|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 10ú Samhain, 1949.Thursday, 10th November, 1949.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), called and examined.35. Clerk.—I was informed yesterday by the Chairman, Deputy Derrig, that he was suffering from a heavy cold and that it was unlikely that he would be here to-day. Deputy Briscoe.—I move that Deputy Sheldon take the Chair for this meeting of the Committee. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—I second the motion. Question put, and agreed to. Deputy Sheldon took the Chair accordingly. 36. Chairman.—I regret that our Chairman, Deputy Derrig, is indisposed. Our first duty, I think, is to welcome the new Comptroller and Auditor-General, Mr. Wann. It is not necessary for me to make any complimentary remarks about him as we have all heard of his qualifications. I am sure Mr Wann will understand that there is a tinge of regret associated with our welcome to him because of the fact that Mr. Maher has decided to leave the Office. We had a very happy association with him and I am sure that same happy association will be continued with Mr. Wann. Mr. Wann.—Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I shall do my utmost to maintain the high standard set by my predecessor. 37. Chairman.—We have had one meeting already at which the Chairman was elected and at which we dealt with an Excess Vote, but, in a way, this is our first meeting to deal with the accounts of the year under review. It is customary for the Chairman on such an occasion to give some information to the members of the Committee as to their duties, but in this case, seeing that the members are the same as the members of the last Committee, I do not think that there is any necessity for me to instruct my colleagues in this matter. I should just like to make one brief remark and that is to remind members that our sole duty is to see that the moneys are spent in accordance with the wishes of the Dáil, as expressed in the Vote in Supply. I should like also to remind them that we are not, strictly speaking, an Economy Committee. It is not alone our duty to see that Departments do not overspend; we have to see where they underspend and why they do so. I have a couple of remarks to make which I intended to put before the Committee as an ordinary member of the Committee. I am afraid our proceedings will be slightly hampered by the fact that our predecessors have not yet reported. It is usual for the members of the Committee to have before them or in their possession the Report of the previous Committee. Very often matters crop up in the Report which would be of interest in the following year and, in so far as we have not the Report of the Committee for the previous year, we are, as I say, slightly hampered. As the Report has not yet been issued we do not know what is in it or what might be in it. Our Clerk has arranged that the draft of the minutes would be available to-day to any member in case he would wish to refer to what was said on any point in last year’s proceedings. Another point which I wanted to raise was that I, personally, always found difficulty in following the Accounts because I never had the Supplementary Estimates before me. It is impossible to deal adequately with the Appropriation Accounts unless one knows what the Supplementary Estimates were. I asked the Clerk about it and he has provided copies of the Supplementary Estimates concerned with the Votes with which we shall have to deal to-day. I should like to suggest that it should be the practice on the formation of the Committee that members would be supplied with the Supplementary Estimates for the year under Account to help them in examining the Accounts. GENERAL REPORT.Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.38. Chairman.—In the beginning of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, there are some remarks on the general financial position. I do not think it is customary to read these particular paragraphs, but if there is any point that any member would wish to raise he has an opportunity of doing so now with Mr. McElligott. I think we should note that the total amount to be surrendered is unusually high—£5,250,000. Perhaps Mr. McElligott would say a few words on that? Mr. McElligott.—The amount to be surrendered, that is the savings on the gross Estimates, is the highest since the year 1936-37. It represents 7.7 per cent. of the gross Estimates and it is the highest, as I say, since 1936-37, when the proportion that the surplus bore to the gross Estimates was 9.25 per cent. The savings in the year with which we are dealing—1947-48—were made on a small number of the larger Votes, principally Industry and Commerce, Aviation and Meteorological Services, Defence, and Agriculture. The largest single saving occurred on the Vote for the Alleviation of Distress. The savings on the Votes for Industry and Commerce, Aviation and Meteorological Services, Alleviation of Distress, Agriculture, Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance between them accounted for £4,105,000 or 79 per cent. of the total. The savings in these various Departments were due to different causes. In Industry and Commerce, for example, the saving was due to smaller payments of subsidies than had been anticipated. In Aviation and Meteorological Services it was due to a smaller rate of progress in constructional work at Shannon Airport and Dublin Airport and to a much smaller subsidy in respect of air services than had been anticipated. In the case of Agriculture, the payments in respect of fertiliser subsidies were much down because of the fall in freight charges and of the reduction in the profit allowed to fertiliser manufacturers. The grants to County Committees of Agriculture were down also as were various loans and grants for agricultural purposes No doubt the Accounting Officers of these various Votes will deal with the matter in more detail. These are the general causes contributing to the very heavy savings—7.7 per cent. of the total Estimates as compared with 5.3 per cent in the year before and 6 per cent. in 1945-46. Of course, these savings are welcome to the Department of Finance, but as the Chairman has indicated, it is very desirable that the people should not be taxed beyond their capacity in order to provide money which is not required for Exchequer purposes. Chairman.—Is there any point which any member wishes to raise? I think, as Mr. McElligott has said, we need not go into the details of these savings as they will arise on the various Votes. I suppose we should note that the Excess Vote was duly dealt with by this Committee, reported to the House and passed by the House. VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.39. Chairman.