Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1949 > Committee of Public Accounts > Interim and Final Report - Appropriation Accounts 1947 - 1948

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 24ú Samhain, 1949.

Thursday, 24th November, 1949.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. P. Kelly and Mr. M. Breathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais), called and examined.

VOTE 40—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.

167. Chairman.—What does the Appropriation in Aid cousist of?—It consist of a very old fund amounting approximately to £1,000 handed down from the Protestant Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin in the year 1816. The fund was transferred to the old Board of Commissioners to be employed for the recovery of embezzled charities. Subsequently the income was transferred to the Department of Finance as an extra receipt and for some years past it has been treated as an Appropriation in Aid. The annual income from the fund is about £47 18s.

168. Deputy Sheldon.—How did they manage to invest £1,000 to produce £47 18s. at present?—It is slightly over £1,000; I think it is £1,030.

Even so, it would be interesting to most people to know how it is produced? —That is approximately the interest accruing from it. At the moment I think it is invested in National Loan.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 10—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS (Resumed).

Mr. J. Connolly recalled and examined.

169. Chairman.—Deputy Sheldon would like to ask a question regarding the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note, No. 14, with regard to the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park.

Deputy Sheldon.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note says with regard to tillage on the farm that the amount credited in respect of sales is £195 8s. 3d., whereas the estate account gives these sales of farm produce at £223 4s. 3d. I should say that the details given in the estate account conform with the Accounting Officer’s note in the Appropriation Account but they do not conform with the figure given here?

Mr. Connolly.—The explanation of that is that £27 16s. 0d. was received after the 31st of March, 1947, and was included in the figure you quote of £223 4s. 3d.

In that case, the estate account, which is for the year ended 31st March, is not strictly accurate if this receipt was brought in subsequently?—The figure of £195 8s. 3d. is the actual book-keeping figure on the 31st March. That is true.

Mr. Wann.—Apparently the extra amount which came in was not transferred to the head office until the new year.

170. Deputy Sheldon.—There is a slight difference in the amount of the produce credited as being retained for feeding and seeding purposes. There is only a difference of £2. I suppose the explanation is the same?—The explanation is in the amount carried forward.

171. Chairman.—As to subhead A, there is a note on page 26 which says: “Certain properties were purchased for which no provision was included in the Estimate.” These are not necessarily of an emergency character?—No, they are not. Some of them are permanent purchases.

There is a list of them given. Take the case of “Commissions and Special Inquiries, 21 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin”?— We make the Estimate on what we know when we are preparing the Estimates. Some Department may find that they have an opportunity of purchasing a house or we may get directions to purchase a certain property and we have to do it.

172. Deputy Sheldon.—You did bring in a Supplementary Estimate to cover it?—Yes.

Chairman. —Does the Supplementary Estimate mention the particular cases? There was a Supplementary Estimate for £40,000?—The procedure in regard to a Supplementary Estimate is that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister goes into the Dáil for it, he has to explain what he is doing and why he wants the money. It is up to any Deputy to inquire why.

173. We have further notes at the top of page 27?—They set out the details of how the amount was spent. You will notice that there are two substantial items—one for Coláiste Moibhí, Shanganagh Castle, County Dublin, £9,000. That was the total expenditure that year, but of course considerably more had to be paid in the following year. Ardmore, Stillorgan Road, County Dublin, was bought for £24,675.

174. As to the Borstal Institution, Ballyfermot, County Dublin, is that going ahead?—No, it is held up.

175. Deputy Sheldon.—As to subhead B.. the expenditure was £160,068 less than granted. Was it not possible at the time of the Supplementary Estimate to bring subheads B. and C. into closer relation and not have the big excess of £64,465 on subhead C?—Of course, when bringing it a Supplementary Estimate you show savings on the other subheads.

Yes, but at the time that Supplementary Estimate was brought in would it not have been possible to have sought permission from the Dáil to spend the extra money on subhead C. and show a greater saving on subhead B., which did happen?—As a rule we do that. We indicate on the general Vote what the situation is in so far as we can estimate.

