Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1946 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1944 - 1945

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 24ú Deireadh Fomhair, 1916.

Thursday, 24th October, 1946.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. J. Maher (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas 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.

1. Deputy Lydon.—On Subhead B— Travelling Expenses of Teachtai—could we make a recommendation that the travelling expenses would be fixed at a mileage rate?

Chairman.—That is not a matter that this Committee could deal with.

2. Deputy Coogan.—Could I raise a point about the restaurant either as regards the quality of the food or the service? We get a very bad return for our contribution. It is the dearest restaurant in town, and by streets it is the worst service in town. Could anything be done to ginger up the Restaurant Committee?

Deputy Briscoe.—I would not agree with the Deputy in that.

Deputy Dockrell.—I could find faults but I do not think it is by any means the dearest restaurant in town.

Deputy Coogan.—The Bar lunch, for which there is the same caterer, is as good if not a better lunch than the Dáil lunch, and it is considerably cheaper.

Deputy Dockrell.—That is not so sporadic.

3. Deputy Coogan.—I understand that when the restaurant was run by a Kitchen Committee of the House directly, the Committee doing their own catering, that there was a much better service, with better value in food, and that it was cheaper in cost?

Deputy Briscoe.—But they lost more.

Mr. McElligott.—I think that the two Houses used to meet more frequently then and sit for longer periods. Of course the restaurant does not depend entirely on the receipts from the provision of food. There are other sources from which it gets revenue, and perhaps these have not expanded—perhaps they have contracted— in recent years.

4. Deputy Briscoe.—The Accounting Officer is probably referring to the bar?

Mr. McElligott.—As the Chairman has said, this really is a matter for the Restaurant Committee. I am afraid I have nothing to say to the running of the restaurant itself. All that we have to do is to pay out the Grant-in-Aid to the caterer on the recommendation of the Ceann Comhairle in recoupment of expenses for the catering as shown by the certified accounts. The accounts are furnished to the Ceann Comhairle by the people who run the restaurant, and if he is not satisfied with them, or wants any further examination made of them, I think that he asks the Comptroller and Auditor General from time to time to have a look at them.

Mr. Maher.—That is so.

Mr. McElligott.—Once the Ceann Comhairle is satisfied, and once he makes a recommendation to the Minister for Finance, we have no option but to recoup the amount certified by him up to a maximum of £500.

Deputy Pattison.—I am sorry that I was a few minutes late, but I have been interested in this activity for a long time. I want to say this, with all respect to the Restaurant Committee, that they seem to be a hopeless body.

Chairman.—I am anxious to give the Deputy all the liberty possible, but I am afraid this is not a matter for this Committee.

Deputy Pattison.—Having listened to the Accounting Officer, it seems to me that the Restaurant Committee have very important functions to perform and that they are not performing them.

Deputy Briscoe.—Is not that a matter that Deputies should report to the Selection Committee, and point out that, when they are selecting the next Committee, they should select a better one—one that will operate.

Deputy Pattison.—I am sure that my observations on this matter are on the records of the Committee.

Deputy Briscoe.—The Selection Committee selects the committees of the House, and any complaints about any matter of this kind should be made to it.

Deputy Pattison.—I take it that members consent to have their names approved by the Selection Committee.

Chairman.—Whatever faults the Restaurant Committee are guilty of, they cannot be rectified here. They should either be rectified before that committee, or by changing the selection that is made in the House.

Deputy Pattison.—I appreciate that, but I want to focus attention on this, that there is grave necessity to have the Restaurant Committee put on a proper active footing.

Chairman.—That is not a matter for this Committee.

5. Deputy Lydon.—I see that the contribution in respect of catering expenses amounted in this period to £468 9s. 9d. I take it that accounts are submitted?

Chairman.—Yes. The Accounting Officer has pointed out that the accounts are presented to the Ceann Comhairle. He then makes a recommendation, according to his view of the accounts, whether a certain payment should be made or not.

Mr. McElligott.—I might add that the payment made in the following year shows a considerable reduction. It amounted to £309, so that the loss on the operation of the restaurant fell considerably.

