Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1943 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1941 - 1942

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Deardaoin, 20adh Bealtaine, 1943.

Thursday, 20th May, 1943.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the Chair.

Seoirse MagCraith (An tArd-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.

434. Deputy Benson.—With regard to subhead A.—Salaries and Allowances of Deputies—what Deputy receives a salary, and what does he receive it for?

Chairman.—The subhead speaks of salaries and allowances of Deputies.

Mr. McElligott.—A number of Deputies receive salaries as Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries, apart from their allowances as Deputies.

435. Deputy Benson.—But surely they are charged to their own Votes?—The salaries of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are charged to their own Votes, but the salaries of the Ceann Comhairle, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and the Leas-Chathaoirleach are charged to the Vote for the Houses of the Oireachtas.

436. Chairman.—With regard to subhead J.—Contribution in respect of Catering Expenses—are you quite satisfied, Mr. McElligott, that the check on the Restaurant accounts is adequate, because I must say that the charges in the Restaurant for victuals seem to me to be more than adequate to provide for the expenses of the catering firms?— Well, the accounts would seem to show that the catering firm is under a considerable loss in running the Restaurant and, in fact, we have had representations from the caterers to consider the financial conditions under which they operate the Restaurant. The position is that the accounts are furnished at the request of the Ceann Comhairle, and I think he refers them occasionally to the Comptroller and Auditor General if he does not, in fact, do so continuously as they come in, and I think that the Comptroller and Auditor General has satisfied himself, if I might be permitted to speak for him on the matter, that the caterers are not charging unduly for the services they give. At least, they have entered nothing into their accounts that should not be entered legitimately. The State, of course, provides certain heating, lighting and accommodation free, but in spite of that the income of the Restaurant is not sufficient to cover the outgoings. Of course, the Oireachtas does not meet very frequently now. Since the emergency began it has been meeting less frequently than before and, of course, that affects the catering considerably.

437. Chairman.—Have you any remarks to add to that, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—I would remind Deputies that the rise in prices to which the Chairman has referred did not take place until after the 31st March, 1942, as well as I can remember. As regards the checking of the accounts, the Ceann Comhairle keeps in touch with the Audit Office. They are audited by a firm of auditors. In our examination we have noticed that it is the lack of a regular or constant demand for meals which brings about this trading loss. We drew attention to certain percentages on the returns of sales. For instance, in the case of the bar we noticed that the percentage on the returns was only 23.4 where one would expect a gross profit of at least 30 per cent. as the turnover. A certain minimum staff has to be kept on all the time, even if it were only to serve a dozen or half a dozen persons.

438. Chairman.—In connection with your comment on the earnings of the bar, Mr. McGrath, was due advertence made to the inclusion of cigarette sales in the bar? It seems to me that that would operate to reduce the profit to be earned on an exclusively liquor trade?—The gross profit on cigarettes being less than that on beer and spirits would bring down the rate on the combined turnover.

439. Chairman.—As we do not know the precise facts relating to the catering firm operating the Restaurant, could not a closer survey be made as to whether this firm is entitled to the subsidy—because that is what it amounts to—that they are in fact receiving?

Mr. McElligott.—We are very largely in the hands of the Ceann Comhairle in this matter. He looks after the affairs of the Restaurant, receives the accounts from them, and has the services of the Comptroller and Auditor General in examining and criticising these accounts. We are satisfied, from such investigations as we have made, that the caterers are not charging unduly for the services they render, and I doubt if any further investigation in the matter would be profitable. However, it is a thing that I can inquire into, if it is desired.

440. Deputy Allen.—May I ask if there is any official check on the stores coming into the Restaurant, or must you accept the returns made by the caterers?— Certainly, we have no check in the Department of Finance, but what steps the Ceann Comhairle takes to check the stores I cannot say. He receives certified accounts quarterly from the caterers. They bear the cost of auditing and furnishing these accounts and, as I say, the accounts may be submitted by the Ceann Comhairle to the Comptroller and Auditor General for any observations or investigations he may wish to make on the matter, and perhaps the question of checking the stores might be one which the Comptroller could consider, but we certainly have no machinery in the Department of Finance for making such an inquiry, and I doubt if the Ceann Comhairle would welcome having officers of the Department of Finance over in the sacred precincts of Leinster House.

441. Chairman.—At any rate, Mr. McElligott, I think that this Committee would be greatly influenced by your opinion as to whether, on the whole, and taking every consideration into account, the present position is the most satisfactory one. Would it be your view that the present arrangement is probably the most satisfactory one that could be arrived at, taking all circumstances into account?—I think that, taking all circumstances into account, it is about the most satisfactory arrangement. It is necessary to have a Restaurant in the building, and if we were to cancel the present arrangement and invite public tenders for the furnishing of the services that we get at present, I think it would only lead to more expense than we are under at present.

442. I think I am right in saying that when you say that the accounts are considered regularly by the Ceann Comhairle, it would be better to say that they are considered by the Ceann Comhairle, aided by a Joint Committee of both Houses?— Yes, that is so.

Mr. McGrath.—Perhaps I might point out that this Restaurant was formerly run by a Joint Committee of the two Houses, but it was found, I understand, to be an unsatisfactory method.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

443. Deputy Benson.—With regard to subhead E.—Allowance to Taoiseach for Motor Car—is this treated differently from the case of other Ministers? I understand that in the case of other Ministers it comes under the Vote for the Department of Justice.

Mr. McElligott.—The provision for transport of other Ministers is carried on the Vote for the Gárda Síochána. The Taoiseach gets an allowance of £350 a year to cover the cost of a car, and that is intended to cover expenses, under whatever heading, incurred by the Taoiseach in using his private car for official purposes, except the wages and uniforms of chauffeurs. There are two chauffeurs provided by the Gárda Síochána, and their pay is borne on Vote 33, the Vote for the Gárda. The arrangement here is similar to that which obtains in the case of the Uachtarán who receives an allowance of £300 a year.

444. Chairman.—Then, petrol, oil, and requirements of that kind are paid for by the Taoiseach out of his own pocket?— Yes, all expenses in connection with the running of the car, such as petrol, oil, repairs and insurance are paid by the Taoiseach himself.

445. And replacements?—And replacements, yes.

VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

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 further examined.