—As to subhead A, I notice that it mentions that the savings are due to a vacancy?—Yes, a vacancy for a higher executive officer in the President’s office remained unfilled for part of the year and that was the reason for the saving. The staff of the President’s office is not very large. It consists of seven people, including the Secretary, a higher executive officer, a clerical officer, two shorthand typists, a telephonist and a temporary messenger. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Has that vacancy been filled since?—It has been filled since. VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.40. Chairman.—There is just one point on subhead E. In the Estimate I notice that the Chief Translator’s annual increment is either £15 or £20 but, as shown, there was only an increment of £5?—That may be because his incremental date came late in the year. 41. Deputy O’Sullivan.—In connection with the officers of the House, is it a fact that you have officers with rather different rates and scales of pay doing the same type of work?—I was not aware of that. There are quite a number of different ranks of officers employed in the House—the Clerk, the Assistant Clerk, a number of senior and junior clerks, a minor staff officer, and a librarian. 42.—I was referring rather to the ushers or attendants class. Are they officers of the House?—Yes. There are different ranks here also. There are ushers, paper-keepers, attendants and messengers. I raised about three years ago in the House the question of the various rates of pay as between officers doing the same type of work. Is the position still the same?—If you look at page 7 of the Volume of Estimates for 1947-48, you will see the salaries of the ushers, paper-keepers, attendants, cloakroom attendants set out in great detail and the variation, I suggest, is due to the difference in the responsibilities attaching to the various posts. Chairman.—It might also be that they are under-graded. The ushers start at £100 and the annual increment is £5 up to £150. 43. Deputy O’Sullivan.—It might be due to the fact that when particular posts became vacant those who filled the positions were graded downward?—I have no information on that point. There has been very little downward grading. 44. Deputy Pattison—Who would be responsible for dealing with a vacancy?— The Clerk and the Ceann Comhairle between them would settle about who would fill the vacancies and promotion to the different posts, certainly with regard to the ushers, attendants, paper-keepers and so on. Chairman.—I think we are straying into policy. Deputy Pattison.—I agree with Deputy O’Sullivan that this matter is becoming more grave year after year. Chairman.—It is a matter for the Dáil. Deputy Pattison.—I am aware that there has been a certain amount of questioning about it. For a number of years past, since vacancies for ushers first arose, they do not seem to have been ever filled so far as the £ s. d. is concerned. I think that is the point Deputy O’Sullivan is raising. 45. Deputy Briscoe.—As I understand it, the practice is that, since the establishment of the Dáil, so far as officers of the House are concerned the matter primarily lies with the Clerk and Ceann Comhairle, subject to sanction from Finance. Finance sanctions the grading and so forth At one time we may have ten ushers. By reason of death or retirement a vacancy may occur, but, in the opinion of the Clerk, the nine left may be considered adequate to carry out the work required. Consequently, it might appear that one of the messengers was doing the work of an usher It is entirely a matter, I think, within the control of the Clerk and the Ceann Comhairle, and Finance only comes into the question of sanctioning and satisfying themselves as to the grading and pay. Chairman.—I am afraid we are straying into a matter which should be raised in the Dáil. Mr. McElligott.—I think Deputy Briscoe has correctly outlined the procedure. Finance comes into it when it is a question of the number of posts and the salaries attaching to the posts. The filling of these posts is a matter for the Clerk of the Dáil together with the Ceann Comhairle. 46. Deputy O’Sullivan.—As to subhead K—Contribution in respect of catering expenses—what has happened with regard to the grant for £500? Chairman.—There was no expenditure, presumably because there was a profit on the restaurant. Mr. McElligott.—It was surrendered as part of the balance. Deputy O’Sullivan.—A lot of Deputies do not understand exactly the mysterious workings of this restaurant. What is the machinery as between the contractors and the Dáil? 47. Chairman.—There is a Restaurant Committee presided over by the Ceann Comhairle. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Does it ever meet? Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—We meet quite often. Deputy Pattison.—Its meetings seem to me to be very outstanding examples of futility. Chairman.—If they think it necessary, Deputies could raise this matter in the House. 48. Deputy Briscoe.—I understand the position is that the caterers charge a certain price and that, because of the difficulty in anticipating in advance sittings of the House or whether the House is going to adjourn earlier than expected, there is a certain risk involved for them as they might have staff to pay and no work to do. There was a time when the restaurant made losses as a result of decisions of the Dáil as to whether they would sit or would not sit. Consequently, there was this agreed figure for a subsidy, which has been changed from time to time, to meet losses. The Department of Finance examines the figures as to the transactions of the restaurant and, if there is a profit, there is nothing paid. If there is a loss, it is made up to the limit of the loss. Is that correct? Mr. McElligott.—Yes. We make a payment to the caterer if there is a loss on the year’s working, but we only make such a payment on the recommendation of the Ceann Comhairle and he only makes the recommendation after he has gone into the accounts and satisfied himself that a genuine loss has been incurred. He is provided by the caterers with certain accounts and, if he has any doubt about them, he refers the matter to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for examination. Once we get the certificate from the Ceann Comhairle, we have no option but to pay whatever sum is due. 49. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Is there any ceiling? Yes, there is a ceiling of £500. There was no payment in the year under discussion, the year 1947-48, nor has there been any payment in the year 1948-49. We expect to have to make a payment in the current year. VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.50. Deputy Briscoe.—As to subhead E, I notice that there is an allowance to the Taoiseach for the use of a motor car. The allowance is £350, but in this year it was not all spent?—The grant stopped on 19th February. The present Taoiseach is provided with a car by the State the same as the other Ministers and, therefore, he does not get any allowance. That is the maximum allowance. If it had covered 12 months, there would be no surrender?—Yes, no surrender. VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.51. Chairman.—As to subhead A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I want to raise a point which crops up on subhead A but which is more or less general. There is a surplus to be surrendered, but, if you look at the notes, you will find that the net result of the borrowing and lending of staff was that this Department borrowed staff whose salaries amounted to about £8,000. It will be obvious that if they had not borrowed so many they would have had an excess Vote. I am not suggesting that the Department of Finance set out on this as a deliberate policy to avoid an excess Vote, but I think the Committee should note in passing that such a thing did arise. It also arises on the President’s establishment in a minor way. I thought it better to raise the matter on this Vote for which Mr. McElligott is directly concerned?— The reason for the large number of people lent temporarily to the Department without repayment was the extreme pressure in connection with foreign exchange work. The practice in regard to loaned staff is that, where an officer is on loan from one Department or office to another and it is understood in advance that the loan is for a period not exceeding six months, the parent Department or office bears the cost of the officer’s substantive salary. Any balance of remuneration arising from the officers lent is borne by the borrowing Department. In every other case the officer’s total remuneration is met by the borrowing Department. That is the manner in which provision is made in the Estimate. In this particular case the accounts of other Departments against that £9,368 were in respect of staff temporarily lent. The Department of Finance had staff valued at £1,096 on loan to other Departments without repayment. Of course, we regard the Civil Service as a unit. We move officers from one Department to another according as pressure demands, or according as the requirements of the service compel us. It is useful, I think, for officers to have experience of different Departments. It makes for economy in staff instead of giving a Department an increase in its establishment. If we are satisfied that the pressure is only temporary, we get them to borrow staff from other Departments, and we follow the same example ourselves. Chairman.—I am sure the Committee will agree with Mr. McElligott that it is a very essential and useful practice. In this case who is going to watch the watchers? I simply draw the attention of the Committee to it, but I am not suggesting that there was any ulterior motive. I think, in passing, it is no harm to note that there could have been a possible excess Vote?—There is that temptation. I agree that if a Department is afraid of an excess Vote and wants to get more staff, it could avoid the excess by borrowing on a large scale from some other Department. There is always that temptation, but, of course, we resist it strenuously. 52. I see, on subhead B, that travelling expenses were three times the amount of the grant. If we refer back to the previous year we find that the grant was £100. What was the reason for the great increase?—There was a great number of meetings in London at which Ministers were present and a number of other meetings in which officials participated. These had not been expected at the time the Estimate was prepared. These Estimates, as the Chairman is aware, are prepared well in advance of the financial year to which they relate, usually the end of the preceding calendar year. These Ministerial and official discussions in London did not start until November, 1947, and they were followed by a number of other Conferences, also held in London. That accounts for the heavy excess on the subhead. In previous years. in fact, there had been substantial savings on the subhead. That contingency could not have been foreseen. It followed the suspension of convertibility in August, 1947. That was the dollar crisis, and that had to be attended to on the spot in London. There has been, I suppose, a resumption of the normal international activities that were suspended during the emergency?—That is so. That was partly responsible. 53. As regards the Appropriations in Aid, I notice there was a very big drop in the receipts—in the second item?— The amounts that were invested during the year on behalf of various funds in the Department were very much less than we expected, and there was a drop in the commissions earned. You would not like to say what was the cause of that?—It was largely reduced deposits in the Post Office Trustee Savings Bank. VOTE 8—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.54. Chairman.—Was the drop in the extra receipts payable to the Exchequer by Bord na Móna due to some cessation of work on peat analysis?—The work on peat analysis did not stop. In fact, it is still going on. I think Bord na Móna now make their own arrangements in connection with it, and this officer was not required for as long a period as had been anticipated. Deputy Briscoe.—In the Estimate itself, I notice that in 1946-47 there was an addition of £5,044 by way of bonus. In the year under review that falls away, but there is an item “additions in respect of consolidation.” amounting to £5,832. I take it that this is a consolidation of salaries and wages?—Of salary and bonus. The bonus item disappears. I see that in the next Estimate the wages and salaries appear as they actually are?—Yes VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.55. Chairman.—Does the increase in the Appropriations in Aid represent receipts from the various local authorities? —Receipts from county and county borough councils in respect of work done by the Local Appointments Commission. I notice that the savings on subheads A (2), B, C and D are due mainly “to the number of requests from local authorities for recommendations for appointment being less than anticipated”?