176. In this year the Supplementary Estimate was brought in to correct subhead A. because extra purchases had cropped up. Would it not have been possible to have indicated to the Dáil that the expenditure under subhead C. was going to be exceeded? You still had room under subhead B. to have allowed extra savings against that, so that you would have been still looking for a Supplementary Vote?—I could not say at the moment. Subhead C. is a very difficult estimate to make. In fact, these three subheads depend on so many factors that it is anybody’s guess at the time of the Estimate, or even up to the period when you would be bringing in the Supplementary Estimate, what would be needed. We are at the mercy of the Departments that demand the services and at the same time, at the mercy of others to decide whether we may give the service or not.

177. On the face of it, it looks as if the system of virement was being strained to the limit when you have an excess of £64,000 on one subhead and a saving of £160,000 on another. I take it that you have very little control over these subheads as the demands of other Departments affect you very much?— Actually, we should know fairly accurately from the other Departments when we are making up the Estimates. We get their advice as to what they propose to do the following year. and we base the Estimate on that. However, so many things crop up that we have no control and the Departments themselves have often no control. A new service is required and the first order we get is to provide accommodation or to do a reconstruction job or some such thing. Under subhead B. you will see that on the Supplementary there was actually a deduction of £39,990. That was to offset the £40,000 under subhead A.

I appreciate that, but I was wondering why the same thing was not done in the other case?—You cannot do it with safety. When you go for a Supplementary Estimate you want to avoid a second one. We have to go to the Dáil this year with a very substantial Estimate for a good deal of money the need for which we could not have foreseen.

178. Chairman.—There is a note on subhead B., in page 27, which says: “A detailed statement of the expenditure is given on pages 32 to 57”?—That really covers how the money is spent for the various Departments.

179. Deputy Sheldon.—As to item No. 2 on page 32—Houses of the Oireachtas: Improvement of Entrance—Could you tell us anything about these two new lamps at the entrance to Leinster House which certainly give very efficient light but are dreadful looking in relation to the building—are they temporary lamps?—I could not say offhand. The lighting on the platform is temporary.

They are very efficient but not pleasing to look at?—The whole lighting scheme is arranged for, but I could not tell you the present position in regard to it. I have not seen Leinster House lighted up since last year.

180. Deputy M. O’Sullivan.—Was the design of the platform the work of your own architects?—Yes.

Who made the final decision? Was there a conference of architects or did the head of the Department decide?—The design was made by our principal architect. It then went to the Commissioners who, in turn, submitted it for approval to the authorities.

181. Deputy Pattison.—Was there any consultation with, for example, the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?—I could not say that.

The reason why I asked the question is that we were consulted this morning about further expenditure on the work that is being done in the front of Leinster House. I have no recollection that we were consulted about this. I do not know if I should call it “the platform outside”. It is the one place where there ought not to be a platform.

182. Chairman.—As it is still the subject of discussion I think we can pass on from it. I see, Mr. Connolly, that under No. 6, accommodation for geological collection and staff restaurant is being made at Iveagh House. This, I take it, is a geological collection belonging to the Department of External Affairs?—What the position eventually will be, when the building at the back of Iveagh House is completed, I do not know

I have asked the question because otherwise it might give rise to a misunderstanding. There is a geological collection in the National Museum for which it has not been found possible up to the present to provide proper accommodation. One might naturally ask why this collection should be provided for if the one which is available to the public, and to the learned world generally, has not been dealt with so far. However, I suppose that is not the business of the Accounting Officer. We can now pass to the Department of Agriculture.

183. Deputy Sheldon.—Would it not be possible, or desirable, that where a very substantial amount of money is voted for a work, and the work is postponed, that something more than just the word “postponed” could be put in? Later on I see some fairly large amounts and the note just says: “postponed”?—I do not think it would be within our power or province to do that. The work is deferred and that is all we know about it until it is raised again.

184. I see that a beginning has been made on the different custom houses at last?—Yes.

185. With regard to the Tully Stud Farm, I see that the total expenditure has exceeded the Estimate. I presume that, in a lot of these cases, the original Estimates were made some considerable time back. What sort of sanction is got for exceeding an Estimate?—We have to get sanction, of course, for any excess expenditure. We bring our Estimate up-to-date when we get sanction even though there is an old Estimate there. It may be five years old. When we go to do the work we try to bring the Estimate as close as possible to what the cost will be. As the Committee will understand, in the case of every contract there is the possibility of extras. For example, you may have trouble with regard to foundations. In the case, say, of a £5,000 contract you will be very fortunate if you get through with extras running into a few hundred pounds.