446. Chairman.—Is this a disappearing service?

Mr. McElligott.—This Vote lapsed in 1942-3. There were, of course, in respect of subsequent property losses, much larger Votes. Those were for damage to property by bombs. This Vote, which related to damage in earlier years, lapsed in 1942-3.

447. Chairman.—A new Estimate will be opened for similar losses under recent legislation?—A new Vote has been opened under the Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Act, 1941.

448. No further claims will arise under the Acts set out in the heading to this Vote?—There was a time-limit for claims and they are now statute-barred.

449. If you look at the heading to the Vote, you will find that it refers to damage to property under “No. 15 of 1923; No. 19 of 1926; No. 35 of 1933; No. 18 of 1937, section 17; and otherwise.” Will the words “and otherwise” cover claims under legislation recently enacted or will a new Estimate be introduced?—A new Estimate has been introduced under the Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Act, 1941. There was one last year and there is another in the current year—Vote 72—which provides a sum of £85,250 as compared with the provision of £260,000 in 1942-3.

450. The words “and otherwise” were not considered wide enough to cover payments under the Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Act?—If the damage had been trivial, they might have been stretched to cover the necessary expenditure but, as will be understood from the figures I have given—£260,000 in 1942-3 and £85,250 in 1943-4—the expenditure could not possibly have been met out of this small Vote of £1,000.

VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

451. Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relates to this Vote and is as follows:

“As noted in the account, sums amounting to £50 were charged in the accounts of this Vote for the years 1935-36 and 1937-38 in respect of the cost of compiling a historical work to the order of the Irish Manuscripts Commission. The Commission, after a scrutiny of specimen copies received from the printers, decided to abandon publication of this work. The cost incurred in printing and binding amounted to £125 and is noted in the account of the Vote for Stationery and Printing (No. 21).”

Mr. McGrath.—My note was written chiefly to draw attention to the loss of £125, plus £50, in regard to this matter— to bring the two items together.

452. Chairman.—Why was the work abandoned and why was it only abandoned after considerable expenditure had been incurred?

Mr. McElligott.—The work was historical in character. It consisted of a redaction of the Déssi Genealogies and was undertaken in 1935 by the Irish Manuscripts Commission. The work was not read by any member of the Commission until the book was finally printed in 1938. It was then discovered that a number of philological errors, due, apparently, to the compiler’s poor knowledge of Middle Irish, were contained in the work. A list of corrections of the book was then prepared by the editor of the volume. When the corrections were supplied in 1942, they were found to be so numerous that to incorporate them in the book would have involved reprinting. It was then discovered that the Institute of Advanced Studies was preparing a volume of some 60 genealogies, amongst them being a version of the Déssi Genealogies on which the Irish Manuscripts Commission had been working. Accordingly, it was decided to scrap the earlier work. It was found impracticable, after discussion with representatives of the Institute, to have the Irish Manuscripts Commission’s work incorporated in the Institute’s volume. As the Comptroller and Auditor General has stated, the loss amounted to £175, consisting of £50 in fees, paid in 1936 and 1937 to the editor of the work, which sum is charged to this Vote, and printing charges, amounting in all to £125, which are charged to the Stationery Office Vote. I may add that the gentleman who prepared this redaction of the Genealogies had previously done satisfactory work for the Irish Manuscripts Commission and that his weakness in Middle Irish had not been suspected. In consequence of what happened, we took up with the Irish Manuscripts Commission the question of the over-lapping of their work with that of the Institute of Advanced Studies. I understand that there is now a joint sub-committee, drawn from the two bodies, which will prevent any over-lapping in future.

453. Chairman.—The truth, I suppose, is that scholars are wayward creatures and that we must expect slight slips of this kind in dealing with them?—Perhaps that is so.

454. It does seem a little odd that the imperfections in this manuscript were not discovered before it was printed and bound. An ordinarily competent editor would have discovered the errors before the manuscript was printed?—One would have expected that they would have been detected much earlier than was actually the case. At any rate, their detection should not have awaited the final printing of the book. I think that the Committee need not fear a recurrence of the error.

455. Have all these Commissions under subhead F. completed their labours and made their reports?—Yes. The Commission of Inquiry into Land Drainage, Town Tenants (Occupation Tenancies) Tribunal, Summer Time Committee and the Committee of Inquiry into the Coal Mining Industry have completed their reports.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

456. Chairman.—Subhead D. deals with Agency Payments in respect of Compensation Allowances. What exactly are these agency payments?

Mr. McElligott.—These payments are made, in the first instance, by this Government in respect of certain concessions given to Article 10 pensioners here under an agreement dated 27th June, 1929, which interpreted and supplemented Article 10 of the Treaty of 1921. These additional allowances were given as a result of certain legal decisions and the British Government agreed to reimburse the Irish Government the amount of the expenditure. It will be seen that the Appropriations in Aid subhead contains an amount roughly equivalent to the amount charged under this subhead.

457. Chairman.—Doubtless, the Appropriations in Aid appearing here had some relation to the amount of this subhead in the previous year?—Yes. The payments overlap between different financial years. The amount brought to credit under Appropriations in Aid for 1941-42 was £7,472.

Mr. McGrath.—One reason for the difference is that the amount refers to a different year and another reason is that we make the account up to 31st December, so that we get Appropriations in Aid before the end of the financial year.

458. Chairman.—Taken over a protracted period, the Appropriations in Aid would amount exactly to the sums set out in this subhead?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 19—EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT AND THE JURIES ACT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 20—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

459. Chairman.—In regard to subhead CC.—Contribution towards cost of structural alterations in the Abbey Theatre, Dublin (Re-vote)—have these proposals been abandoned or are they going to be carried out at a later period?—They have not been abandoned, but owing to the emergency it has not been found possible to carry them out. In order not to inflate this Vote unduly, it has been decided to substitute a token provision of £5 for the sum of £2,800 entered in subhead CC. in the Appropriation Account before us.

460. Are the plans completed?—I do not know. We have nothing at all to do with the preparation of the plans, but the subhead has been kept alive in anticipation of the work going ahead when the emergency is over.

461. I suppose the work will cost two or three times what it would cost if it had been done before the emergency period?—I daresay it will be more expensive in the post-emergency period.