— The receipts refer to the previous year. The accounts are furnished a year in arrear to the local authority. VOTE 14—IRISH TOURIST BOARD.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.56. Deputy Briscoe.—As regards this Vote, I take it we have no authority here to inquire into anything at all any more than the Department has. Chairman.—As a matter of fact the accounts of the Board are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Deputy Briscoe.—There is a note in the Estimate which says that the expenditure on this Vote will not be accounted for in detail to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, nor will any unexpended balance of the sums issued be surrendered at the end of the financial year. 57. Chairman.—We have here copies of the annual report of the Board for the year under review, if any member of the Committee would like to see them?— They are presented to each House of the Oireachtas. They are examined by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. There is a note attached by the present Comptroller and Auditor-General to the latest accounts which I have which are dated July, 1948. He has satisfied himself on all points in connection with them. The Department of Industry and Commerce makes recommendations only when it is satisfied with the way the Board is doing its business. The general arrangements with regard to savings on the various items, and the way in which the Grant-in-Aid is likely to be spent, are usually settled by discussion between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Finance, so that we have a fairly good idea of what is going on. Chairman.—I presume that our terms of reference in this matter are limited in so far as this Committee is concerned? Deputy Briscoe.—Then this Account is not being put to the Committee? Chairman.—No. Copies of the Report are available in case any one would wish to query it. VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.58. Chairman.—We will take these in groups. The first is the Irish Manuscripts Commission; the second the Commission on Irish in the Civil Service; and then we have the Commission on Youth Unemployment. Is this Commission getting any nearer to reaching a result?—I made some inquiries from the Commission prior to the sitting of this Committee. I was informed that there was no definite information available, that the Commission had completed its inquiries and that the Report was in process of being drafted. Deputy Briscoe.—Under subhead E. Commissions and Special Inquiries not specifically provided for, there appears the Inquiry into the proposed sale of Locke’s Distillery. Should that not be tribunal expenses? Is the tribunal described here as a commission of inquiry?—It was an Inquiry that had not been provided for and, therefore, the expenses of it naturally fall under this subhead. I am afraid I do not quite get the point. 59. This is just part of the cost to the State of that Tribunal. It does not include the legal expenses incurred by the Government?—It would not include any legal expenses of the State in respect of serving personnel. Where would they appear?—They would appear under the Law Charges Vote. 60. What exactly is involved here?— This would cover outside counsel, reporters, typing personnel and so on. Is any other Government Department involved or would the legal expenses be fully covered under the Law Charges Vote?—No other Department is involved so far as I know. VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCESMr. J. J. McElligott further examined.61. Chairman.—There is a note, number 18, by the Comptroller and Auditor-General in respect of this Vote as follows:— “In paragraph 15 of my report on the accounts for the year 1945-46 I stated that a number of ex-civil servants, who were in receipt of compensation allowances under Article 10 of the Treaty of 6th December, 1921, were re-employed in situations in Public Departments in circumstances which would have required the abatement of their compensation allowances but for the fact that prior to the commencement of their re-employment the operation of the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929, had been suspended by Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order, 1940 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 176 of 1940). This Order has been revoked by Emergency Powers (No. 30) Order, 1940 (Revocation) Order, 1947 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 414 of 1947) and the Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Act, 1929, is, accordingly, again operative. The cases of the ex-civil servants in question have been reexamined in the light of the provisions of section 16 of the Act and abatement of the compensation allowances has been effected where warranted. The compensation allowances payable to a number of ex-members of the Dublin Metropolitan Police who retired under Article 10 of the Treaty of 6th December, 1921, and who were subsequently re-employed in situations as defined by Article 17 (1) of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Pensions Order, 1922, were suspended or abated for various periods between 1924 and 1945. The Attorney-General advised that the suspension or abatement of these allowances could not be supported, and accordingly sums amounting to £2,897 2s. 2d. have been repaid to the ex-members concerned in the financial years 1946-47 and 1947-48.” Mr. Wann.—With regard to the first sub-paragraph, it is stated that the suspension of the operation of the 1929 Act was revoked from 30th December, 1947, and, as from that date, the abatement of pensions recommenced. With regard to the second sub-paragraph the number of ex-members of the Forces concerned was 6 and the amount was £2,897 2s. 2d. as indicated in the second-last line of that paragraph. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Over what period? —The period of payment was 1924 to 1945. Quite a considerable sum was due to each of them. Are they still in the service?—No. They were re-employed in other Police Forces. I understand there may be two or three cases still to come. 62. Chairman.—If I remember correctly we had a reference to this last year. This is a case where we find ourselves up against the difficulty that our predecessors have not so far reported. If there are no further questions we will turn to the Vote itself which is at page 68. Subhead D is a sort of control account at the end. Is that correct?