|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin 9ú Samhain, 1950.Thursday, 9th November, 1950.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. M. Breathnach and Mr. J. O’Donovan (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.1. Deputy Sheldon.—I move that Deputy Derrig be elected Chairman of the Committee. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—I second. Question put, and agreed to. DEPUTY DERRIG took the chiar. Chairman.—I am obliged to the Committee for re-electing me to this important position. The moneys with which this Committee is concerned are moneys voted by the Dáil and it is the duty of the Committee to see that these moneys are expended in accordance with the provision made in the Dáil. There are certain matters which Deputies might like to pursue but which the Accounting Officer may feel are matters of policy. Generally speaking, when the Department of Finance sanctions an expenditure in exceptional circumstances, it may happen that there are certain anomalies or inconsistencies and when the Department sanctions the expenditure it does so because the expenditure was either unforeseeable or because some special explanation of it can be given. When the Department sanctions a special item of expenditure, we have very little to say, but that does not mean that we cannot comment. If members feel that they are not satisfied, as well as questioning the Accounting Officer of the Department concerned we can question the Finance Report. The position of the various Government Departments is that they cannot incur any additional expenditure without the sanction of the Department of Finance and it is really the expenditure we are checking up on to see that the money has been expended in the manner intended by Dáil Eireann. There may occasionally be matters upon which Deputies may wish to get information and I think the Accounting Officers are generally agreeable to give any information possible. The pointer we generally have is the paragraph which the Comptroller and Auditor-General may write, sometimes by way of information telling us that a certain thing is happening and sometimes by way of setting out that some step is being taken in changing procedure with which he would like to acquaint the Committee, or something being done which he feels is perhaps not quite in line with the previous policy. The general object of such a paragraph is to give the Committee an opportunity to ask questions, if they wish, but they are generally written from the point of view of giving information. VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.2. Chairman.—With regard to subhead D—Motor Cars—Replacement Grant—is that an annual grant?—Yes. it is repeated at the figure of £300 per annum, continuing to the present time. There is no Vote provision for the expenses of maintaining or running the cars belonging to the President. He has to provide that himself, and this annual grant is intended to be a contribution towards the capital cost of the cars when they come to be replaced. VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.3. Deputy Sheldon.—For the record, I should like to clear up a point with regard to the provision that had to be made from the Civil Service Remuneration Vote In this case, there was a Supplementary Estimate. Was the increase in remuneration to the Civil Service not granted at the time of the preparation of the Supplementary Estimate? It only provided for increased travelling expenses?—The Vote for Civil Service Remuneration provided £420 10s. 8d. for the Department of the Taoiseach. It was introduced in November, 1948, while the Vote for the additional travelling expenses for the Department of the Taoiseach was introduced in February, 1949, so that the provision had already been made in the earlier Estimate for Civil Service Remuneration. Was the Vote for Civil Service Remuneration not passed in a general way to cover the figures that probably would crop up in the various Departments? Could this particular Department not have been covered by the Supplementary Estimate and would that not have been better rather than to draw it from the general fund?—Inasmuch as the provision had already been made in a special Vote presented to the Oireachtas for Civil Service Remuneration which covered the Department of the Taoiseach, when we came to take a Supplementary Estimate towards the end of the year for that Department, it would be duplicating the provision to make a further provision there. VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.4. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—do you not think it would have been clearer to the Committee and to anyone reading the Appropriation Accounts if an explanation of this subhead on the lines of the explanation of the same subhead in Vote 22 had been given? It would then have been possible to have made clear that, though the excess on the subhead is £2,300, the actual excess due to the revision of Civil Service Remuneration was not less than £3,500. To anyone reading that casually, it appears a little odd. I know the reason, but what I am suggesting is that in Vote 22, it is made perfectly clear because the precise details of what happened on the subhead are given and from the explanation the relation between the two figures is perfectly clear, whereas in the case of this Vote, one would need to know already the inner workings of the subhead to appreciate why an excess of £2,334 is an actual excess of £3,517?