6. Deputy Briscoe.—It is quite obvious that the method adopted is this. The caterers take on the job of supplying the House with food and so forth. They are told at the beginning that whatever the result is—profit or no profit—the limit of the reimbursement to them arising from a loss will be £500. Arising out of what Deputy Coogan has said, would it be fair to suggest that whatever complaints there may be arising out of the inadequacy of the food or the price of the food are due to the fact that the caterers have to meet whatever loss there is in excess of the £500. I understand that they sometimes lose more than £500. In view of this restraint on them, would it not be possible to suggest that we might be able to question the advisability of limiting them to £500, and of trying to get them £1,000? I know that even if they lose £900 they are only entitled to be reimbursed to the extent of £500.

Mr. McElligott.—That is the sum voted by the Oireachtas. The question of subsidising food for members of the Oireachtas is another matter. It is all right to provide a moderate amount, say up to £500, but if you go beyond that it means that you are subsidising food for certain classes of people.

7. Deputy Briscoe.—Mr. McElligott apparently does not realise that this does not provide food for members of the Oireachtas only. It provides food for the staff of Leinster House and for Civil Servants who have to be here on occasion, so that it is not fair to say that the members of the Oireachtas only are being subsidised.

Mr. McElligott.—I should have said the food of the people who use the restaurant.

Deputy Briscoe.—Certain subordinate members of the staff, such as ushers and messengers, who have to remain in the House for long sessions and who cannot be expected to pay full prices, get meals at cost price.

Deputy Moran.—By what authority do they receive food at reduced prices?

Deputy Pattison.—They receive a very indifferent kind of food for the price they pay.

Chairman.—This discussion is getting out of order.

Deputy Pattison.—It is a very important matter.

Chairman.—The fact is that all these complaints should be brought by Deputies before the Restaurant Committee.

Deputy Coogan.—They do not meet.

Chairman.—It is not a matter for this Committee whether they meet or not. If they do not meet, it is the Deputies’ responsibility to bring the matter before the Committee of Selection or before the House at the appropriate time.

Deputy Pattison.—I have failed to get anywhere at the meetings of the Restaurant Committee. I have more than once mentioned a very effective leading article written by a provincial journalist, which bore the heading “Food vouchers for Deputies and Senators.” It went into detail in regard to the monies voted by the Oireachtas, towards the maintenance of the Restaurant and it pointed out that in the days prior to a private firm taking over the management of the restaurant, a profit was made. I went to the trouble of purchasing back numbers of the reports of the Restaurant Management Committee at the Stationary Office. They covered the years from the time the State was founded up to 1933. I have not them with me now, but in almost every year a profit was shown—as much as £400 in more than one year. The Minister for Finance was handed over the surplus from the fund. At the time that Messrs Mills came in here as caterers.

Chairman.—I am loth to interrupt the Deputy, but the function of this Committee is to see that the money voted by Parliament has been expended according to the direction contained in the Appropriation Account, or statute as the case may be. While all this may be important and of interest, it is a matter for the Restaurant Committee in the first instance and, if Deputies are not satisfied, the matter can be later raised in the House, but I cannot permit it to be further discussed here.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

8. Chairman.—I note that some extra remuneration is paid to an Army officer in respect of expenses incurred. Are these expenses incurred as aide-de-camp?—Payment is made in consideration of the fact that additional expenditure is incurred in connection with the post.

VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

9. Chairman.—Arising out of Subhead A.A., I should like to know whether the Department has any actuary at the moment?—We have a qualified actuary in the Department but this is rather to cover the cost of a big job when we have to call in the assistance of outside actuaries. As will be seen by reference to the appropriation account, we did not spend any money on it during the year.

9a. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to Subhead G—Appropriations-in-Aid—the amount realised under Subhead 2—Commission charged to sundry Departmental funds on purchases of securities by the Government stockbroker—was very much in excess of what was anticipated. At the same time, under Vote 8, the remuneration of banks for the management of Government stocks was less than was anticipated. If more stocks were actually dealt with, how does it happen that the amount expended on the remuneration of banks was less that was anticipated?—The explanation of that is that the commission charged for the purchase of securities related to the purchase of both Irish and British Government securities whereas, in the Vote for the remuneration of banks for the management of stocks, payments were made solely for Irish Government securities. The volume of Irish Government securities is pretty well known and fixed but we cannot say, in advance for a particular financial year, what the extent of the purchases of either Irish or British Government securities are going to be for the various Departmental funds, from the sums accruing to them from various sources, contributions, etc.

10. Chairman.—In respect of British Government securities, are they bought by a stockbroker in London?—Through a London stockbroker as a rule.

11. Deputy Coogan.—As regards the alcohol factory, were the factories in production that year?—Some of the factories were in production—two or three of them.