— That is correct. There are Appropriations in Aid equivalent roughly to the amount under that subhead. The Appropriations in Aid subhead realises about £22,015 as compared with an expenditure of £23,020, but there was 100 per cent. correspondence between the two over a period because this liability falls entirely on the British Government. It covers additional payments payable by way of compensation under Article X of the Treaty by virtue of the specially valuable terms granted to officers in respect of compensation under Article X as a result of certain litigation in the Courts. The payments were made in the first instance by the Department of Finance and they are recouped in full by the British Government. All the payments are shown under subhead M—the Appropriations in Aid. If there are no further questions on that subhead we will pass on to the next Vote. VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.63. Deputy Briscoe.—Do these rates on Government property vary as rates generally rise? Are there any discussions between the Departments concerned and the local authorities or do they remain fixed ad infinitum?—They rise in accordance with the ordinary increases in the rates. This particular Vote has risen very substantially in recent years. In 1947-48, the amount voted was £190,900, as can be seen from the account. In 1948-49, it rose to £211,500; and in 1949-50, the current year, it is £225,900. As recently as 1940-41, the expenditure was only £129,000. 64. Would that increase be due to increases in the rates or would it be due to the acquisition of additional properties?— It is partly due to the acquisition of properties but, since the end of the emergency, there has been de-requisition of quite a number of properties; yet, the Vote has risen. 65. In the ordinary way the public have to pay whatever rate has been fixed. As between the State and local authorities, are the rates fixed on the basis of agreement or would they take the same percentage increases?—The effect of the arrangement, which is reached by the Valuation Office and the local authorities and the State Departments concerned, is that the State property pays in effect the same amount of rates as it would if it were in the hands of a private individual or a business concern. In other words, the State gets no abatement of rates because of its privileged position. 66. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Is that quite correct? I always understood on the Dublin Corporation that the basis was usually 9/10ths of the contribution where the State was concerned?—I understand that we, in effect, pay the equivalent of what would be paid if the property were in the hands of a private individual or an ordinary ratepayer. Chairman.—Certain properties are, of course, subject to legislation where a contribution in lieu operates?—Property occupied by the State is legally immune from rates but the equivalent is paid to the local authority on an ex gratia basis. Deputy Briscoe.—In recent years the State has acquired a considerable number of properties and premises. My colleague, Deputy O’Sullivan, who was at one time Lord Mayor, and I were under the impression and still are under the impression that the State only pays 9/10ths of the actual rates due. Will you look into this matter and let us have some information on it?—I certainly shall see whether there is any divergence between what we pay and what would be paid if the property were in the hands of the ordinary occupier.* VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.67. Chairman.—There was a very handsome surplus in connection with this Vote?—Yes; there is a smaller surplus in the following year, 1948-49. The surplus was £10,639. We have a surplus of £12,043 in the 1947-48 year and in the current year the total Vote is only £5,000. 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.68. Deputy Briscoe.—Under subhead CC—Contribution towards cost of structural alterations in Abbey Theatre, Dublin—there is a token Estimate of £5? —That is all—a token figure. 69. Deputy Coburn.—As regards subhead D—Cultural Institutions (Grants-in-Aid)—I would like to know what that covers?—It covers the Royal Zoological Society, the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Irish Academy of Music. The Royal Irish Academy gets the lion’s share, a grant of £9,200 out of £10,500; the Zoo gets £1,000 and the Royal Irish Academy of Music, £300. Deputy Briscoe.—I take it all these cultural institutions are perfectly satisfied with the amounts they get-they do not make any requests for increases? Deputy Coburn.—It would be rather unusual if they did not. Mr. McElligott.—As a rule, they are satisfied. Deputy Briscoe.—It is of interest to us in Dublin. The Zoological Gardens render a very great service, particularly to the young people?—Those Societies are not sufficiently prosperous to justify any reduction in the grants. The Royal Irish Academy has very little income beyond what it gets from the State and the subscriptions of its members. The Government grant is about three-quarters of its total income. Chairman.—The full amount was granted to the Royal Irish Academy of Music. I notice they do not get it all unless private subscriptions go over £100. Has that condition been fulfilled?—The second half of the grant is paid only on condition that private subscriptions for the Academy amount to not less than £100 in the last year for which the accounts are available; only half the grant was paid in the years 1940-41 to 1942-43. The condition was not fulfilled in these years but in the last six years the grant has been paid in full. VOTE 24—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 25—LAW CHARGES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.70. Deputy O’Sullivan.—What is involved in subhead E—Defence of Public Officials? I should like to know as a matter of information?—This subhead is intended to meet expenses in actions taken against District Justices, members of the Garda Síochána and other public officials for acts done by them in the execution of their duty. The great majority of such actions are taken against members of the Civic Guards, who are in closer contact with the general public than other officials. Formerly, these expenses were paid only when the defendants were acquitted of the charges brought against them and then only if the cases appeared to be deserving of consideration. In 1929 the matter was reviewed and it was decided that, should it be established that the acts which were brought into question were done by the officers concerned in the bona fide discharge of their duties, the State would undertake payment of the expenses incurred. 