—The chief reason for the excess on the subhead is that the Foreign Exchange Section of the Department underwent unexpected expansion during the year under review. In the estimate for the Office of the Minister for Finance for that year, we had made provision of £2,000 for additional clerical assistance, but that sum was exceeded because we had to call in more staff for the purpose of coping with the additional business in the Section. I should like to point out to the Committee that the excess is a very small fraction of the original provision, which was £103,330. The expenditure was £105,664 which is only two per cent. in excess of the amount granted and in the circumstances I submit that it is not an unreasonable forecast and that the excess was not too great. I think you misunderstand me. I am not complaining of the excess, but the explanation as to the excess. Do you not think it would be better to put in a note to subhead A explaining about the Foreign Exchange Section? Surely you will admit that to the uninitiated it is bound to look odd that an actual excess on the subhead is, so to speak, not explained in the note?—I agree with the Deputy that it is, but in not making a particular note on this matter I have been following a precedent which, perhaps, the Comptroller and Auditor-General might confirm if he regards it as a precedent, that is, that where the excess is less than five per cent. I think it is not usual to put a special note commenting on the fact. Mr. Wann.—That is so. Mr. McElligott.—Of course if the Deputy has any strong views on the subject we can vary that practice. I agree that it is a bit peculiar not to explain the excess in subhead A and at the same time to put a special note on subhead A.A. stating that the acturial services cost less than was expected and the difference was only £76 and we did not explain the £2,334. 5. Deputy Sheldon.—I can quite understand that in ordinary circumstances the ruling about the five per cent. is a sensible one. I am only suggesting that in the special circumstances of this account, where there was an excess which had to be got from the Vote for Civil Service Remuneration, it might be better to add a note which would have cleared up the position?—I quite agree. 6. As to subhead B—Travelling Expenses—do you not think that the note explaining subhead B is rather pointless— “The volume of travelling was much greater than anticipated”? That is hardly an explanation of how it arose. Was there any special reason for the volume of travelling being greater?— There was a change of administration, the Deputy will remember, in February, 1948, and in the financial year 1948-49 there were a number of conferences in London in connection with trade and financial matters at which the Minister for Finance and myself and some other officers of the Department were present. There was also a visit to Washington and New York in that year by myself and another officer of the Department of Finance. Unless one has to set out the particulars of individual journeys it is hard to see what other explanation could be offered except to say that the volume of travelling was greater or less than expected, as the case might be. 7. Chairman.—The only point is that Deputy Sheldon feels that an explanation like that given for a subhead means that you must put further questions in these cases. The same applies to subhead C— Incidental Expenses. Although the total sum is not very great, the amount of the expenditure increased substantially—by more than 100 per cent. for incidental expenses?—That is the expenditure on advertisements and miscellaneous services. The advertisements were mainly inserted on behalf of the Foreign Exchange Section and that accounted for the greater part of the increase. There was a certain amount of expenditure incurred in respect of the insurance of certain jewels that were left in the Department of Finance at that time. 8. Then there is subhead D.—Telegrams and Telephones—the note to which reads “Excess due to the provision of additional telephone facilities”?—That was also in respect of additional lines leading to the Foreign Exchange Section of the Department. 9. Each Department is responsible for providing its own telephone installations? —The Post Office actually provides them but the Departments are responsible for recouping the Post Office the annual charges in connection with telephones that are used. Of course, the Post Office is responsible for the capital expenditure which is provided by issues of telephone capital from the Exchequer, that is, by the Minister for Finance, to the Telephone Capital Account, but the annual charges in connection with telephones figure in the Votes of the individual Departments as in the case of subhead D—Telegrams and Telephones. Deputy Coburn.—Finance has to pay the same as the ordinary individual?— Exactly. 10.—Chairman.—As to subhead G— Appropriations in Aid-Note (2) reads: “Commission charged to sundry Departmental funds on purchases of securities by the Government Stockbroker,” this seems to have brought in substantial revenue beyond what was expected. It is only on the purchase of the securities that commission is charged?—On the purchase of securities by the Government Stockbroker on behalf of various departmental funds. The Government Stockbroker is paid an annual sum by the Department of Finance and, in order to recoup itself, the Department charges the individual funds commission for the business transacted. 11. Can you say what the amount of the commission is based on?—It is based on the ordinary Stock Exchange rates, usually about 5/- per cent. 12. There is no commission on the sale of securities?—No. Is there any reason for that?—The commission that we charge is adequate to cover the expenses and we do not wish to raise unnecessary charges on departmental funds. 13. There is a reference in the second paragraph of the note on Extra Remuneration on page 9—“From this Vote a Deputy Assistant Secretary (whose salary is borne on Vote 66) received £173 5s. 0d. for special services. . .” It does not state what the special services were?—Vote 66 is the Vote for the Department of Social Welfare. The special services were in connection with remuneration. A Deputy Assistant Secretary in that Department received the sum mentioned—£173 5s. 0d.