186. And where an Estimate is altered the new figure is put in in the column that I am dealing with?—Yes.

187. Chairman.—We now come to the Department of Justice and the provision of barracks for the Garda Síochána. I wonder could we be told what is the total number of police stations in the country, and if we could be given, roughly, an idea of the annual wastage. Is the position this that you had a number of old stations since the period of the British régime, that you have been gradually replacing these but that you have not replaced the whole lot?—I think it would be an impossible task for us in the Board of Works to give any idea of the wastage. The position was that most of the Garda stations were rented premises. That policy was pursued for a very long time—to my mind foolishly—and it was only within comparatively modern times that we started to try and get decent stations built throughout the country. That is going to be a slow process.

188. Deputy Pattison.—Would it be in order for me to ask a question in regard to the planning of these Garda stations?

Chairman.—Yes.

Deputy Pattison.—I should like to know what method is adopted with regard to the planning of a Garda station? Take the case of a large town or city. Is the station planned in relation to the population of the police area or with a view to providing accommodation for a certain quota of married and unmarried Guards? —The Department of Justice gives us an indication of how many Guards they propose to house and accommodate and what services they want in the station. In some places they would want a comparatively small barracks. In other places they may require accommodation for a divisional headquarters.

189. Take the case of the new station which has been provided in the City of Kilkenny? A very large building was erected there. I do not remember the exact cost of it, but I know that in that station there are some very fine dormitories, and they are all idle, because I think that, of the whole Force stationed there, there is only one unmarried Guard. The most up-to-date kitchen equipment has been provided in it for cooking purposes, but it is going rusty because there is no one to cook for?—The Deputy will appreciate that I could not answer for what the Department of Justice may do with their stations, once we provide them.

Chairman.—That question could be asked when we come to deal with the Vote for the Department of Justice.

Deputy Pattison.—I have been asked the question by a great many people who will have to foot the bill for the erection of that station?—Kilkenny was a divisional headquarters and that demands a big barracks.

The headquarters is in Waterford City? —Kilkenny was a divisional headquarters.

The Chief Superintendent has his office in Waterford City?

Deputy Dockrell.—I suggest that it would be rather difficult for the Board of Works to control the marriage rate amongst the members of the Garda Síochána?—I am afraid that we would have to wash our hands of that responsibility.

190. Deputy Pattison.—It seems rather strange that a new building should be erected and no use made of it, except the day room and rooms for a few offices?— As I have said, we take our directions from the Department of Justice. They get sanction from the Department of Finance to do certain work. We submit our plans to the Department of Justice to meet their needs. When they pass the plans we put up the building, and if they decide not to use it we cannot say a word to them.

Chairman.—I think that the members of the Committee will be entitled to ask further questions on this when the Accounting Officer for the Department of Justice comes before us.

Deputy Pattison.—Yes, it is a very important matter.

191. Chairman.—In connection with these Garda barracks, I notice that the provision for Enniscrone is nearly as high as that for New Ross which is a much larger place, but I suppose there are reasons for that?—I have no doubt that the Garda authorities have reasons for it.

192. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the Department of Education, can we be told what progress is being made with the lighting of the National Gallery and the National Museum?—The lighting, I think, will be completed about the beginning of the year or perhaps earlier. It will be done within this financial year. They are working at it at the moment.

193. Chairman.—What is the position with regard to the renewal of defective stonework in the case of the National Library and National Museum?—That work is being done as we can get stonemasons to do it. It is very difficult to get labour competent to carry out that work. I would say that if we have that renewal work completed in ten years we will be very fortunate.

Deputy Dockrell.—It is very difficult and very slow work?—It is very difficult, and, as I have said, it is also very difficult to get competent men to do that kind of work.

194. Chairman.—Will the work be done by contract?—It may have to be done as we can get men to do it. It may not be possible to prepare an estimate for work of that nature which will have to be carried over such a protracted period.

195. Deputy Dockrell.—With regard to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, there is an item there for the new post office at St. Andrew Street? I take it that the work there will not be done for anything like £20,000. Is that the Board of Works estimate in connection with the job?—That was the estimate at that time, but, of course, the estimate is changed completely now. That is one explanation. The other is that a great deal of money will have to come out of the Telephone Capital Account for it.