VOTE 8—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

12. Chairman.—At what rate is payment made to the bank?—Payment is made at a rate of £300 per £1,000,000 of stocks outstanding at the close of the financial year—at .the close of the last year but one. That rate was fixed as far back as the Bank Act of 1892 and by Section 19 of the Finance Act of 1937 it was applied to our public stocks and securities. The remuneration is different in the case of the National City Bank of New York, who are registrars for the portion of the Second National Loan that was floated in the United States. In their case we paid ⅛ of 1 per cent on all sums paid as interest on the bonds of the loan and of the principal amount of all bonds paid, purchased or redeemed by the bank as agents of the Government. In addition we paid them out-of-pocket expenses on such matters as printing, brokerage, cable and telephone charges. The rate of £300 per £1,000,000 of stock is the main rate which affects us and we are satisfied it is a very economical rate.

13. Chairman.—The banks are satisfied with the remuneration?—I think they would welcome an increase, particularly as their expenses have been going up very considerably of late years, but so far we have not conceded any increase.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

14. Deputy Sheldon.—Arising out of Subhead B., is the position of State chemist a full-time appointment?—It is a full-time appointment, but there have been times when it was part-time. At present it is, and, as far as one can see for the future, is going to be, a full-time post.

15. It just struck me that the State Chemist whose basic salary is £707 a year, got an honorarium of £400 which is more than 50 per cent of his basic salary. I wondered whether this other work was carried out in the course of his full-time employment by the State?—It was work carried out as a member of the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau. It was to some extent analogous to the work he is performing as a State chemist, but it involved special technical knowledge of the kind that he possesses. It was recognised, subsequent to the period to which this account relates, that the position of State Chemist was hardly remunerated in proportion to its importance and we had to raise the scale of salary from £600-£800 which it was during 1944-45 to £700-£900, plus bonus in both cases. The Emergency Scientific Research Bureau has of course come to an end. Accordingly the State Chemist is no longer in receipt of the honorarium.

16. It just struck me that such a proportionately large honorarium was something of which the Dáil would not have been aware when it was passing the Estimate. It would certainly be better to remunerate such an important position properly at the start than to have any such system as this creeping in?—The amount for the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau was separately provided for under Subhead A.—Honoraria and Incidental Expenses of the Vote for the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau. It is stated in the footnote to the Appropriation Account of that Vote that the State Chemist whose salary is borne on Vote 12, receives an honorarium of £400 as a member of the Bureau. The matter of the two Votes was fully brought out in the Appropriation Accounts, but I do not think that it was indicated in advance to the Dáil that the officer in question was going to get this honorarium which I agree with the Deputy is large in proportion to his total pay.

17. Deputy Sheldon.—The point struck me: why should another Vote bear a large amount in addition for work done by some one in full-time State employment, presumably in the State’s time?—I believe he had to work a considerable amount of overtime in order to get through his duties as State Chemist and do the additional work he was called upon to do as a member of the Research Bureau. It involved him in a considerable amount of overtime work, and, of course, the other members of the Bureau were paid at the rate of £400 per year and it would be difficult to remunerate him at a rate less than that of the other members.

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

18. Deputy Briscoe.—With regard to Subhead C.—Examinations—which, I imagine, includes the fees which applicants have to pay for sitting at examinations, does the Accounting Officer find that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction because in many cases these fees are paid more than once by a single applicant for a number of positions? Does he find that there are applications for the return of certain fees?—The fees, on the whole, are very moderate. They range, so far as I remember, from 2/6 to £3, the £3 fee being charged for the highest examination, that for Junior Administrative Officers, and we have heard no complaints about the fees being excessive.

19. I did not say they were excessive. I said that I understood that where there are limited positions, there are very many applicants, some of whom have applied on a number of occasions for very similar posts and who have paid this fee each time they make an application. Has the Department no complaints with regard to these fees? A sum of £3 might appear to be a very moderate charge, but if an applicant has to pay £3 very often it represents a big thing for him. Is there no way of allowing the fee to stand for a number of occasions?—The fee is paid in consideration of the expense which the State is put to by reason of having to hold an examination, appoint examiners, superintendents of examinations, accommodation and so on and the expense goes on irrespective of whether a candidate is sitting for the second, third or fourth time. In any case, with regard to Civil Service examinations, the age limits are fairly narrow, and, in the natural order of things, a man probably will not be a candidate more than two or three times altogether. The existence of a fee also helps to avoid frivolous entries for examinations. If it did not exist, people might go up just for practice, for the purpose of getting their nerves steady, and so on. The examinations usually are held only once a year and I think the intervals are sufficiently long to relieve any hardship that might be incurred by making the payment.