462. How does the provision for compensation under subhead H. differ from the special Votes for this purpose?—This again is on the same footing as the Property Losses Compensation Vote which we were considering earlier. It is a relic from the past. We had a separate Personal Injuries Compensation Vote in respect of death or injury sustained between the 21st January, 1919, and the 12th May, 1923, and also in connection with the allowances granted to certain people in respect of death or injury sustained in Easter Week, 1916. That Vote was of fairly considerable proportions at one time, but it dwindled to such a low figure that we decided to incorporate it in the Miscellaneous Expenses Vote, instead of showing it separately. The amount is now insignificant—£350 in 1941-42 and £340 in 1942-43 and 1943-44—but it will gradually disappear completely.

VOTE 24—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 25—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

463. Chairman.—In regard to subhead D.—Fees to Counsel—how are the fees regulated in regard to assigned counsel?—These are determined by the Attorney General as a rule, in consultation with the Chief State Solicitor. Where the fees exceed a certain figure, the approval of the Minister for Finance has to be obtained.

464. If the Attorney General should recommend that the fee should be up to a certain level in special circumstances, does the Department of Finance exercise customarily a discretion to refuse the application in that matter?—Discussions usually take place between the Attorney General’s Department and the Department of Finance. If we find occasion to disagree with the recommendation of the Attorney General, the matter is usually settled by means of a compromise or otherwise. We naturally find it difficult to stand up against the views of the Attorney General, if he persists in his suggestion in regard to fees. The size of the subhead has been causing us some concern but, of course, the State is engaged in a considerable number of cases and the Attorney General has to select, I suppose, the best counsel possible to represent the State’s case.

465. I am thinking more of the difficulties of counsel assigned in criminal cases where the case goes on much longer than is anticipated and counsel assigned find themselves cut off for a protracted period from their normal work?—Of course they get their daily refreshers which compensate to a material extent, no doubt.

466. Of course they do, but take the case of junior barristers whose livelihood largely depends on circuit practice as distinct from High Court practice. They may find themselves, as a result of an assignment in a criminal case, debarred from going on circuit and, in consequence, suffer very serious losses which they cannot escape once they accept an assignment?—I understand that such assignments are eagerly looked for by junior barristers because it gives a junior barrister a chance of making a reputation.

467. You will understand that in certain cases criminal proceedings become much more protracted than was originally anticipated, and you may have a junior barrister held in the Criminal Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal for a period never dreamt of. In exceptional cases of this kind, are the special circumstances taken into consideration when the fees are being determined?—Of course, the fees are determined in advance and the amount of the refresher often is fairly considerable. I do not know that counsel suffer unduly as a result of protracted proceedings in the court.

Deputy McCann (to Chairman).—Do you know of any junior counsel who would prefer to go on circuit?

Chairman.—If I did I would not care to name him.

VOTE 26—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 28—QUIT RENT OFFICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

468. Deputy Benson.—I understand that this is the last opportunity we shall have of inquiring what is the Quit Rent Office?

Chairman.—It makes me quite mournful to think of it.

Witness.—Shall I give my swan song? This is the last occasion but one on which a separate Appropriation Account for the Quit Rent Office will be before you. It has been hounded to its doom by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee ! A year ago, I think I foreshadowed the arrangements by which the transfer of the work of collecting Quit Rents and Crown and Tithe Rents would be carried out. The Land Commission has accepted the collection of these rents. The collection of other miscellaneous rentals in connection with Collins Barracks, the Curragh of Kildare and other State properties has been transferred to the Office of Public Works. Minor items in connection with foreshores which were formerly performed by the Quit Rent Office have been transferred to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The transfer took effect in all cases as from the 1st April last and so the cost of the staff of the Quit Rent Office is now shown in the Vote for Lands under a separate provision. In the first subhead of the Vote, subhead A., it is shown as the Quit Rent Branch. The change in the arrangements will result in an immediate saving in overhead expenses and eventually in a saving in staff charges in connection with the work.

469. Chairman.—So that in all conscience, we may truly feel that the Committee has at least succeeded in saving something for somebody.

VOTE 29—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No questions.

VOTE 67—EMPLOYMENT SCHEMES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

“71. In paragraph 74 of my last report I referred to the provision of a labour camp at Clonsast under a scheme for peat development. Expenditure included in this account amounted to £1,092 1s. 0d., making the total expenditure to 31st March, 1942, £9,738 12s. 2d. made up as follows:

As stated in my last report, the buildings and equipment were let in February, 1941, to the Turf Development Board, Ltd., which occupied the premises until the 30th September, 1941, and again entered into occupation on the 1st March, 1942. The arrangements provide for payment by the Board of rent at the rate of £500 per annum while in occupation of the camp and the payment to it of £3 per week for caretaking for the periods during which the camp is unoccupied. Sums received in respect of rent are accounted for as exchequer extra receipts.”

470. Chairman.—Is there anything you would care to add, Mr. Grath?

Mr. McGrath.—This is merely bringing the information concerning this labour camp up to date.

471. Are we to assume that the £9,738 12s. 2d. completes the total expenditure on the camp, so far as the Government is concerned?

Mr. McElligott.—Yes, that is the position. Negotiations have now been opened for the disposal of the property to the Turf Development Board on the basis of the terms agreed at the time the camp was established. It was established in 1940 in connection with the scheme for providing work for unskilled labour.

472. It did not turn out to be a success and it was decided to pass the property over to the Turf Development Board?— Yes. In any case, there are other openings for unskilled labour now in the Construction Corps. The number of recruits in the camp had dwindled to negligible proportions and there were only four or five in it when it was closed. As the Construction Corps had been established in the meantime, it was decided not to accept any more recruits for the camp. In any case, the building would be more useful in the hands of the Turf Development Board for its own development works at Clonsast.

473. There is a very large surrender on this Vote?—As explained at the foot of the account, the saving was due mainly to the transfer of the cost of certain schemes to Vote 75 (a new Service) and to the replacement of others by schemes of an emergency character which were financed from Vote 75, which will come later and which gives a considerable amount of detail on the matter.