196. Will the work be done by the Board of Works or by contractors?—It will be done by contractors.

197. Chairman.—We can pass now to the Department of Defence.

198. Deputy Dockrell.—May I ask when the Army Swimming Pool will be completed?—I have not and idea

199. Chairman.—Take No. 170—Kildare Barracks. Is that work now completed, or how does the matter stand?— I would rather send you a note, if you are interested in that matter, as to the present position.*

200. Deputy O’Sullivan.—What is the positin with reference to the new gateway at Parkgate Street?—That is a token sum. It is kept there to keep the matter in the records. That is all it means. I doubt if there will ever be a new gate at the entrance at Parkgate Street. At one time we had contemplated making an improvement in the whole entrance, but that was dependent on a lot of other factors, for instance, getting a better approach on the right-hand side entering the Park, taking over a portion of the property held by Defence. It is very much in abeyance now.

Deputy Dockrell.—What has happened to the old gates? From my recollection they were very beautiful iron-work. Are they being kept?—I expect they are in storage.

201. Chairman.—No. 179 refers to the People’s Gardens—New Shelter. That is a good idea. What about Stephen’s Green —are there sufficient shelters there?— From several points of view, I think there are too many.

202. Deputy Dockrell.—On page 51 I notice a reference to Dún Laoghaire Harbour, and the adaptation of portion of a hut on the mail boat pier. There is no question of alterations on the mail boat pier?—We did certain improvement works on the mail boat pier this year, in consultation with the L.M.S., to facilitate them because of the large new boats they are bringing in, but we do not contemplate doing any major work on that pier until a decision on policy is reached as regards how the whole port is going to be operated.

It did come up some years before the war?—It did. There was a conference held. Lord Stamp was over here and there were representatives of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, Industry and Commerce and our own Department. I was at the conference and there was a proposal for a major scheme of reconstruction linking the station and all together. Then the war intervened. There have been tentative references to it since and suggestions were brought up periodically but it has not assumed anything like practical politics up to date. On the whole question of policy, it is not my function, nor will the Board of Works have anything to do with it but the mail boat pier is very much the mail boat pier and developments with regard to the postal services by air will, I suggest, have to be kept in mind when the whole matter comes to be considered.

203. Chairman.—Coming now to the subheads, on subhead D. 1.—Furniture, Fittings and Utensils—is there an annual requisition or are Government Departments entitled to ask for furniture at any time of the year?—They are entitled to ask for standard supplies according to circumstances. For instance, if they get an addition of ten to the staff they will require ten tables and ten chairs. It depends on the status or rank of the officer what type of furniture will be required.

204. Deputy O’Sullivan.—As regards subhead D. 2.—Central Furniture Stores —where are the Stores situated?—In Coleraine House.

Do you have a stock of furniture there? —Yes, that is what subhead D. 2. refers to. We take our goods into store and charge them in there and they are charged out to the Department as a book-keeping matter when they go out.

Where do you show at any stage in the accounts the value of the stock in hands? —We have it in D. 2. If you read the note on page 27 you will see:

“Increased stocks were held in the Central Furniture Stores, the value of those unissued at 31st March, 1948, being £8,756 5s. 0d.”

205. Chairman.—Subhead E. deals with Rents, Rates, etc. These are all rents for which the Office of Works are themselves responsible?—Yes, for other Departments.

206. Deputy Sheldon.—Subhead G. refers to the Phoenix Park National School. What is different about the Phoenix Park National School that it is provided for under a separate subhead?—It is an inheritance from the good old days when the Commissioners of Works were responsible for the management of the school. It is a National School now. As the Chairman knows, we have been fighting for a long time to get it taken off our hands. It has a lot of very peculiar perquisites that are somewhat archaic. I have been trying to unload it on to the manager of the Cabra Schools.

207. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Who is responsible for having that amount charged to its appropriate fund?

Chairman.—If it were transferred to the local Parish Priest he would be supposed to be responsible for the upkeep and repair.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—He will not take it over, naturally, and I would like to know what Government Department is responsible?—The Commissioners of Public Works have to take all responsibility in the meantime.