20. As to the suggested frivolous entries, does an applicant not have to get the sanction of his Departmental head to sit for an examination?—I was thinking of people seeking to enter the Civil Service. Most of the examinations held by the Civil Service Commission are competitions in which people who are not in the Civil Service compete for entry into the Civil Service.

21. Are there not two kinds—the applicant who goes in for the first time and the applicant who tries to get a better position, having secured entry into the Civil Service? Are not both these covered by these examinations?—Once he gets into the Civil Service, promotion is determined either departmentally or by means of inter-departmental boards very largely. The Civil Service Commission is not called in very frequently.

22. It does not arise that a person in the Service sits at these examinations at all?—In the case of the civil servant, there is usually no fee payable for a limited examination—an examination confined to civil servants.

23. Deputy Sheldon.—Perhaps Deputy Briscoe would suggest a sort of life membership—the payment of £20 to cover all examinations.

Deputy Briscoe.—We have it more or less agreed that the bulk of the fees come from people not in the Civil Service. These are people who are desirous of securing what they consider good employment and they may apply more than once—in some cases, three times—hoping to get into the Civil Service. Obviously, where there is not much competition, the very best will get the job and the person who thinks he is good will try again. In that case, I feel that there is a hardship in making an applicant pay more than once.

Chairman.—That is a question of policy.

Mr. McElligott.—It happens, I think, in all examinations. In the case of University examinations, a fee must be paid each time and the same practice obtains in the case of other types of examinations.

Deputy Sheldon.—The Appropriations-in-Aid are not these fees. They are the stamps paid by candidates.

Mr. Maher.—These appropriations relate to receipts from the county and county borough councils under the Act of 1926.

Chairman.—The Appropriations-in-Aid are related to receipts from county and county borough councils in respect of the. Local Appointments Commission. The fees to which Deputy Briscoe refers are extra receipts payable to the Exchequer from stamps paid by candidates to the Civil Service Commission and to the Local Appointments Commission.

24. Deputy Briscoe.—Where does that appear?—It is referred to in the Book of Estimates in connection with the total receipts under the heading of Civil Service Commission (Vote 13). The Appropriations-in-Aid are given as a first item, £4,000, and then fees (stamps) paid by candidates to the Civil Service Commission, £4,780, and fees (stamps) paid by candidates to the Local Appointments Commission, £1,713—a total of £10,493.

25. Deputy Briscoe.—Is it not fair to suggest that in respect of the Appropriations-in-Aid the fees paid by applicants sitting for examinations under the Civil Service Commission should be separately brought out in the Vote so that we would know what they were?—They are mentioned specifically in the Estimate presented to the Dáil each year. For the current year, 1946-47, for example, fees (stamps) paid by candidates to the Civil Service Commission are put down at £5,630 and fees (stamps) paid by candidates to the Local Appointments Commission at £2,160. In that way, the particulars are furnished each year to the Dáil and the actual figures for the year appear in the Finance Accounts.

26. Chairman.—On page 26 of the Finance Accounts, 1945-46, the net receipts and gross receipts of the Civil Service Commission are set out, including discounts and repayments.

Mr. McElligott.—The stamp fees go into the Exchequer as revenue and that is why they are not appropriated in aid of the Vote.

27. Deputy Moran.—I take it that this also covers the Local Appointments Commission?—Yes.

28. I do not know whether it is a matter for the Committee or not but an advertisement was issued by the Department for a dispensary doctor in the South. It was first issued in Irish and there were a few applicants for the position. Nobody was appointed. I understand, on the ground that none of the candidates had a sufficient knowledge of Irish. An advertisement for the same position has since appeared in English. I do not know whether the order under which they get a couple of years to qualify should apply in all cases and if it does not apply to Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas, why should the advertisement be issued again in English?

Chairman.—That is a question of policy, I think.

Mr. McElligott.—That is not a matter on which I have any information.

Deputy Moran.—Is it not then a waste of public money to issue advertisements in the Irish language, making Irish an essential condition? Can Mr. McElligott tell us whether this order applies in all cases?