VOTE 70—IRISH TOURIST BOARD.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

474. Deputy McCann.—What exactly is the Irish Tourist Board doing at the moment?

475. Chairman.—I am not quite sure that Mr. McElligott may be asked to answer that. I understand that he is required to pay over to the Irish Tourist Board £3,500 and that his responsibility ends there?—Strictly speaking, that is quite correct, but I am prepared to answer the Deputy’s question. The Tourist Board up to quite recently were mainly engaged in preparing plans for the post-war period. The activities of the Board have extended since 1941-42, which is the year of account that we are considering. The provision in 1942-43 for the Board was £6,500 and in 1943-44 £9,000. This increase is evidence of additional activities undertaken by the Board. Development works at Tramore have been approved by the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry and Commerce, to be undertaken by the Board at an estimated cost of £40,000. Land has been purchased there and the Construction Corps is at present engaged in clearing sites, levelling and draining. A scheme is foreshadowed for development at Portmarnock at a cost of £60,000 and it has been provisionally approved, but no expenditure has been undertaken on the scheme. The Department of Finance has to satisfy itself in regard to the Board that its administration is on economical lines and we make issues to the Board, at quarterly intervals in the normal course, based on recommendations put forward to us by the Department of Industry and Commerce. The accounts of the Board are audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor General and are, I think, presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

476. Deputy B. Brady.—Are those the only two schemes that the Board has in contemplation?—They are the only two big schemes. The position in regard to materials and in regard to the tourist industry generally is such that there does not seem to be anything else offering just now. At any rate these are the only two which the Department of Finance has been asked to approve.

477. Deputy McCann.—They are really making a survey at the moment as to what might be done?—Yes.

478. Chairman.—Does it come within their competence to consider hotel accommodation?—Yes. Under the Tourist Traffic Act of 1939 they have power to apply a system of registration to hotels and guest houses for the purpose of enabling satisfactory control to be exercised over such establishments.

479. Have they, in fact, done anything along those lines?—They have not at present, as, in existing circumstances, it is thought desirable to defer the application of any system of registration, as it would entail the employment of a staff of inspectors and add to the expenses of hotels and guest houses by the imposition of registration fees.

480. Deputy McCann.—Were some inspectors not actually employed for that purpose originally?—I think they have had some people looking into the preliminaries in connection with the establishment of a system of registration.

VOTE 73—EMERGENCY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BUREAU.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

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

“Subhead B.—Investigation and Research (Grant-in-Aid).

“77. An account of the expenditure by the Bureau of issues out of the Grant-in-Aid has been furnished to me and has been examined with satisfactory results. Expenditure during the year amounted to £10,255 5s. 7d. and the unexpended balance of issues at 31st March, 1942, was £994 14s. 5d.” No question.

VOTE 74—SHIPPING.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

481. Chairman.—There is £7 to be surrendered in regard to the purchase of shares. How did that interesting figure emerge?—There were seven subscribers to the Memorandum of Association of the company and each had a single share and they retained those shares. The Minister and Grain Importers, Limited, hold all the rest of the capital of the company and these are really the qualifying shares of the directors.

482. So they may become directors without compensation from a pure sense of public duty. I notice you neither assent nor dissent to that observation. Before we pass from this Vote, can you tell me the basis of the enterprise of which the Minister is almost the complete shareholder, who manages the actual operations of shipping and so forth?—The actual operations of shipping are managed by the three existing steamship companies who are represented on the Board.

483. How does this company here remunerate the managing companies for their services?—The usual fees are paid in connection with the management expenses of various boats belonging to or chartered by Irish Shipping, Limited.

484. Is it on a percentage basis or is there a specified fee for each service rendered?—I understand that there are customary scales of fees applying to different services and that these are the scales applied. The chairman of Irish Shipping, Limited, is the secretary of the Department of Supplies and all profits made by the Irish Shipping Company will eventually fall into the Exchequer, because the capital is directly or indirectly completely owned by the State, with the exception of a few qualifying shares for the directors. All the surplus of assets over liabilities when the company comes to be wound up are to be transferred to the Department of Finance; but, in the meantime, the vessels of the company are managed on its behalf by those various interests to which I have referred and I understand they receive only the recognised stipends in connection with it.

485. Can you give the Committee any particulars as to the basis for the calculation of those stipends?—I am afraid I have no particulars.

486. In as much as the surplus, should any accrue to this company, will become a Treasury receipt in due course, I suppose it is our function to ensure that the largest possible portion of the revenue of this company is secured by the Exchequer and not improvidently disbursed in management or other expenses of operating the company?—I would hesitate to agree that that would be part of the function of the Public Accounts Committee, but the Comptroller and Auditor General has been appointed to audit the accounts of Irish Shipping Limited, and I take it that he satisfies himself that there is no wastefulness in distributing the revenues of the company.

487. Would you be able to ascertain for the Committee the basis of compensation to persons who carry on the operational duties of the Shipping Company? —I shall consider a query to Irish Shipping, Limited, on the subject.

488. I should be grateful if you would. I should like to ascertain the basis of compensation to the several companies which manage the ships, relevant to the cargoes they carry, and the functions they discharge?—I should have to apply in the proper quarter.

489. Have you, Mr. McGrath, examined the accounts of this company and checked on the remuneration which they have paid to the various agents which manage ships for them?

Mr. McGrath.—I know that the accounts have been audited by an officer of my Department and signed by an officer of my Department but, as regards details, I am afraid I could not go into them.

490. I take it that all the charges paid by this company to agents working for them are disclosed to you?—They are disclosed in the accounts.

491. If Mr. McElligott finds any difficulty in getting those figures, you would co-operate with him in getting them?

Mr. McGrath.—I shall do all I can but, if they are to be got, he is the person to get them.

Mr. McElligott.—I should add that I receive from the company monthly statements which show the receipts and disbursements, but not the basis of the disbursements in regard to management expenses.

492. Chairman.—I think I am right in saying that it would be our duty to determine whether, in all the circumstances, the method of managing the ships was that best calculated to protect the interests of the Exchequer. It would be right for us to consider whether the management of those ships could not be more economically provided for by direct management rather than by an agency arrangement?—I consider that that would not be quite within the functions of the Committee.

VOTE 75—SPECIAL EMERGENCY SCHEMES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

“Turf Development Board, Limited.