That is not answering my question. Who is responsible? Have we any say? There is here an amount that should not be paid out of this fund. Can we make a recommendation?

Deputy Sheldon.—The Dáil does that. We have no responsibility for policy.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—It is not a question of policy. This is a fund that is paid out and, as Mr. Connolly says, they should not be responsible for it. Is that not so?—That does not say we are not responsible. We are responsible and we must continue our responsibility until it is taken from us.

Deputy Sheldon.—The Dáil votes the money?—That is right.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—Who is to take it—the Parish Priest?—He can refuse to take it, I suppose.

208. Chairman.—The Board of Works have other responsibilities with regard to schools generally, particularly in the case of non-vested schools?—They have a very big maintenance responsibility.

Hundreds of schools are maintained by the Board of Works throughout the country, schools which were not vested for one reason or another in the local managers.

209. Deputy Kitt.—If the schools are vested, have the Board of Works any responsibility?

Chairman.—The manager is responsible. When the time comes to repair the school he has to make a bargain with the Department of Education. An advance is made according to the circumstances of the case and the Board of Works probably carries out the work in most cases. Will subhead J.3.—Barrow Drainage—remain in the Vote, do you think?—It will.

210. As regards Subhead J.5.—Arterial Drainage, Maintenance of Machinery—I suppose there are special officers for dealing with this maintenance?—That comes under the engineers. I take it you mean technical officers.

The county councils are now appointing special men to look after machinery maintenance, it has become such a big matter. Any kind of machinery is expensive to replace?—Quite so.

211. Deputy Sheldon.—On Subhead J.7. —Arterial Drainage Surveys—will you tell us why there was such a reduction in the survey work?—We had not sufficient staff. We could have done more surveying if we had more staff.

In the previous year there was even a bigger vote?—We are still short of staff, not only for the survey work but generally in the engineering end. There will be difficulty in getting them.

212. Is the difficulty this, that the remuneration is not sufficiently attractive to engineers, or is it that the number of men going in for engineering is limited?—No. I am not speaking of that Vote, but on the whole or in existing conditions, I think we are offering what is fair and reasonable to induce people to come to us. There are plenty of young engineers qualifying but we find that very many of the young men want a variety of experience. They work for six months with us and it is a natural thing that they desire experience in other types of work. Some of them change their jobs every 12 months in order to get around.

213. Have the Commissioners put up the rate for hired plant? Have they increased their charges?—They have had to do it both for dredgers and excavators.

I raise the matter because I know local authorities have had to increase their charges?—Dredger and excavator hire charges have been considerably increased.

214. With regard to the notes on page 29, were there any special circumstances arising in connection with the ex gratia payment of £400 to a contractor?—The contractor in that case neglected to put a contingency clause into his contract. Through an oversight, the usual price variation clause was not included when tenders were being invited. The contractor did not draw attention to this omission until after he had completed the contract documents. That is the explanation.

215. Chairman.—What Department is responsible under Note No. 5—No. 52 Kenilworth Square?—These premises were taken over by the Defence Forces during the emergency. On surrender of the premises, the landlord raised the question of dilapidations and intimated that he would require compensation to the extent of at least £300 plus the cost of making good damage to the tennis court. This was the ultimate compromise settlement that we effected with him.

216. Deputy Sheldon.—I notice in note 14 there is no reference to any Department of Finance sanction on this matter. Does that type of work normally take place just between the Commissioners and the Department of Defence? Does the Department of Finance not enter into the transaction at all?—The Department of Finance does enter into it. They are notified. In this case this work was done at Haulbowline. When we have a transaction with the Department of Defence or other Department we are not paid for it in cash, but the transaction is recorded and the amount of the value of the service is mentioned.

217. Chairman.—Under note No. 16; do you come into that, Mr. Wann? Materials and plant valued at approximately £100,000 were passed over to the Department of Defence. In a case like that does the Comptroller and Auditor-General not come into the matter?

Mr. Wann.—Not into the actual transfer.

The checking on the value of this plant handed over is a matter for the Departments themselves?—Yes.

218. Under note No. 30, how does the Telephone Capital account affect you, Mr. Connolly?—It is merely to keep on record the amount that is being spent out of the Telephone Capital account by us.