71. Deputy Briscoe.—Could you tell us what amount of law charges were involved in the inquiry to which we referred, the Locke Distillery Inquiry?—They would be scattered through subheads A (1) and A (2), and possibly also Fees to Counsel on Vote 15, subhead E. If the Committee are anxious to have more information about it, I can look it up. Deputy Briscoe.—I would be pleased if that information were given to the Committee. I note that you say “the possibility of fees to counsel.” Surely it is not suggested they acted without fees? I would like you to let us have the actual law charges involved?—Yes, certainly.* 72. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—I notice in subhead E that there was a grant of £500 and the expenditure was £451 9s. How are those figures arrived at? Was the grant given after the expenses were incurred? I am new to the working of this Committee and I should like to have some information along those lines. Chairman.—The grants represent the amount granted by the Dáil by way of Estimate. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Then the Estimate was fairly accurate according to that. The grant was for £500 and the expenditure was £451. It comes remarkably close to what was granted. Are we always so wise as that, or how was the amount arrived at? We will pass that over to-day and merely say that we granted £500 and we have still £50 left, and that is good. What was the amount spent on? Are any actual details ever given? Chairman.—Any time a member of the Committee is in doubt as to how moneys are spent, it is usual for that information to be disclosed to him. 73. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Some of us are—I am, for instance—completely new to this thing. It struck me that the amount we succeeded in expending came remarkably close to the grant. Chairman.—We have 100 years of tradition of Public Accounts Committees behind us. Various loopholes are closed from time to time until there are very few left. I suggest that when he acts for a short time as a member of this Committee the Deputy will come to understand how it all happens. Deputy Briscoe.—It is the Deputy’s first attendance here and it is only fair to him that he should get some idea how the business is conducted. The practice is that the head officer of each Department, through the Minister, estimates for the Dáil the amount required for the Department under all the subheads. In this Committee, we can question if they overestimate or underspend. It is the desire of the Committee always that the Estimate should be as near as possible. Earlier to-day it was pointed out in the particular year under review that we have reached a record of 7.7 per cent. of a total of savings on the amount generally estimated over all the Estimates. I think it is only fair to suggest that perhaps a few of us will have a private talk with Deputy Fitzpatrick and give him assistance from the little knowledge we have. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—I am simply raising this matter. It is something I have no interest in at all, but in case something did come up in which I might have an interest, I would like to know how much information I could get. I am not raising this point in a contentious way, but I should like to know that if I wanted to find out how the £451 was spent, I could get the information. Deputy Briscoe.—Yes, every item will be forthcoming. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—That is satisfactory enough. Deputy Briscoe.—We have a right to examine into every item. Chairman.—In practice, Mr. Wann does that for us. Mr. McElligott.—The account is certified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Chairman.—He sees to it that anything paid was properly paid and he makes notes about certain items. We will all be delighted to have a talk with Deputy Fitzpatrick about the whole business. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Apparently the point that appealed to Deputy Fitzpatrick was the close estimating. That again is due to experience over the years. Chairman.—If they needed a little more, they would apply to the Department of Finance for permission to exceed the Estimate and there are narrow limits within which that permission will be given. Deputy Briscoe.—And if it is not given the matter will come before the Dáil in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. You can take it the Comptroller and Auditor-General examines every detail and, if he is not satisfied, he will make a note of it for us. Sometimes we hear that certain matters are not ready for discussion—that the Comptroller and Auditor-General himself has not accepted the explanation of the Departmental officer and has sent back the papers for further particulars and we deal with them in the further issue. 74. Chairman.—A receipt or voucher must be produced. I notice that under the Appropriations in Aid, in the case of costs and fees recovered by the Chief State Solicitor, the sum realised was in excess of the Estimate whereas, I take it, under the relevant subheads there were savings, subheads B, D and E?—It is a question of the time lag between the recovery of the costs and fees and the conclusions of the cases to which they relate. Deputy Briscoe.—It is not a question of fees having gone up?—I am afraid not. When Mr. McElligott said: “I am afraid not” I think he should have said that he hopes not. I meant the fees charged by solicitors or barristers. What about them?—I thought the Deputy was referring to the costs to the State. No. I meant when the State has to pay the fees. What is the position then?— They have not expanded. 75. Chairman.—On Item 2, Appropriations in Aid, expenses of management of Local Loans Fund, I think I am correct in saying that this particular Department is the only one where the estimated figure was not reached. Are these expenses not distributed in some definite proportion over the Departments concerned?—It is a casual variation. The expenses of management of the Local Loans Fund, borne on this Vote, are legal expenses. They are incurred by the Finance Solicitor’s Office. The work done by that office consists largely of drawing up agreements in respect of various local loans advanced to local authorities, and the amount of their expenditure depends on the number of such loans that they put through during the year. It is very difficult to put through an advance estimate of what they will exactly be called upon to perform and, accordingly, how much their expenses will be. I only raised the point because I noticed that, in the other Departments where this item crops up, the estimates and the receipts were the same figure. Is that not so?