“78. The Grants-in-Aid to the Turf Development Board, Limited, in the year under review were included in two Estimates. Provision was made in the Estimate for Vote 55—Industry and Commerce—for issues between 1st April, 1941, and 12th June, 1941, and provision for the remainder of the year was made in the Estimate for Vote 75— Special Emergency Schemes. The total issues for the cost of Administration and General Development during the year amounted to £15,970 and £5,000, respectively.

The following sums were issued during the year, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, for development of the bogs indicated and for the production of hand-won turf:—

These issues are repayable, and the amounts due by the Board, including interest on these and previous issues, at 31st March, 1942, were:—

The terms and conditions on which the issues for the development of Clonsast, Lyracrompane, Lullymore and Kilberry bogs are repayable have been referred to in previous reports. The issues for the development of Glenties and Other Bogs were made with the object of preparing for subsequent large scale development and were sanctioned by the Department of Finance on the understanding that they will be repayable, with interest, in the event of a decision being taken to proceed with full scale development.

The arrangements in connection with the production of hand-won turf approved by the Department of Finance provide for issues to be repaid with interest, which will accrue on each amount advanced as from the date of such advance.”

493. Chairman.—I take it that is a purely informative paragraph?

Mr. McGrath.—Yes.

494. And, inasmuch as those schemes are still in progress, Mr. McElligott, I suppose it is not very profitable to inquire too closely into the expenses so far incurred?—I do not think there is much to be gained by that.

495. The position is that money is being spent, and we are not going to know what the amount of dead loss will be until the scheme has been wound up?—Yes. Most of the work undertaken on those bogs, outside of Clonsast and Lyracrompane, which were pretty fully developed, is of a preliminary nature, and, if full-scale exploitation goes on, a larger amount of money will be spent on them. Until the emergency has passed, and until we see the place that turf will occupy in the national fuel position after the war, we cannot say whether all this money will have to be written off as a loss, or part of it written off as loss, or whether we will eventually recover it. I should say that the prospects of complete recovery are practically nil.

“Subhead B.—Road, Drainage and Other Works in Connection With Turf Production.

“79. As explained in Part III of the Estimate, this subhead provides for grants to local authorities, etc., for road, drainage and other works designed to facilitate the production of turf. In addition to grants to local authorities for the purposes indicated, the charge to the subhead includes expenditure amounting to £57,348 7s. 8d. on the provision of camp accommodation for men employed on the production of turf. The scheme authorised by the Department of Finance covered:—

(i) The reconstruction of existing buildings to accommodate 1,000 to 1,500 men, at an estimated cost of £25 per head.

(ii) The provision of accommodation in camps for a further 2,000 men, at an estimated cost of £45 per head, and

(iii) The cost of furniture, etc., estimated at £7 per man accommodated.

The contracts for the work of reconstructing existing buildings and for constructing camps were placed with a number of building contractors on a time and material basis, as in view of the necessity for providing the accommodation in time for occupation by workers employed on turf production in the 1942 season it was considered that the normal procedure of inviting tenders and placing fixed price contracts could not be followed. The arrangements with the contractors in general provided for recoupment of the ascertained costs of wages, materials and equipment and, to cover overhead expenses and profit, an agreed percentage on the amounts disbursed, subject to a limiting maximum. With the sanction of the Department of Finance, architects selected from a panel were employed on a fee basis to plan and supervise the work.”

496. Chairman.—Have you anything to add to that, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—In that paragraph the Audit Office makes reference to the departure from the ordinary method of competitive tenders, but draws attention to the fact here that an attempt has been made to neutralise the objectionable method adopted by limiting the amount on which the percentages are paid to cover profit and overheads.

497. Have you found that that effort has been, in any considerable degree, successful, Mr. McElligott?—On the whole, I think it has. The contract which was negotiated with the contractors was on the general lines adopted by the Board of Works for such contracts, and approved by the Department of Local Government and Public Health in connection with repairs for bomb damage. An overriding maximum was set to the contractors’ profit and overhead charges so as to counteract any tendency to prolong the work, and, as an incentive to finish quickly, the maximum amount became payable if the contractors completed the work within a specified period.

498. Would I be correct in saying that the system of paying on the basis of the ascertained costs of wages, materials and equipment, and to cover overhead expenses and profit on a revealed percentage, is a poisonous system in ordinary times?—In ordinary times, certainly, but this work had to be executed at very short notice, and it was thought that to comply with the ordinary procedure in the case of Government contracts would have involved a delay of at least six months. Those six months were vital, and it was decided to adopt this unusual method of procedure.

499. I believe it was widely adopted in England at the beginning of the present war, with quite disastrous results?—I understand from the reports of Parliamentary Committees on the other side that the results have been disastrous, as the Chairman says.

“Subhead C.—Miscellaneous Fuel Production Schemes.

“80. The expenditure charged to this subhead includes sums amounting to £4,000 advanced by way of loans for turf production. I have addressed an inquiry to the Accounting Officer as to the position with regard to the payment of these loans.”

500. Chairman.—Have you anything to add to that, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—I have not got an official reply to the inquiry, Mr. Chairman, but I have unofficial information, which I think the Accounting Officer will give the Committee now.

501. Can you give us any information, Mr. McElligott? Those are advances made to Muinntir na Tire guilds in Tipperary and Bray for the production of turf?—The position is that advances were made to certain guilds for the production of food. The advances were to be repaid, and were in fact repaid by the guilds. The guilds at Bray and Tipperary sought financial aid for schemes of turf production, and loans of £1,500 and £3,000, respectively, were made to them. The Tipperary guild repaid £1,300 of the £3,000 advanced, and I understand that there is a reasonable chance of having the balance of the grant repaid. As regards Bray, there was a considerable excess of liabilities over assets on 31st December last, and an approach has been made by the guild for a remission of the loan. This request is being examined by the Department of Finance in conjunction with the Special Emergency Schemes Office, and that has accounted for the delay in replying to the query by the Comptroller and Auditor General, but I hope to furnish a reply at an early date.