219. Deputy Sheldon.—No. 29 refers to the sale of surplus properties. I notice that No. 45 St. Stephen’s Green is recorded as being sold for £1?—The position was that portions of these premises were held by the Commissioners from a Miss Kathleen Nolan. In the past those portions housed the Industrial Research Council and the Building Research Committee. These were outside bodies, so to speak. When the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards was established under the Act, with the concurrence of the Department of Industry and Commerce an arrangement was made by the Institute for the assignment of the Commissioners’ interest in the premises. With the sanction of the Minister for Finance the assignment was granted to the Institute on payment by that body of a nominal sum of £1 and an undertaking to the Commissioners that they would be given the option of re-assignment in the event of the Institute vacating the premises. This is, therefore, merely a token figure.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 65—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.

Mr. F. H. Boland called and examined.

220. Chairmen.—There is a note, No. 87, from the Comptroller and Auditor-General on page 37 of his report:

“Subhead A.7.—Repayable Advances to certain Irish Nationals who are Pensioners of Foreign Authorities.

The accounts of this vote for the years 1944-45 to 1947-48 include the charges in respect of advances made to certain Irish nationals, resident within the State, who were formerly employees of the Shanghai Municipal Council and were unable to obtain payment of their pensions owing to the war in the Far East. The payment of the advances was in each case subject to an undertaking by the pensioner to repay the sums advanced as soon as the Shanghai Municipal Council resumed payment of the pensions, and I have asked for information on the present position in this matter.”

Mr. Wann.—I understand that the total amount advanced was £8,020 1s. 10d.; that these payments ceased on 31st January, 1948; that none of the pensioners has yet received payment either in respect of current pension or arrears and, that being so, it is not possible to recover any of the advances made to them. I am not aware of the present position.

221 Chairman.—Is this a new precedent?

Mr. Boland.—I think the decision of the Dáil to advance their pensions to these people during the war was a new precedent. It had never been done before. That situation has now come to an end. It is difficult to estimate what the chances are of these people recovering their pensions now. The pensions of these ex-employees of the Shanghai Municipal Council were secured on a pension fund which was mainly held in Chinese and other Far Eastern currencies. These currencies depreciated tremendously during the war and there is, therefore, a financial difficulty on that score. But, apart from that financial difficulty, in 1943 China signed a Treaty with the Great Powers—the United States of America, Great Britain, France, and so on—abolishing the Shanghai Municipal Council and all extra-territorial rights is China. The Chinese National Government at the time took over the outstanding obligations, whatever they were. Now the Chinese National Government has been supplanted by the new régime in China and that new régime has not yet been recognised by the powers which concluded the Treaty. It is very difficult to say in these circumstances what the chances of recovering are.

These payments are not continuing?— No, the payments ceased on 31st January, 1948.

222. Deputy Sheldon.—Are these pensioners getting nothing now from any source?—They do not get anything from us. We are still exploring the possibility of their being able to receive compensation, if not from the fund or from the Chinese Government, at least from the powers which were responsible for the previous régime in Shanghai.

223. Chairman.—You have no contingency fund at your disposal for objects such as these?—No.

It seems to me that the State might very easily be called upon to bear a very heavy burden in a matter of this kind in the event of war or some serious crisis. We will pass on now to the Vote itself.

224. Is item A.6—Contribution towards Administrative Expenses of Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees—disappearing?—It has disappeared.

A.7. represents the pensioners to whom we have already referred?—These were the Shanghai pensioners.

225. Has the money under A.8.— Cultural Relations with other Countries— to be re-voted?—Yes, it is a condition of that provision that it has to be re-voted.

226. Chairman.—Under the notes, at B.4.—Incidental Expenses—there is the following:—

“(a) £5 9s. 11d., the equivalent of a sum of $22.13 which was stolen from the safe in the Irish Consulate General, New York, on the night of 30th December, 1947, and attempts to recover which proved unavailing (Department of Finance minute S. 71/4/48).”

The question arises as to what steps are taken to ensure that such incidents will not recur?—It is difficult to prevent incidents of this kind. At the time this particular burglary occurred, our offices in New York were situated in the Chrysler Building. Precautions were taken to protect that building. There is a permanent house guard on the premises at night. Despite that, the safe was burgled. Since then we have moved into premises of our own. In the short time during which we have been in those premises, we have suffered yet another burglary. Despite precautions, therefore, that type of burglary at night seems to be a not infrequent occurrence in large cities.

