES COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

896.—Chairman.—In regard to Subhead C—Compensation Allowances under Article 10 of the Treaty, of 6th December, 1921—is that becoming a diminishing charge or are new charges being opened balancing those that are falling off?—I think, on the whole, the charges are tending to decline. The number of pensioners on the Vote in the year 1939-40, the year to which the account refers, was 1,257 as compared with 1,275, the year before and there was a slight reduction in the estimated charge. The number in the current year’s estimate—that for 1941-42 —is 1,195, and the estimated charge is £206,000 as compared with an estimated charge of £215,000 for the year 1940-41 and £218,000 for the year 1938-39. The charge is definitely going down but rather slowly.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

TARIFF COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

897.—Chairman.—Vote 19 in the Estimates was not moved, Mr. McElligott?— The Tariff Commission Vote was not moved. The Commission has gone altogether now, but I was not quite sure whether for the year 1939-40 it had completely vanished. I gather that the Vote was not moved.

Mr. Maher.—There is a footnote on the audit summary at the beginning of the volume showing that it was not moved.

Mr. McElligott.—There is also a footnote in the volume of Estimates for the current year, in regard to the provision made for the Tariff Commission in the year 1939-40, showing that the Estimate was not moved.

898. Chairman.—Is there any precedent for that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—We had one case where another Estimate was substituted. I cannot remember the exact date, but my recollection is that there was an Estimate about 1936-37 for which a substitute was brought in at a later date. We also had a case in 1935-36 of where an Estimate was moved but withdrawn.

899. Chairman.—Can you remember, Mr. McElligott, whether any specific notice was given to Dáil Eireann of the intention of the Minister for Finance not to move an Estimate which appeared in the Book of Estimates?—The matter was certainly discussed with the Ceann Comhairle, but whether it went beyond that I cannot say at the moment. There was an Act of the Oireachtas bringing the Tariff Commission to an end, and I think the Vote was withdrawn following the passing of that Act. The authority for taking the Estimate had disappeared. It meant the automatic extinction of the Estimate.

900. It raises an interesting question as to whether, when the Book of Estimates is being presented to Dáil Eireann, with the total figure for supply services endorsed on the cover, the attention of Dáil Eireann should not be specifically drawn to the fact—in view of the Appropriation Bill and the Financial Resolutions—that the Government intends not to proceed with a particular Estimate?— I daresay the fact that the Dáil itself had passed a Bill abolishing the Tariff Commission would have been accounted sufficient notice to Dáil Eireann. It meant the automatic extinction of any grant for the commission. In any case, I should say that the aggregate figure on the cover of the volume is just put there for information; it has no legal or statutory effect of any kind.

901. That is true, but does it not seem clear that, if an Estimate has appeared on the White Paper which is published for the information of Deputies, a vital amendment of that White Paper should be formally communicated to the Dáil lest it should later appear in the records of the State as a secret document?—I agree it is desirable that some intimation should be given to Dáil Eireann, but it is questionable whether the passing of the Act extinguishing the Tariff Commission was not in itself a sufficient notification. If you wish that something more formal should be given in the case of a particular Estimate which is withdrawn, I could undertake to have that more formal notice furnished.

902. I think, in view of our experience that the implications of legislation and resolutions have not always been fully understood by Dáil Eireann, it might be well that a specific statement on such a matter should be made?—I agree, and I will see that it is done in future, if Deputies must be kept alive to the implications of their own actions.

Chairman.—Certain Deputies seem to require that notice.

Deputy Allen.—We disagree entirely with the chairman.

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

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 21—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

903. Chairman.—With regard to Subhead BB, are they ever going to carry out those structural alterations in the Abbey Theatre?—On previous occasions I think I informed the Public Accounts Committee that the structural alterations were being held up because the Abbey Theatre directors had some more ambitious scheme of development than was at first visualised. They had hoped to acquire some of the surrounding properties and to make two or three theatres, including provision for a school of acting. While they were still engaged on this more ambitious scheme, the war broke out. They felt they could not proceed with it while the war lasted, owing to the shortage of materials and also the very heavy additional expenditure involved. We are just keeping the thing alive by renewing the provision year after year. It is somewhat long to be keeping it going, but naturally, if we decided to withdraw it, it might spur the people into premature action which would redound not to our benefit but to our cost. It would probably mean that we would be called upon for even heavier grants to defray the additional costs of building operations due to the emergency.

904. Is that the reason that you leave it at the figure of £2,800 and do not convert it into a token Vote of £5? It seems, if it is going to remain in the Estimates year after year, that it should at some stage take the form of a token Vote. Otherwise, it is a kind of annual inflation for the Budget, is it not?—Well, it is one of those items that we deduct mentally for borrowing purposes in trying to balance the Budget.