—It is more a casual variation than anything else. It is more difficult to estimate the exact receipt in the case of the Finance Solicitor’s Office than in the case of the other offices. VOTE 26—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.76. Chairman.—I notice that there is a considerable saving under subhead B—in fact, more than the Supplementary Vote. Is it because it was not possible to carry out all that it was hoped to carry out under that subhead?—The saving arose owing to the postponement of certain building items——one of £12,000 in the case of University College, Dublin, which had been voted in the Estimate for the year for the adaptation of premises, and the other an item of £5,000 which had been voted during the year to University College, Galway, for the repair of college buildings. These two items were postponed and, in regard to the remainder of the subhead, the balance of the saving is due to the fact that certain equipment was not available. That was for the Faculty of Science in U.C.D.?—Yes. 77. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—In regard to subhead E—Trinity College Dublin (Grants-in-Aid)—I, not being a Fellow of Trinity College, should like to know something about this matter. Chairman.—These are Grants-in-Aid. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—I want to know the reason for the amount. Chairman.—That is a matter that would have to be raised in the Dáil. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Why can we not discuss it here? We have time. Chairman.—The point is that the business of this Committee is to see that money was spent as the Dáil decided it should be spent. We are not concerned with why it was spent, or anything else. Policy does not enter into our purview at all. 78. Deputy Briscoe.—Out of the total expenditure of £300,000, the net expenditure of the year, it would appear that University College, Dublin, received approximately £150,000 under the various grants; University College, Cork, about £68,000 and University College, Galway, about £52,000. Is that correct?—Yes, Dublin gets the major share of the grants. The Dublin figure was swollen by the item of £12,000 that I mentioned—a building grant. If you take the current year, 1949-50, of the annual grants Dublin gets £165,000; Cork gets £80,000; Galway gets £53,000; the National University itself gets £15,000; Trinity College gets £40,250 and the Royal College of Surgeons gets £1,500. In addition then, there are nonrecurrent grants for Dublin of £31,300; Cork, £1,700 and Galway £1,500. If you add the recurrent and non-recurrent grants for the different colleges you get a total of £196,300 for Dublin; £81,700 for Cork and £54,500 for Galway. Dublin is much the most important of the three Colleges and has by far the largest number of students and, of course, complete faculties in all lines, and it carries the major burden of university work in the country. 79. Deputy Gilbride.—What was the reason for the postponement of the building in Galway?—I think they were awaiting an architect’s report. I think their first investigation into the matter disclosed more extensive damage than they had suspected and they had to undertake a more ambitious scheme which proved to be much more costly than they had expected it would be at the outset. 80. Deputy Briscoe.—In the event of these Universities getting—they may already be getting it-a Grant-in-Aid or payments for other services such as blood transfusion, that would come under another Vote, or would it?—That would come under the Department of Health. But would you not include in this, then, even a kind of explanatory note on other incomes derived for other reasons from different sources?—If the Committee wish, I shall make a note of them. There is a new development now whereby the Universities are being invited to give some additional services to public-health, one of which is blood transfusion. I understand they were to get certain grants. I do not know whether it is on a piece-work basis or on the basis of so many pints of blood. Would Mr. McElligott consider putting in an explanatory note if these additional payments become substantial? Chairman.—The Deputy will find in the Estimate other expenses under this Vote. There is the Estimate and then charges borne on another Estimate. Vote 29, Agriculture £56,976; Church Temporalities Fund, (Annual Grant to National University of Ireland) £10,000. Deputy Briscoe.—Where is this? Chairman.—On the Estimate. Mr. McElligott.—The allied services. 81. Deputy Briscoe.—But it does not include Health, Mr. McElligott? There was nothing in the year under account— 1947-48. It will, when it arises?—When it arises, if it is specifically set out in the Vote. However, payments may be so small that they would not, say, be set out specifically in the Vote for the Department of Health. At any rate, the suggestion is one that I shall bear in mind— that some reference should be included in the Vote itself, apart from the Appropriation Accounts. VOTE 69—DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (NEUTRALITY) COMPENSATION.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.82. Chairman.—On subhead B, is this appropriation tending to decrease?—It is. In 1947-48 the grant was £14,500. In 1948-49 it was £11,050. In the current year it is £9,500. Deputy Briscoe.—On this point. The original intention was to recover as much as possible from the contestants in the war. It has now fallen almost entirely on the State itself—that is, moneys not recovered. Is that not so?—The total amount we claimed from foreign Governments came to £502,000. The total amount we recovered was £22,000. We recovered the full amount of claims presented to date from the British Government and the American Government, but we recovered only £12,500 from the German Government in respect of property losses and personal injuries claims totalling about £492,000. 83. And that £12,500 could be broken up again. A certain amount of that could be recovered from Irish nationals who had repayments to make to German creditors? —In the period to the 31st March, 1948, we recovered in all in respect of debts due by Irish nationals to German nationals £104,880, in 1948-49 £1,158. The total was £106,038 of which we had to surrender £36,556 to the Department of Defence in connection with German internees and we paid into the Exchequer the £12,500 I have already referred to. In 1948-49 we paid £54,500 to the Exchequer and there is still a small balance on the German debts collected amounting to £2,430. That will account for the total of £106,038 that we collected from debts due from Irish nationals to Germany. Claims against the German Government amount to £492,000 and there is no prospect of recovering the outstanding balance. 