Chairman.—I think that is a question of policy, and, while it is important in its own way, we are not entitled here to discuss whether the best means of expending money has been adopted. Once expenditure had been sanctioned, it is a matter for the Department of Finance to see that it is spent according to the sanction given by the Oireachtas.

29. Deputy Briscoe.—Mr. McElligott did say that these fees charged to applicants for positions had some connection with the cost of examiners. For that reason, I suggest that even if the fee stamps are returned under different headings, there should be some note here so that we might know what relation these fees have to the total cost of the Civil Service Commission. We would know then whether they were unduly high or unduly low?—In the year under discussion, 1944-45, the Estimate as included in the volume presented to the Oireachtas showed a net total expenditure of £21,000, that is, after deducting the appropriations in aid of £4,000. To meet that £21,000, there was only a sum of £6,500 accruing from fees (stamps) to the Civil Service Commission and Local Appointments Commission. That figure of expenditure of £21,000 does not take into account at all the allied services which total another £4,000 in round figures; so that the total expenditure of the Civil Service Commission and the Local Appointments Commission was put at about £2,500 (apart from Appropriations-in-Aid) for that year, and against that you had only receipts of £6,500 from stamps, so that the stamps were obviously not excessive in relation to the total cost of the service.

30. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—In connection with the Local Appointments Commission I think there is a panel from which various boards are set up. Would it be possible to get information as to the personnel of the boards or the people from whom the boards are drawn?—As the Deputy is aware, the Ceann Comhairle is head of both the Local Appointments Commission and the Civil Service Commission and I am afraid I have no information as to the internal procedure of either body. Both of them are statutory bodies as the Deputy is aware, and they have certain functions entrusted to them by the Oireachtas, including the management of their own internal affairs, so that I am not in a position to ask them for any information.

VOTE 14—IRISH TOURIST BOARD.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 15—COMMISSION AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

31. Chairman.—As to the Commission on Youth Unemployment, that Commission, I think, was established over three years ago. Has it reported yet or is there any indication of when it will report?—It has not reported yet. It was appointed in May, 1943, and I understand it is still taking evidence and is engaged in drafting a report; but, when the report is likely to be presented I cannot say.

32. What commissions are included under Subhead F?—There is a note at the foot of page 55 giving the amount of expenditure. The Tribunal of Inquiry into certain railway stocks accounted for £686 1s. 10d. out of the £782 12s 5d. The remaining sum is under the heading of the Central Savings Committee.

Deputy Sheldon.—I was wondering how it arises that a Committee like the Central Savings Committee set up over 20 years ago appears under Subhead F?— The Committee was brought to an end. These were just the winding up expenses. The expenditure on the Committee had been shown in former years under a separate Subhead. In 1944-45 we knew that the expenditure would be very little, if any, and we did not think it necessary to make separate provision. Subhead F not only provides a general margin for new committees and commissions but also for remanets of expenditure of committees and commissions set up in previous years.

33. It is more or less a contingency fund?—Yes.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

34. Deputy Sheldon.—As to Subhead L, I was wondering why the repayment by the British Government was so much less than the amount estimated. Was there any special reason or was it difficult to forecast?—It was somewhat difficult to forecast. It varies with the cost of living. The cost-of-living figure on which the bonus is based changed from time to time during the emergency since the suspension of the original bonus arrangement. The Estimate, of course, is prepared long in advance of the year to which it relates. It is prepared three or four months in advance of the beginning of the financial year, so that it is about 16 months out of date when the financial year closes. Besides, this particular Subhead, like practically all Subheads under this Vote, depends on the rate of mortality amongst pensioners or the rate of retirement in the Civil Service and it is rather difficult to forecast either contingency.

35. Chairman.—It tends to diminish?— This Subhead tends to diminish. It relates only to transferred officers and they are getting older and less numerous.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

36. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—This is very secret, I believe. Does anybody know anything about it?—The Department of Finance does not know anything about it beyond the fact that the Minister for Finance is furnished with a statement by a Minister that he had disbursed these moneys. He certifies that they have been disbursed; and the Minister for Finance is satisfied with the purpose for which the disbursements took place. At the end of the year, we get a certificate in which the certifying Minister states that the amount actually expended by him or under his direction for Secret Service in the year ending 31st March, ____, was £____, and the balance in his hands was £____, and a further declaration that the interests of the public service required that the payments should be made out of the Secret Service Fund and that they were properly so made. These certificates are accepted by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

37. Does it cover only one Ministry?— It covers the whole Government, but not many Ministers draw monies from this fund.

38. Deputy Moran.—How does it compare with last year?—We spent £13,732 in 1944-45, the year of account with we are discussing. The expenditure was reduced in the following year, 1945-46, to £7,978, a reduction of about £5,800. In 1946-47 we have reduced the total provision from £20,000 to £15,000.