502. May I suggest, if it does become necessary to remit this loan, that a very careful record will be made of the circumstances in which the money was irretrievably lost, for reference in case of future applications for benevolent loans of this kind?—Yes. A full report will be made to the Committee on the subject if you so wish.*

503. It occurs to me that many well-intentioned persons think they can launch into schemes of this kind and undertake very large liabilities in a generous sort of spirit. Then they discover that large amounts of money are lost and that what they have been doing is distributing eleemosynary grants although they believed they were doing highly productive work. While fully appreciating their excellent intentions, it may be well to have on record an object lesson on what happens when one plunges into undertakings of this kind without due consideration?—There was a certain amount of consideration given to the matter before any public assistance was afforded to those two guilds of Muintir na Tíre. Both guilds had, I understand, worked with reasonable efficiency. The Tipperary guild was stated by the founder and promoter of Muintir na Tíre to be one of the most efficient guilds he had, and the provision in the Vote was intended to encourage voluntary bodies in the production of emergency turf. I think it would be well if the Committee did not altogether lose sight of the fact that during this period, in the summer of 1941, there was rather a scare about the fuel position for the following winter. Every effort was made by the Government, and particularly by the late Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who was in charge of the fuel situation at the time, to speed up production, and to get everybody who took an interest in the matter to bend their efforts in that direction. Those advances were made during the summer of 1941, when it looked as if the coal-burning areas of the country, particularly Dublin, would suffer very acutely from a fuel shortage in the following winter. However, a full report of any writing-off that may take place will be given to the Committee.

“Subhead D.—Farm Improvements Scheme.

“81. In paragraph 74 of my last report I referred to expenditure, charged against the Employment Schemes Vote, on grants for encouraging the improvement of farms. Provision was made under subhead D. of the Special Emergency Schemes Vote for 1941-42 for payment of the balance of the grants in respect of the season 1940-41 and for expenditure on the scheme operated in the following season. The schemes provided for the payment, under certain conditions, of grants equivalent to one-half of the approved estimated labour cost of works such as field drainage, land reclamation, fencing, and the improvement of farmyards and farm roadways. The maximum grant payable to any one applicant in respect of a season was £100 and the minimum grant £5, except in congested districts, where the minimum grant was £1. The expenditure charged to vote in 1941-42 amounted to £121,202 4s., made up as follows:—

504. Chairman.—Have you anything to add to that, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—That is a purely informative paragraph.

505. How were the works in respect of which those grants were made checked up on?—The Department of Agriculture administers those grants. The applications for grants are made to that Department in accordance with instructions given in a leaflet of which I have a copy here. The Department has a special staff for dealing with these applications and with the disbursement of the moneys that are granted. The expenses of the staff are paid in the first instance out of the Vote for the Department of Agriculture, subhead M. 11—Temporary Scheme in connection with Farm Improvements. The number employed in 1943-44 is given as 220 temporary farm improvement supervisors and six temporary assistant agricultural overseers at a total cost of £43,358, if you include travelling expenses and incidental expenses. The outgoings are paid in the first instance out of the Vote of the Department of Agriculture and are subsequently recouped from the farm improvements subhead of the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote.

506. Chairman.—I observe from the report of the Minister for Agriculture for this year that, on page 109, he says that each of these schemes was inspected beforehand, in the course of operations and at their conclusion, and that the inspectors were satisfied that useful work was done in each case before the grant was certified for?—I have seen that. An extension of the scheme was announced in the recent Budget. There is an additional £100,000 in connection with minor improvement works in rural areas.

507. On the whole it appears to be money very well spent?—I think so.

“Subhead E.—Seed Distribution Scheme.

“82. The expenditure under this subhead, for which provision was formerly made under the Employment Schemes Vote, related to the purchase of seeds for sale at reduced prices to small holders in congested areas, the proceeds of sale being brought to account as exchequer extra receipts.”

508. Chairman.—This is the scheme where agricultural supervisors in various areas actually distribute the seeds to the farmers and the farmers pay the supervisors for them?—Yes, I think that is so.

“Subhead F.—Lime Distribution Scheme.

“83. Provision for this scheme was also formerly made under the Employment Schemes Vote. The scheme was operated in the congested areas, and the expenditure related to subsidy paid in respect of lime or sea sand used by small holders on land reclaimed by them under the farm improvements scheme.”

509. Chairman.—I take it, Mr. McGrath, this note really directs the attention of the Committee to the fact that the changes* referred to in the letter of the Minister for Finance which was read at the conclusion of the proceedings of first day’s Committee have now been carried into effect?

Mr. McGrath.—They have.

510. Deputy Brady.—In regard to the schemes operated by the Turf Development Board, I notice there is a big difference between the actual expenditure and the grant for the development of these bogs. There is a note to say that this development has not been as rapid as had been anticipated. These are bogs under the control of the Turf Development Board. I wonder why the development was not as rapid as was anticipated, in view of the turf supply position, and why that money is now being surrendered?

Mr. McElligott.—In regard to A.1., the saving was of a casual nature. In regard to A.3.—Development of Clonsast Bog— the machinery for which provision was made could not be procured owing to the emergency conditions. In regard to A.4 —Development of Lyracrompane Bog—no request for issues from the Grant-in-Aid was received. In regard to A.5., A.6., A.7.—Lullymore, Glenties and other bogs—the development was not as rapid as had been anticipated, partly because of shortages of machinery and equipment. Such things as rails and, in fact, all kinds of machinery and equipment needed for bog development, were in short supply.

511. The saving has been effected, therefore, because the machinery was not available?—Largely, that was the cause.

512. Deputy McCann.—Was there any exceptional difficulty met with in the operation of this machinery owing to submerged tree trunks?—In Clonsast, considerable difficulty was experienced, owing to submerged tree trunks which are being met very frequently. When the bucket excavator comes up against a tree trunk it causes an immediate breakdown and stoppage in the machinery. It is difficult to effect repairs and the proceedings are held up for quite a time. That has been one of the many difficulties in securing appropriate development of these bog areas.

513. Chairman.—Has it been represented to you by the Turf Development Board that that is a peculiar characteristic of Irish bogs as distinguished from Continental bogs, namely, the presence of baulks of timber?—I understand the difficulty has not been met to the same extent in Continental bogs. We are hoping that it may be peculiar to Clonsast. I think it is greater in Clonsast than in the other bogs of which we have experience.

514. Deputy Brady.—As to subhead D. —Farm Improvements Scheme—there seems to have been a big saving?—It was a question of schemes not maturing to the extent anticipated. The saving is only nominal because the amount was re-voted in the following year.

515. Was it due to the fact that there were not applications in that particular year or to the fact that the money was not expended in time?—There were applications, but they were not as numerous as anticipated and the examination of them was somewhat delayed.