905. But Dáil Eireann is always confronted with it on the front page of the Book of Estimates as a justification for the additional taxation which is necessary to meet annual expenditure that only the Minister for Finance knows he has not the slightest intention of undertaking in the coming year?—It may be, of course, that in the latter part of the financial year the theatre might start building operations, in which case a token figure of £5 would be inadequate. I agree, it is not correct to repeat it year after year; there should be some limit.

906. Deputy McCann.—I understood that the directors had actually acquired premises adjoining the theatre, and were ready to go ahead with rebuilding immediately prior to the war?—Yes, the war came upon them rather unexpectedly. When they were making preparations to go ahead with this scheme the war broke out.

907. But these premises have been acquired?—I think they have acquired them.

908. So that they may call upon this £2,800 any time they feel like it?—Yes.

909. Deputy Benson.—With regard to Subhead C. what exactly is this sum for?—The Royal Zoological Society gets a Grant-in-Aid of £1,000. The Royal Irish Academy gets a grant of £3,950, of which £3,200 is for the general expenses of the Academy, including the publication of Celtic manuscripts, and £750 is a Grant-in-Aid of contributions to lexicographical work There are two sums of £300 each, one for the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts and the other for the Royal Irish Academy of Music.

910. The only reason why I am raising it is that I think we are calling them scientific grants under three different heads. We have the Ersatz Committee in the Department of the Taoiseach, the Industrial Research Council in the Department of Industry and Commerce, and now we have this one under the Department of Finance. I suggest that some scheme could be produced by which they would all be put under one heading in some form or other so that we could get a clear picture of the position?—I think the title of the subhead is rather misleading—Scientific Investigations, etc. (Grants-in-Aid). I remember we used to give some scholarships under the subheads in respect of genuine scientific research, particularly chemical research and research in matters of physics. We transferred those scholarships to the Department of Education and we retained the title of the subhead. It did not strike me until now that it is possibly misleading, because three of the grants, to the Hibernian Academy of Arts, the Royal Academy of Music and the Archaeological Society, are just Grants-in-Aid of expenses, and in the case of the Royal Irish Academy only is there what one might call research work done. The research work there applies to Irish, so it could hardly be described as scientific investigation. We might reconsider the wording of the subhead to bring it more in line with its present scope.

911. Chairman.—There is some force in Deputy Benson’s point that scientific investigation may appropriately be approached from the point of view of the Department which is to be assisted by the investigation or from the point of view of scientific investigation qua scientific investigation. If one approaches it from the latter point of view there seems to be a case for the co-ordinating of all scientific investigation which is done under the patronage of the State. Up to now every Department seems to be doing its own scientific investigation?—I think the scientific investigation undertaken by the Taoiseach’s office arose out of the emergency, and is not likely to last beyond the emergency. There were special reasons behind it, and those special reasons, I think, will cease to have force when the emergency comes to an end. The scientific investigation undertaken under this Vote is really confined to Irish, so that just leaves the scientific investigation undertaken by the Department of Industry and Commerce, which concerns itself mainly with industrial research and not with purely scientific research.

912. Of course, there are certain research subheads in the Department of Agriculture Vote as well?—Yes, relating to veterinary and botanical matters. I think there must be some segregation of the various branches of research as between the different Departments primarily responsible for the main subject matter.

913. Deputy Breathnach.—With regard to Subhead D, what is the Irish Plate?— It is a Plate of one hundred guineas run annually at the Curragh. It takes the place of the King’s Plate which used to be run there before.

Chairman.—Doubtless, in due course, the President will present a plate when this subhead will disappear.

VOTE 25—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 26—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

914. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General as follows:—

Subhead C—Witnesses’ Expenses, etc.

“14. The charge to this subhead includes an ex gratia payment of £43 made in respect of a claim for damage to, and detention of, a motor car which had been an exhibit in a criminal case.”

Have you anything further to add to that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The motor car was apparently detained for about six months after the conclusion of the trial and that gave rise, I understand, to a claim for detention and also for damage, so that the sum of £43 issued was in the nature of a nugatory payment.