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

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 20—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

39. Deputy Sheldon.—As to Subhead D —Cultural Institutions (Grants-in-Aid)— I notice that the note says that part of the saving was due to the failure of the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts to apply for its Grant-in-Aid. Was that through an oversight on their part or that they felt they did not need the money?— I do not think it was an oversight on the part of the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts nor do I think it was because they did not need the money. There was a difference of opinion between the Hibernian Academy and the Department of Finance about the School of Living Art being kept open and the instruction in it being main tained at a satisfactory level, and the Academy, when they were informed of this, said that the grant, with the conditions attached, was not acceptable.

40. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—What are the, particular institutions which benefit from that Vote of £5,750?—The particulars are given in the Estimate for the year. The Royal Zoological Society of Ireland got £1,000; the Royal Irish Academy, £4,150; the Royal Irish Academy of Music, £300. These sums, together with the £300 for the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts, made up the £5,750 which was provided. All these sums were disbursed except the £300 to the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts.

41. Deputy Sheldon.—Reverting to the Royal Hibernian Academy of Arts, was there some question involved as to what was art, so to speak? Does the Department of Finance take advice from someone who has some cultural qualifications in a matter like this, or how do they deal with the matter?—One of the factors in the dispute was in relation to the inspection of the work of the school on behalf of the Government with a view to maintaining the standard of the school. These inspections were made as a matter of course before the change of Government in 1922. They were continued after 1922. The Academy authorities thought that we were trying to impose some additional restrictions on them when we spoke about the school being left open, and instruction being maintained at a satisfactory level. They contended that those were matters within their own discretion and should not be interfered with.

42. Deputy Sheldon.—Who carries out the inspections, and what is the yardstick that is applied?—We usually consult with the other authorities in this matter, and the Department of Education, and we take whatever expert advice is available.

43. Deputy Moran.—Subhead F deals with a Grant-in-Aid for the King’s Inns Library. Is that statutory?—It is not a statutory grant. There were no grants to King’s Inns in the previous year, nor is there normally a grant to the King’s Inns Library. This was a special grant to enable them to rebind their books which were in a rather sorry condition.

44. Did they give this figure or did they ask for it?—They asked for the figure of £3,000. We investigated the matter with the assistance of the Attorney-General’s office and we satisfied ourselves that the amount was not excessive. In fact, it did not completely cover the outlay on the rebinding of the books.

45. Deputy Sheldon.—But it appeared in the Estimate and therefore was passed by the Dáil. I suggest it is not this Committee’s business to decide whether it should or should not be paid?—It was described in the Estimate as a Grant-in-Aid of the rebinding of the books.

VOTE 24—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 25—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 26—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

46. Deputy Briscoe.—Does the Department take any note, or are they consulted by the Universities, if the Universities change the rate of fees to the public?— No, the Universities have complete discretion in the matter

47. They do not have to consult you all?—No.

48. Is the Department consulted in connection with the number of students from outside Ireland who are educated in these Universities, which these subsidies help?—No, it is not consulted in these matters.

VOTE 28—EMERGENCY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BUREAU

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

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

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

14. 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 £5,466 2s. 2d. and the unexpended balance of issues at 31st March, 1945, was £5,066 14s. 11d. The Bureau ceased to function on the 31st March, 1945, I understand that a final account showing the disposal of the unexpended balance and the residual plant, equipment and materials will be prepared in due course.”

Have you got the Account yet, Mr. McElligott?—No final account has been received yet, but the arrangements for the disposal of the plant and equipment have been approved. The items which can be utilised by Government Departments must be transferred to them without payment and subject to suitable notice in the Bureau’s final account and the Appropriation Accounts of the Department. Items not required by the Departments are to be sold. Any equipment likely to be needed for the new Research body was to be passed over to the Industrial Research Council. Any permanent equipment surplus to the requirements of the new body was to be sold or otherwise disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer.

VOTE 72—DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (NEUTRALITY) COMPENSATION

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

50. Deputy Sheldon.—I presume that Subhead A, dealing with compensation and other payments in connection with injuries to property, and the extra receipts payable to the Exchequer, cover different periods? The compensation payable under Subhead A, shows a great reduction?—Yes.