516. Deputy Allen.—A lot of works were not completed until the following April or May?—A number of them were not completed until after the close of the financial year and the payments were not made accordingly until the year subsequent to the year of account.

517. Deputy Brady.—As to subhead F. —Lime Distribution Scheme—the Committees of Agriculture seem to have great difficulty in getting lime-kiln owners to burn lime. They complain that they have not the fuel.

Chairman.—Where?

Deputy Brady.—We have a lime scheme in Donegal. There is a largely increased grant this year from the Department and we have had thousands of applications for lime but we cannot supply it.

Chairman.—I suppose that is a subject that could be more properly raised in Dáil Eireann than with Mr. McElligott.

Mr. McElligott.—I have no information on the matter except that I know that fuel has been the difficulty in regard to lime production. Various efforts have been made to overcome the shortage and turf is one of the fuels used as an alternative to coal, but it is not so satisfactory.

VOTE 77—DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (NEUTRALITY) COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

“85. The Estimate for this service provided for compensation and other payments in connection with injuries to property resulting from the actions of foreign aircraft and kindred incidents while the State is not engaged in war. Provision is made for the payment of compensation in such cases when the injury occurred on or after the 26th August, 1940, by the Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Act, 1941. With the exception of the expenditure referred to in a note to the account, the payments made during the year related to claims made under this Act. Under Section 16 of the Act one-fourth of the compensation paid in any financial year is recoverable from local authorities and such contributions will be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer as the Minister for Finance may direct. As noted in the Estimate the expenditure out of the Vote will be offset to the extent of any compensation which may be recovered from external Governments or authorities, and money so recovered will be brought to credit as exchequer extra receipts.”

518. Chairman.—Have you anything to add to that, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—With the exception of the expenditure referred to in the note, the payments made during the year related to claims made under this Act. The note on page 252 says: “The expenditure charged to this account includes sums amounting in the aggregate to £17 5s. 6d. in respect of incidents which occurred before the 26th August, 1940.” I understand that these payments were made in connection with landings of foreign craft in this country which did a certain amount of damage, amounting to £17 5s. 6d., and they were not covered by the Act.

519. Chairman.—How were they paid, Mr. McElligott, if you had no statutory authority for paying?

Mr. McElligott.—They come within the ambit of Part I of the Vote. I think: “Estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1942, for compensation and other payments in connection with injuries to property due to the dropping of bombs by foreign aircraft and kindred incidents while the State is not engaged in war.” There were two incidents of the kind covering the expenditure referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General. One was damage to a national school teacher’s residence in County Mayo, in October, 1939, owing to a drifting barrage balloon. That amounted to £6 10s. 0d. The other was damage to a farmhouse in County Wexford by a mine explosion, in February, 1940, amounted to £10 15s. 6d. I submit that these were items coming within the ambit of Part I of the Vote which I have quoted.

520. Chairman.—What is your view, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—I am merely drawing attention to the fact and not criticising the expenditure.

521. Do you advise the Committee that the money was properly paid within the terms of the Estimate?—I do.

522. Deputy Benson.—Were these incidents not known when the Bill was drafted and the date 26th August, 1940, put in?

Mr. McElligott.—I think we did not have claims for compensation.

523. It is fairly obvious that if they had been in, the whole thing would have been cleared up by putting a different date in the Act. It obviously was the intention of the Government that the Act should cover all claims?—At the time the date was inserted in the Act we were under the impression that it was the earliest date with which the Act need concern itself.

524. Chairman.—Is due regard had by the Department of Finance to the rapid advance in the cost of replacement when they are paying a claim? It has been reported to me that after a claim has been substantially agreed between the Department and a claimant, payment has not been made for a considerable time, with the result that the cost of repairing the damage done has gone up considerably and the compensation agreed upon is no longer adequate to meet the cost of replacement?—We make every effort after agreement is reached with an applicant for compensation to have the payment made within the shortest possible time. I am surprised to hear that a considerable time may elapse between the date of the agreement with the applicant and the time he receives payment, because we make special efforts to reduce that gap to a minimum. We have already in fact paid the great majority of claims. Up to 31st March, 1943, we received 2,569 applications on which we made 2,189 offers of compensation. There were less than 250 cases outstanding on 31st March last.

525. There is no undue delay in the negotiations for arriving at a settlement?—No. We have made every effort to speed up negotiations. Most of the offers made have been accepted by the applicants so that the amounts cannot have been unduly low. They are free, of course, if they do not accept the offer, to go to the Circuit Court for a larger amount.

526. Did any persons take that course? —One only, so far, as regards amount. The case has not yet been heard by the court.

VOTE 78—PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

“86. This service provides for compensation and other payments in respect of personal injury sustained by persons, not being members of State services, as a result of the dropping of bombs by foreign aircraft and kindred incidents while the State is not engaged in war. Under the provisions of Emergency Powers (No. 98) Order, 1941 (Statutory Rules and Orders No. 354, 1941) the Minister for Finance may from time to time make a scheme providing for the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of such periodical or lump sums as may be specified in the scheme to, or to the dependants of, persons to whom the scheme is expressed to apply and who suffer personal injuries to which this Order applies. In pursuance of the above-mentioned Order the Minister for Finance made, on 17th September, 1941, a scheme entitled Emergency Powers (No. 98) Order, 1941 (Compensation) Scheme, 1941 (Statutory Rules and Orders No. 404, 1941) providing for the payment of compensation in respect of fatal and non-fatal injuries, and also payment for medical or surgical treatment or hospital maintenance. As stated in the account, it was not found possible to make arrangements for the satisfactory investigation of claims in time to enable the issue of awards before the close of the financial year, and expenditure in respect of treatment and travelling expenses was, for the same reason, limited in extent.”

527. Chairman.—Have you anything to add to that paragraph, Mr. McGrath?

Mr. McGrath.—That paragraph is for information, but I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that only £22 was expended during the year.