915. Can you give us any information in regard to it, Mr. McElligott?—I can corroborate what the Comptroller and Auditor-General says. The car was retained by the Gárda from 17th August, 1938, until 5th June, 1939. It was then returned, on the direction of the Attorney-General, to the personal representatives of the deceased who lodged a claim for £58 12s. 5d. for compensation for damage, etc., to the car. The Attorney-General advised that the retention of the car after 21st December, 1938, was not justified. That was the date on which the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal of the murderer. The Attorney-General advised us that we were not right in detaining it after that date and that it would be contrary to equity to refuse compensation where there was damage or depreciation, or, perhaps, only a deprivation of use. He advised us also that we were not legally liable, but that it would be desirable to make some ex gratia payment and, on the recommendation of the Department of Justice, we paid £43 compensation, which comprised £12 for repairs, £6 for unexpired road tax and £25 for depreciation. We took up with the Department of Justice the question of making somebody responsible. We thought that either the County Registrar, or some officer, or officers, of the Gárda should be made personally responsible for all, or portion of, the compensation attributable to the overholding of the car after 21st December, 1938, but we have not yet succeeded in extracting any money from anybody in connection with it. We are still pursuing the matter.

916. Chairman.—It does seem to be a matter of some importance, albeit minor importance, to determine exactly what officer held the car when it was his duty to return it?—Yes; I think there is an endeavour to shift responsibility between the various people concerned, and it is not yet clear whether we can centralise the responsibility on any individual or couple of individuals. However, as I say, we are pursuing the matter still.

917. Deputy Hughes.—Was the car damaged while in the possession of the Guards, or how did the necessity for a payment in respect of damage arise?— There was an item of £12 for repairs. It was represented that the car suffered damage while exposed during frosty weather, and that there was damage to tyres and tubes from exposure in the same way.

918. Chairman.—The car was an exhibit in a criminal trial and probably some damage accrued from the necessary examinations in order to present the evidence?—Yes. There was no doubt a considerable number of bloodstains all over it, and I suppose they had to do a certain amount of dismantling.

919. The point rather is whose is the responsibility to see to the disposition of the car and why he did not discharge his responsibility rather than the measure of the loss?—Yes, that is what we are trying to get after at present. It was somebody’s duty to see that the car was disposed of after the appeal had been dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

VOTE 28—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 30—QUIT RENT OFFICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

Chairman.—I think this is the first year in fifteen years that we have succeeded in getting through the Quit Rent Office Vote without somebody asking what it was.

Mr. J. J. McElligott.—I was very surprised.

VOTE 31—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 69—EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General which reads:—

“88. The charge to the Vote includes a sum of £5,476 9s. 7d. expended during the year in connection with the provision of a labour camp at Clonsast under a scheme for peat development. Of this amount, £5,350 was paid on foot of a contract for the erection of buildings, and £126 9s. 7d. for the supply of furniture, bedding and equipment. The work of erecting the buildings was not completed within the year. I understand that the camp was opened in April, 1940.’

920. On that first portion of the paragraph, have you anything to add, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—That is for information only, but we should like to point out that a considerable portion of the sum mentioned has been spent on buildings, and we are not quite certain whether money voted for employment schemes should be spent on buildings. It is a matter for discussion.

921. Have you any observations, Mr. McElligott, on that point?—The buildings, of course, gave considerable employment while they were being erected, but the main purpose of the buildings was to accommodate unemployed people who were brought to the camp from Dublin. It was essential that some extension of the existing accommodation available at Clonsast should be made, as that accommodation was fully occupied by workers engaged by the Turf Development Board, and there was no other accommodation available in the vicinity for these unemployed men from Dublin. Accordingly, it was thought not inappropriate that the expenses of erecting these new buildings should be charged to the Employment Schemes Vote. The total expenditure amounted ultimately to £8,595, of which £7,645 was for the erection of the buildings, including architects’ fees and other charges, and £950 for furniture, etc.

922. Are these buildings now occupied? —No. The scheme for which they were intended, that is, the handling of male persons between the ages of 18 and 25 on the unemployment register in the county boroughs, and chiefly the County Borough of Dublin, did not work out very well and they have been handed over to the Turf Development Board who pay us a rent for them of some £500 a year.

923. Deputy Hughes.—Are they permanent buildings or hutments?—they are weather-board buildings with concrete foundations. They are mainly timber structures.

924. They are not removable from one place to another?—No. You could remove the upper part, I suppose, but I should think it would suffer considerable damage in the process. They are not built with the idea of being removable.

925. Deputy McCann.—Out of the original number of Dublin unemployed, how many remained there?—I think the number was down to four recruits on 12th December, 1940, when it was decided to close the camp and make arrangements to dispose of the premises to the Turf Development Board.

926. Deputy Hughes.—What was the capacity of the buildings?—100 men.

Chairman.—Personally, I cannot see that expenditure of this character which is ancillary to a scheme for the provision of employment to unemployed persons is not properly charged on the Vote, but it is a matter which we can discuss when the report comes to be drafted.