51. There was no estimate for extra receipts, but a considerable amount of money came in?—Yes.

52. I presume those contributions by local authorities would apply to years previous to this particular year?—They would. The compensation paid out of the Vote is recouped by local authorities only to the extent of one-fourth.

53. There would be a time lag?—Yes, there is a considerable time lag.

54. Deputy Briscoe.—What has the net loss been to the State on this Vote over the whole period?—The net loss in all is about half a million pounds. We had claims for repayments against various Governments. The main claims against the German Government was never paid. We had claims against the American and British Governments and also against the French Government. The claims against the British and American Governments have been met in full; the French Government have asked us for some further particulars which we have provided and we expect to get payment from them. The main claim was against the German Government and apart from the sum of £12,000 which we have paid into the Exchequer, out of the sums collected by agreement on foot of debts due from Irish citizens to German citizens, we have not got any payment, nor are we likely to receive any.

55. What happens. Was there not other property here that could have been taken to meet portion of these outstanding balances? We are all aware that there were claims by German nationals against Irish citizens for outstanding balances resulting from ordinary trade, and the Department made an effort to collect as much of that as possible to set-off against the main claim. But was there not property here belonging to the German Government or to German nationals?— We did not seize. any property here belonging to the German Government.

56. Deputy Moran.—Are there any assets belonging to the German Government still available in the country?— Not as far as I know.

57. Have the Department made any effort to see whether outstanding claims could be met by the realisation of any German assets that might be here?—We have made inquiries and as far as our information goes there is no property of any value belonging to the German Government which we could seize in satisfaction of our claims.

58. My point is that where there is even a small debt due to the State by one of our own citizens, everything is done to recover it. I have in mind decrees of the courts in respects of levies under legislation dealing with cattle and sheep, and so forth. In this case, if there are any realisable assets, I think the Department should go as far with these people as they do with our own citizens?—Such assets as were available in the German Legation were taken over by the Allied Governments subsequent to the war; they seized all assets of the German Government, wherever located.

59. Chairman.—Are we entitled to claim compensation from the Allied Governments for whatever property they seized from the Germans?—I am afraid not. We have no rights in this matter. In any case I think the value of the property would go a very little way towards meeting our claims.

60. Deputy Moran.—Have the Allied Governments power to appropriate property in a neutral State, over which they have no jurisdiction at all?—The German Legation, like other legations, is supposed to be the property of the outside Government; it enjoys extra territorality.

61. That is as far as the Legation is concerned, but surely the writ of those Governments would not run in another country?—It is a nice point of international law, but I think it has been recognised by all countries that the property of German. Austrian and other ex-enemy Governments should be handed over without question by all other countries.

62. If you collect the debts due to German nationals in this country, surely you can also realise on any other assets that are here belonging to German nationals or to the German Government?— We have collected and are collecting all the assets to which we are entitled.

63. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Are any of the claims of our own people still outstanding?—We have paid practically all the claims. All that remain are those that have not yet been finally passed. The Vote for 1945-46 was for only £10,600 as compared with £18,750 for the year under review. For 1946-47, the vote was for £7,200. Very little is outstanding except some re-building claims in respect of which reinstatement conditions have not been complied with.

VOTE 73—PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 74—ALLEVIATION OF DISTRESS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 75—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. T. Cleary called and examined.

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

“5. (Revenue Account.) A test examination of the Revenue Accounts has been carried out with satisfactory results.

6. (Extra Statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties.) Extra statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £4,181 0s. 8d. and £1,230 5s. 7d., respectively, were made during the year.

7. (Remissions.) I have been furnished with a schedule of the several cases involving a loss of £50 and upwards in which claims for duty or interest receivable under Revenue Acts were remitted during the year ended 31st March, 1945, without statutory authority, from motives of compassion or equity arising out of particular circumstances in individual cases. The reasons given for remission appear to be satisfactory. The total amount shown in the schedule is £6,917 4s. 8d., as compared with £8,024 18s. 4d. in the previous year. Of the total, £5,848 14s. 2d. has been remitted in respect of Income Tax. £3,448 4s. 6d. related to eight cases in which the assessed parties died insolvent or were destitute and recovery was impossible; £1,702 14s. 8d. related to eight cases in which assessments were raised but subsequent evidence revealed no real liability, and £697 15s. 0d. related to four cases of bankruptcy or liquidation in which there were no assets to meet the claims. The remissions also include sums in respect of interest on Estate, Legacy and Succession duties amounting to £1,068 10s. 6d.