84. Have we no legal position with regard to general war claims even in regard to those bodies that were set up to examine these claims? Do you think that at a future date a future German Government might consider them or are we going to intimate that we are abandoning them entirely?—The Allied Governments took over all the assets of the German State after the termination of the war and we were not in a position to lodge any claims. There were no assets against which we could press claims except these assets, debts due by Irish nationals to German citizens and we collected all these that we could. VOTE 70—PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) COMPENSATION.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.85. Deputy Briscoe.—That claim arises from the same circumstances except that it concerns individuals rather than property. Could you tell us how we stand with regard to it?—The figures I have given related only to property. These figures relate to personal injuries claims against the German Government. They amounted to £5,000 in respect of Campile losses; £101,000 in respect of the North Strand; £8,000 in respect of Ashtown Park and the South Circular Road and £5,500 in respect of the Borris, Carlow, incident. The total amount of damages for property and personal injuries to civilians was £590,000 so in round figures the personal injuries claim amounted to £90,000. We did not recover anything specifically in respect of personal injuries from the German Government. We had claims against the British Government in respect of various incidents: Tuskar Rock, Wexford, £1,681 in respect of which £1,450 was for personal injuries: in the case of Ballycotton, Cork, where a ship struck a mine, £754 was recovered, of which £44 was in respect of personal injuries; in respect of another incident in County Cork £950 was recovered for personal injuries; in the case where an attack was made on the motor vessel “Kerlogue” in 1943, £2,150 was granted in respect of personal injuries without admission of liability. I take it that as far as our nationals are concerned both property and personal injuries claims have been made good by the State?—We have met all of the claims. No individual, therefore, has suffered as a result of the situation at the close of the war?—The amount we recovered was paid to our nationals. It was a comparatively cheap price for neutrality. VOTE 72—ALLEVIATION OF DISTRESS.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.86. Chairman.—There is a note, number 89, on this Vote:— “The original estimate for this service provided £1,500,000 for the alleviation of distress in Europe due to war, and indicated that this sum was required for the provision of supplies of foodstuffs, livestock and other commodities and for expenses incidental to their purchase and shipment. A Supplementary Estimate taken later in the year provided for the payment of grants to international and other organisations in respect of relief activities. The expenditure incurred on the purchase of relief supplies of foodstuffs and other commodities, including freight and other miscellaneous charges, totalled £173,424 10s. 5d. Of this amount the Department of Industry and Commerce expended £90,047 18s. 7d. on canned meat and surplus Army and Airraid Precautions stores, the Department of Agriculture £83,332 7s. 10d., mainly on beef and hides, and other Departments £44 4s. 0d. on incidental expenses. The greater part of the expenditure related to supplies sent to Czechoslovakia, Italy, and the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Bremen. Payments amounting to £45,802 18s. 5d. were made to or on behalf of the Joint Relief Commission of the International Red Cross and its successor, the International Centre for the Relief of Civilian Populations, for transport charges and other expenses incurred by them on the distribution of supplies. A sum of £3,312 19s. 1d. was also paid to the Irish Red Cross Society in recoupment of expenditure on the purchase and shipment of supplies. The remainder of the expenditure charged to the Vote, £9,750, represents a contribution to the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees. In paragraph 95 of my last report I referred to expenditure of £35,104 15s. 2d. on the purchase of a quantity of bacon which was subsequently sold on the home market. A net sum of £31,834 15s. 11d. was realised on the sale of the bacon and is brought to account as an Exchequer extra receipt.” Mr. Wann.—Supplies were sent to Czechoslovakia, Italy and the National Catholic Walfare Conference, Bremen. To Czechoslovakia. £83,000 worth was sent; to Italy, £49,000 worth and to the National Catholic Welfare Conference, £26,000 worth. The expense of distribution was over £45,000. 87. Deputy Briscoe.—What is the explanation of the difference between the amount paid for bacon, a difference of approximately £3,300? Mr. Wann.—Some time after the bacon was purchased it was sold and the price of bacon had altered in the meantime. Mr. McElligott.—The bacon was getting a bit high. 88. Chairman.—The only point that struck me with regard to the Vote itself was that there was a Supplementary Estimate. Would it be true to say that at the time of the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of widening the ambit of the Vote it could not have been foreseen that difficulties would arise and that a large sum would not be expended?—The primary purpose, as you said, was widening the ambit of the Vote. At the time we were almost completely in the dark as to the extent the Vote would be drawn on, and we had no idea that the saving would be so substantial as it turned out to be. But we re-voted a considerable amount of that saving in the following year. In 1948-49 it was £575,010 and the expenditure was £317,202. That was the end of the Vote and there was no Vote for the alleviation of distress in the current year. The saving, of course, did not mean that substantial sums were not spent throughout the period of the Vote which started in 1945-46 and lasted for four years until 1948-49, inclusive. In that period we spent £3,704,000 on various countries, Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Austria and Palestine. VOTE 75—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