Deputy Fitzpatrick.—You do not seem to leave a lot of money in the safe, do you?

Mr. Boland.—That is one of the best ways of protecting ourselves against losing money by burglary.

Chairman.—There are notes to be found on page 251.

227. Deputy Sheldon.—Before that we have the extra receipts. I notice that it says, in regard to the extra receipts payable to the Exchequer, that the estimated amount is £5,000 whereas the Vote itself shows receipts of £30,000 estimated. Where did the £25,000 go? Perhaps the amounts for the fees in respect of stamps are shown in the Exchequer receipts. Is that so?—Yes, The estimate in the Vote was £30,000. That sum was made up of three items—(1) fees (stamps) for Passports, Visas and Consular Services, £5,000; (2) fees (stamps) for Travel Permits between Great Britain and Ireland, £20,000 and (3) Miscellaneous, £5,000. Fees for Passports and Permits, etc., are accounted for by way of stamps. This £5,000 here does not include them. They go as Extra Exchequer receipts but not on this Vote.

On the Finance Accounts?—Yes. We buy the stamps from the Revenue Commissioners, pay for them in cash, and sell them for cash to the people for whom the services are performed. The Extra Receipts are then shown in the appropriate revenue account.

228. Would it not be possible, in the Book of Estimates, to put a note to show that these other two items of extra receipts would not be shown in the Appropriation Account but would be shown elsewhere?—Departmentally, we have a preference for showing the full amount of our receipts on our own account because it gives a truer picture of what is actually taken in, by way of revenue, by the Missions performing consular services abroad. We explored that possibility before, however, and there appears to be a standing practice in favour of keeping all revenue collected by way of stamps together in the same account.

Would it be possible just to mention in your Vote that the sums of £20,000 and £5,000 would not be shown in your Appropriation Account? It would make it clearer to a Deputy reading it?—Yes, I agree.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 11—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES

Mr. E. J. MacLaughlin called and examined.

229. Chairman.—There is a note from the Comptroller and Auditor-General by way of information. Paragraph 17 reads as follows:—

“Provision was made under subhead F. (Urban Employment Schemes), subhead G. (Rural Employment Schemes) and subhead J. (Reconditioning or Repair of Public Roads subject to Heavy Turf Transport) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on schemes for the provision of employment. The grants were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. Accounts of the expenditure were examined by Local Government Auditors whose certificates have been furnished to me in support of the charge to the vote.

The expenditure charged to subhead H. (Minor Employment Schemes) and subhead I. (Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers) related to schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office. The schemes were in general carried out on its behalf by county engineers who received imprests from the vote which were subsequently accounted for in detail.

The schemes for which provision is made under subheads K. (Farm Improvements Scheme), L. (Seed Distribution Scheme) and M. (Lime Distribution Scheme) are administered by the Department of Agriculture acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The charge to subhead K. includes grants to rated occupiers of holdings for improvement works on their farms, together with administrative expenses in connection therewith and with the schemes for the distribution of seed and lime, direct expenditure on which is charged to subheads L. and M., respectively. Provision was made for the payment, subject to certain conditions, of grants equivalent to one-half of the approved estimated cost of the labour required for improvement works carried out, the maximum grant payable to any one applicant under any seasonal scheme being £100 and the minimum grant £5, except in Congested Districts where the minimum grant was £1. The grants paid amounted to £252,004 6s. 7d., made up as follows:—

The administrative expenses referred to above, amounting to £95,650 15s. 8d., account for the remainder of the charge to subhead K.

The scheme for which provision was made under subhead N. (Rural Improvements Scheme) was administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office mainly through the agency of county engineers. Grants were made towards the cost of works for the joint benefit of groups of two or more farmers, consisting of accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs, small drainage works (excluding field drains), roads which connect two county roads, and the erection or reconstruction of small bridges. Only works which were estimated to cost not less than £40 were considered. In most cases State grants of 75 per cent. of the estimated cost, excluding county engineers’ fees, were approved, the balance being contributed by the beneficiaries. Contributions in cash were usually collected, but contributions in kind either of materials or labour were also considered; in addition the contributors or members of their families could be employed on the works, thus recouping themselves at least a portion of their cash contributions. The expenditure during the year on approved works amounted to £150,668 7s. 8d. against which has been credited £33,147 0s. 11d. in respect of the cash contributions, the balance amounting to £117,521 6s. 9d. being charged to the vote.