The above figures do not include amounts passed as irrecoverable for various reasons, and amounts written off under composition settlements.”

64. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—Under No. 4, Appropriations-in-Aid, there is an item in respect of moneys received from merchants for special attendance of officers. What exactely are these moneys?

Mr. Cleary.—Merchants and others using the ports and using the Border often require the attendance of an officer outside the authorised hours. They pay according to the length of time the officer is required.

65. Deputy Sheldon.—If somebody is moving house and taking his furniture into Northern Ireland, instead of having it examined at the Border, he can have it examined by the officer at his private house?—Yes. That is a good example. We do not encourage that now because we are short of staff, but we do it when asked.

66. It is a very satisfactory arrangement—I hope you will not advise people to ask for that facility because we are closing down upon it. The number of cases is very large. It avoids breakages.

Deputy Sheldon.—Banking people avail of it largely.

67. Deputy Moran.—Item M states: “excess due mainly to the payment of rewards in connection with the detection of attempted exportation of prohibited goods being greater than was expected.” Who collects those rewards, is it the Customs officers, or some common informer?—These rewards are paid to our preventive staff. It is a long standing practice in the Customs service. It arose originally only in respect of imported goods. The necessity for conserving commodities forced upon us the administration of a mass of export prohibitions and the staff urged that there was as great reason for giving rewards for detection of goods which were about to be exported, as there was in respect of goods about to be imported. We decided to give the rewards for detections in connection with exports as well as imports. The number was much larger than we anticipated. That is the reason for the excess. As I was allowed to do so last year, I draw attention to the Appropriattions-in-Aid which show that, although we exceeded our estimate in this regard, we exceeded our estimate of what would be received from the sale of the goods, so that the State gained on the transaction.

68. The State may have gained on the transaction but I think that it is a bad practice and a bad expenditure of money. These men are civil servants, and in addition to paying them salaries, they are remunerated in this way. If they are loyal officers, I do not see why that should be necessary?—I may say that the reason for it is to encourage keenness. It is an incentive. Their pay is small, and, when ever they made representations about their pay, this factor was taken into consideration. You would have to increase their basic salaries very considerably if you took away these emoluments.

69. I should much rather see their basic salary increased than have this system. It is a system that led to abuse in the old days and it is a system that lends itself to abuse now. I can go only on what I have been told. I think that it is a bad system and one which should be discontinued. It might as well be suggested that a policeman who detected crime in the course of his duty should receive a special reward?—He does.

70. Only in the cases under the Illicit Distillation Acts?—I think that he gets a reward for bravery.

Deputy Sheldon.—Surely this is a question of policy.

Chairman.—I am afraid it is.

Deputy Sheldon.—It is provided for in the Estimate.

71. Deputy Briscoe.—I do not see any figure showing the amount of money received. How is the compensation to the officers based?—On the value of the goods seized. There are scales and a claim may be involved. A team rummaging a ship may make a valuable detection. They would be rewarded according to the number and according to their rank.

72. Deputy Moran.—Could you say, roughly, how much of this amount is for rewards?—£7,000 of that sum of £9,900 would be for rewards in respect of detections of attempted exportations.

73. Could you say where this sum was expended; was it at the Border or at the ports?—At the ports all over the country and at the Border.

74. Deputy Briscoe.—And at the airports?—Yes.

75. What amount did the State realise from the seizures and fines?—The figures are set out in item 5, £9,417 5s. 5d. from fines and in item 7, £10,700 7s. 2d. from the sale of goods.

VOTE 7—OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. T. Cleary further examined.

76. Chairman.—With reference to Note 2, what would be the percentage of fraud?

Mr. Cleary.—Strangely enough, I was looking up that matter last night. The only way of getting an idea of the extent of frauds would be by relating the figures on page 17 to the amount of the grant. It is very small

77. Deputy Briscoe.—We had this question a long time ago. The detection might be over a small number of cases which had been carried on over a long period. The total amount would fall for accounting in a particular year?—That is true.

78. Obviously, there could not be a percentage?—That is a very fair commentary. Many cases come into this year’s accounts that did not occur in the course of the year.

79. A person might be drawing the pension for ten years and the amount would come into this year’s accounts?—Yes, and there might be a fraud this year which would not be accounted for until next year.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.