528. Chairman.—Have you anything you care to say on that, Mr. McElligott?

Mr. McElligott.—I have said in my note to the account that it was not possible to make arrangements for the satisfactory investigation of claims in time to enable the issue of awards before the close of the financial year. Expenditure in respect of treatment and travelling expenses was, for the same reason, limited in extent. There was also an additional reason that the scheme of compensation to which the Comptroller and Auditor General refers in his note as having been made by the Minister on 17th September, 1941, did not meet with general approval. It was criticised in many quarters as inadequate and the Minister set about preparing a revised scheme. I think it was fairly generally known that some revision of the scheme was in contemplation. The revised scheme was, in fact, made on 16th June, 1942, subsequent to the close of the financial year which we are discussing and the lodgment of claims and payment of compensation proceeded much more rapidly in 1942-43. The total payments in 1942-43 amounted to £4,000 as compared with £22 6s. 2d. in 1941-42. I think also that we had an exaggerated idea of the number of claims which would be made and the £20,000 we provided was a round figure. It was largely a shot in the dark and it turned out to be a good deal off the target.

529. Deputy Brady.—Are you not likely to have a larger number of claims this year as a result, for instance, of the mine disaster at Annagry, County Donegal?—I do not know that we would admit any liability for such exceptional folly as was evidenced in that case. Most of the people killed in that disaster, so far as I know, were not supporting. They were young people who would not have dependants but who would probably themselves be dependent on other people. However, I do not want to prejudge the matter.

530. Mr. Benson.—I do not know whether this is quite a proper question to put to Mr. McElligott, but, from memory, this compensation scheme is very largely based on the standard of workmen’s compensation?—That is so.

531. There was yesterday a new Order made varying the rates of workmen’s compensation. Can you say whether that will also affect awards made under this Order?—It is a matter which I have not yet considered.

VOTE 79—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

532. Chairman.—The schedule of these repayments is to be found on page 255. I should like to raise two matters on this Vote, one of which is mentioned every year in connection with closeness of estimation. During the financial year under consideration, the estimated expenditure was £40,393,927. The amount to be surrendered was £2,889,555, representing a surrender of 7.15 per cent. of the gross estimate which is 2 per cent. more than the previous year or the year before. It compares with 4.99 per cent. in 1940-41, 5.90 per cent. in 1939-40, and 5.06 per cent. in 1938-39. If you look at Votes 59, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 76, you will find the percentage of surrender in respect of Vote 59 was 17.9 per cent.; Vote 67, 34.9; Vote 68, 24.9; Vote 69, 23.7; Vote 75, 46.5, and Vote 76, 41.6. Some of these you have explained by saying that the services were transferred to other Votes in the course of the financial year, but take Vote 69—Office of the Minister for Supplies. You have a surrender there of 23.7. That represents a pretty heroic explanation?—Estimation cannot be claimed to be accurate.

533. I have forgotten the Greek word to describe that observation, but I know there is one?—Meiosis. We do everything possible to impress on Accounting Officers the need for close estimation and the undesirability of the Dáil voting sums of money which are not likely to be expended. They are not only undesirable in themselves but also lead to false estimation for Budgetary purposes; but sometimes it is very difficult, particularly in the abnormal conditions under which we are operating at present, to forecast how expenditure is going to materialise and Accounting Officers, in order not to have Supplementary Estimates, often overstate their requirements. They like to have adequate provision under each subhead of their Vote for the outgoings from those subheads and if there is a margin of safety in each subhead the aggregate of these margins tends to grow and the final overestimation tends to be considerable.

534. Where you have overestimation on so heroic a scale as that, involving the surrender of nearly £3,000,000 on the total of the Estimates, and of as much as one quarter of the total estimate in respect of certain Votes, surely the repercussions on taxation must be really serious? The Legislature may be induced to consent to taxation on a scale which they could not possibly approve on what amounts to misrepresentation as to a Department’s true requirements.

Deputy Brady.—If you read the notes on page 241 you will find a pretty good explanation for that over-estimation.

535. Chairman.—It is a matter of opinion whether the explanations are good or bad; but the net result is that the estimates on which the Budget was based threatened to become usury—is that not so?—If the Budgets were being strictly balanced the defect in estimating to which you refer might have much more serious consequences; but we usually leave a margin not covered by taxation. So, if the estimates of expenditure fall short of what was anticipated, they are more than covered by the deficit anticipated in the Budget and there is no over-taxation. In this way a more or less happy balance is secured.

536. On the other hand, if it was desired to avoid borrowing what we announce we intend to borrow, it would be a very desirable thing to present a bill justifying a scale of taxation which would, in fact, produce the revenue requisite to finance services and thus avoid the necessity of the borrowing forecast in the Budget statement?—We might compensate, perhaps, for over-estimation by making a deduction, as we did in previous years, from the supply services for over-estimation. We could, possibly, consider that in connection with the next Budget; but we dropped that practice because we found that in some years there was very little over-estimation, so that the number of Supplementary Estimates tended to grow, leading to increased demands on the Exchequer beyond what was foreseen at the time the Budget was framed.

537. Deputy Allen.—Is it not more satisfactory to have a credit to the particular Estimate than to have to come with a Supplementary Estimate?—It is. Accounting officers and Ministers, as a rule, feel more comfortable if they have not to come to the Dáil and start defending a Supplementary Estimate, entailing a certain amount of time and trouble, and, of course, criticism also, because of the fact that the estimate submitted to the Dáil at the time of the Budget has proved to be incorrect. In their desire to avoid this, accounting officers are inclined to err in the opposite direction by asking for a provision in excess of the real requirements.

538. In the hope that it will not be adversely commented upon by the Committee of Public Accounts?—Perhaps when the accounting officers concerned come before the Committee they will be suitably admonished. In the Estimates’ circular for the year, which is usually issued in October, there is a paragraph calling the attention of the accounting officers to the need for as accurate an estimation as possible. I may mention it is a paragraph that appears year after year, and I suppose they are getting a bit tired of reading it; but, in order to put a little spice into it, I could mention that the Committee of Public Accounts had commented very adversely this year on the extent of the savings on Votes.

539. In respect of the six Votes mentioned, I think the discrepancy is, to say the least, dramatic. You have some accounting officers surrendering as much as 46.5 of the estimate. In another case the percentage was 41.6. The figure in the case of the accounting officer for the Department of Supplies was 23.7. I shall direct your attention specially to Votes 59, 67, 68, 69, 75 and 76?—I shall take special note of these Votes.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.55 p.m.

* Appendix IX.

* Appendix XVI.