The remainder of the note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:

“The expenditure also includes payments amounting to £3,247 0s. 7d. made to the Sea Fisheries Association in connection with the construction of a mussel purification station at Cromane, County Kerry. The station was completed in August, 1940, the total cost being approximately £6,500.”

927. Have you any further comment to make on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—No, that sub-paragraph is for information only.

928. Deputy Benson.—What has been the effect of it? Has this mussel purification station proved successful, or is it not sufficiently long in operation to enable a judgment to be formed?

Mr. McElligott.—Our information is that it has been more successful than we anticipated at the beginning. The mussel industry was a source of full or partial support to a relatively substantial number of poor families, and we felt that the provision of this plant would cause some significant increase of employment in the neighbourhood. Since it was installed, we are informed that the results have fully justified the representations that were made for its establishment. The scheme is regarded by the Sea Fisheries Association as a great success, but it is possible that its success may be due to favourable war conditions which make the demand for its products rather insistent. It remains to be seen whether the plant can be operated favourably under more normal conditions, but up to the present its operations have certainly been successful.

929. Deputy Benson.—Did this Vote not carry a grant from the Road Fund this year? Was it not under this Vote that a transfer was made?—On one or two occasions there were grants from the Road Fund, but not to the Employment Schemes Vote. The Road Fund makes grants to the Exchequer occasionally, but we justify these grants to the Exchequer by the fact that the Exchequer puts up a lot of money for roads on the Employment Schemes Vote. We do not, however, encourage the Road Fund to make grants to this Vote.

930. If my recollection is correct, on the Appropriation Accounts two years ago, there was a contribution to this Vote from the Road Fund, all of which was eventually surrendered to the Exchequer?—

Chairman.—The procedure usually is that we appropriate a certain sum in Dáil Eireann and use that as an excuse for raiding the Road Fund, and, at the end of the financial year, we usually surrender to the Exchequer a sum almost as great as that which we have raided from the Road Fund.

931. In this year it is about £217,162 14s. 4d.?—Well, our intentions are honourable at the beginning of the year, but it may happen that force of circumstances proves too much for us.

Chairman.—I think that if the Deputy would refer to the Official Reports of Dáil Eireann of in or about the year 1933 he will find an exposé by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance in regard to this matter, in which he explains the technique of the position and denounces it as one of the most dishonest things the Cumann na nGaedheal Government ever did. He alleges there that it was then done through the Land Commission Vote.

VOTE 72—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called

No questions.

VOTE 73—IRISH TOURIST BOARD.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

932. Deputy Breathnach.—Is that board in operation at all, or how is this money spent?

Mr. McElligott.—It is still in operation. Its activities, of course, have been more or less suspended owing to war conditions, but there is still a board there with a certain amount of staff. They are engaged at present in making plans for future development. The Grant-in-Aid for 1941-42 is £3,500 as compared with £9,000 for 1940-41. So we have reduced the grant to the level of the year to which the Appropriation Account relates, 1939-40.

933. Deputy Hughes.—Does this sum represent the cost of the staff only?—It is mainly for staff. I understand there is an organisation consisting of an accountant, two inspectors, assistants and shorthand typists in addition to the board itself; but, of course, the staffing organisation is, under the Act, entirely a matter for the board itself. The board consists of five people.

934. Are they all paid?—Yes, they are all paid.

935. Chairman.—If there are no further questions on that Vote, the only other matter that arises is the question of overestimation or under-estimation, Mr. McElligott, and I observe that the amount to be surrendered this year is about 5.9 of the gross Estimate?—Yes. The total surrenders amount to £1,957,000 which is 5.89 of the gross Estimates, as compared with 5.06 in 1938-39, 5.07 in 1937-38, 9.21 in 1936-37, and 7.48 in 1935-36. Of course, the year in question, 1939-40, covers the period of the outbreak of the war, and that tended, I think, to hold up operations in some Departments. An unexpected shortage of materials developed and I think that accounts for the slight increase in percentage of surrenders.

936. Is the improvement which is to be noted in the estimating due to greater precision on the part of the estimating authorities or to greater skill on the part of the Departments in presenting Supplementary Estimates at the critical moment? Either course would result in closer estimating?—Yes. Possibly, it is a combination of both, but in 1940-41 the total surrenders amounted to £1,600,000 out of an estimated gross expenditure of £36,445,000; so the percentage surrendered there was 4.5.

937. That is a substantial improvement?—These figures are approximate, but I think it will be found that there was a substantial improvement in 1940-41.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 11.55 a.m.