The charge to subhead O. (Miscellaneous Schemes) relates to expenditure on works of an emergency character or for the relief of unemployment and distress. These schemes were administered either by the Special Employment Schemes Office or by other Departments acting on its behalf.”

230. Deputy Sheldon.—I should like to ask about the Farm Improvements Scheme, subhead K. The salaries of the people employed on this are borne on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture? —In the first instance, yes.

They amount to £79,000 or something like that. Here, we have, as well, an item of £95,600 15s. 8d. for administrative expenses. The result is that salaries and administrative expenses come to £175,000, which looks very high in relation to the £252,004 6s. 7d. in grants. What is the position?—I have not quite followed the figures. The first item is borne on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture.

Salaries come to approximately £79,000, if I am not mistaken, do they not?—That is the charge that is brought, in the first instance, against the Vote for the Department of Agriculture. It is then recouped, from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote, to the Department of Agriculture.

I thought there was an expenditure under the Department of Agriculture. You would not show the same expenditure twice?—No, there is an Appropriation in Aid in the Department of Agriculture account as a credit against that.

Yes. Well then the total expenses come to £95,000. Does that cover all the salaries and everything else?—Quite so.

231. It is still fairly high in relation to the grants, is it not?—That is due in large measure to the very large number of separate works carried out. The works are, on an average, very small. The result is that there is a very large number of separate works, and inspectors must visit each of them twice or three times in the course of their execution; also the State grants are less than half the cost of the works.

Chairman.—Are the central office administrative expenses, as well as the salaries of engineers down the country, all taken out of subhead K?—The expenses of the engineers down the country are not. County engineers are employed to carry out the supervision of our own works in the field. The amount of their commission is charged directly against the grant for each work.

232. Deputy Sheldon.—That would not apply to ordinary field drainage, would it?—The county engineers do not go into that?

Mr. MacLaughlin.—I thought the Chairman had passed to another subject, Deputy.

I am sorry.

Chairman.—I am referring to subhead K.

Deputy Sheldon.—Yes, on subhead K. That is the same one. You may be confusing it with rural improvements schemes, Mr. MacLaughlin!—I am referring to our own Head Office expenses for schemes we carry out directly. The farm improvements scheme is carried out by the Department of Agriculture, as our agent, but we have other schemes that we carry out directly.*

233. Chairman.—The usual notes are to be found on page 59. On subhead I. of the Vote, how does this subhead stand now with reference to the future? Will it be a disappearing item?—That subhead relates to development works in bogs used by landholders and other private producers. For some years during the Emergency it stood at £100,000. Then it was reduced to £60,000. It is likely to continue, I think, at that figure for some time to come because the demand for turf —while, of course it has very considerably abated—is still there. Farmers are cutting more turf than before the Emergency because the price of coal is so high in rural areas.

234. How do these works originate? Through your office?—In the great majority of the cases we get applications from the landholders concerned and from those cutting turf. The applications are generally sent through responsible local people—Deputies, Clergymen and so forth. We then have inspections carried out.

235. Will subhead J. continue also?— That has virtually disappeared, but there is still a small amount kept in it as a token in case any special cases might arise.

236. The position with regard to K is that you could recover the administrative expenses from the Department of Agriculture, or would they recover from you?— The Department of Agriculture pay in the first instance and we recoup them.

237. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead M. is there any improvement in the lime situation?—The item in this Vote for lime applies only to land reclamation under K and where the land subsequently requires treatment with lime, so that our connection with lime is really very limited.

238. Chairman.—With regard to the notes, is there a special officer for checking this matter of work sheets?—It is done by the Accounts Branch at headquarters. An accountant is responsible to me, the Accounting Officer, for the accurate checking of the wages sheets.

The Accounts officer goes out to the country?—No, that is not necessary; all the vouchers are sent to headquarters where they are checked.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix VII.

* See Appendix VIII.