—for special services in connection with actuarial work. The Deputy Assistant Secretary is himself a qualified actuary and he carried out this work outside his normal official hours. 14. Deputy Sheldon.—What is the amount noted in the account under subhead AA? Is that the same amount?— Yes. VOTE 8—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.15. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to Fees for Analyses, etc., among the Extra Receipts, is it statutory that those should be Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer? They look the sort of thing that might normally be taken as Appropriations in Aid?—It is not statutory that they should be Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer. The usual arrangement in regard to Appropriations in Aid is that where you are fairly certain of the amounts and can calculate them from year to year with some precision, you use the Appropriations in Aid subhead, but where the amounts are uncertain and variable you use the Extra Receipts procedure. In this case the realised receipts were £472—about double the estimated receipts. That affords an example of what I have been saying in regard to uncertainty of the amount being a reason for adopting the procedure of Extra Receipts. 16. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—How does “Recovery from Road Fund” come into the Vote for the State Laboratory?— That is a recovery in respect of an officer whose services were mainly in connection with Road Fund work. He was engaged part-time on the analysis of road-making material, and half of his salary, together with the appropriate contribution in respect of pension liability, was recovered from the Road Fund. 17. —Deputy Davern.—Could the Act be amended so that the Road Fund would not be charged the sum of £300 for any analysis? Chairman.—I think Mr. McElligott may not think it appropriate to answer that question. 18. Deputy Collins.—Is it the normal practice to charge the Road Fund with such a repayment for analysis of road-making material? Mr. McElligott.—Not normally, but they wanted special work carried out for them and more than half of the time of the particular officer was absorbed in doing it. 19. Is this an isolated incident or has it happened before?—It has happened in this particular Vote in previous years in connection with the Road Fund but it is not a usual incident. VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.20. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead A.2.—Examiners, etc.—were the competitions which were not held restricted to the Civil Service side or to the Local Appointments side?—It occurred mainly in regard to Civil Service examinations. A number of miscellaneous competitions—for instance, for the posts of architects and engineers—were deferred until the revised salary scales had been fixed, following the improvement in the Civil Service scales of pay in 1948. The arrangement also applied to competitions for appointments under local authorities. Further, provision had been made for certain other competitions which were deferred, such as the competition for Army cadets and for the Garda Síochána, on account of the postponement of recruitment. Then, again, there was an examination for the establishment of temporary clerks and clerical assistants in the Civil Services. These competitions do not occur regularly, and it was originally thought, when the Estimate was being framed, that such a competition would take place in 1948-49 but, in fact, it did not take place until after the financial year. There was also a reduction in the number of candidates presenting themselves for examination. That meant fewer centres and fewer examiners, which also contributed to the saving. 21.—Chairman.—I suppose, with regard to subhead C—Examinations—the same considerations hold?—Yes. 22. Deputy Sheldon.—I am wondering why the last note was put in if it refers to a previous account. It reads as follows:—“In the Accounts for 1947-8 sums of £1 13s. 6d. and £19 were charged to subheads A.2. and C., respectively, being expenditure incurred in connection with a competition for a post of Sub Editor in the Broadcasting Service the filling of which was not proceeded with (E.100/1/47).” I am not quarrelling with all the information that can be given being given but it seems odd that it should crop up this year rather than in the year to which it refers. What is the position?—It is nugatory expenditure and that is why it is specially reported. The expenditure was incurred in connection with a competition for a post of Sub-Editor in the Broadcasting Service. As the post was not filled it is nugatory expenditure and accordingly it is specially noted. It was the first opportunity that we had of noting such expenditure in this Appropriation Account. We are supposed to avail of the earliest opportunity we have of so doing. VOTE 14—IRISH TOURIST BOARD.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.23. Chairman.—This is based on the expenditure. You give the Board a grant amounting to the expenditure they have incurred. Is that the position?—Yes. That, broadly speaking, is the position. We make issues from the grant from time to time, on the recommendation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in respect of the administrative and other expenses of the Board and the expenditure of the grant is not accounted for in details to the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The issues are generally made on the quarterly basis and, of course, the Tourist Board has to submit in advance a budget programme for the year, which is approved by the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Finance. During the year, then, it is necessary to see that that budget is not exceeded. Apart from that, the issues, when they are made from the Grant-in-Aid, can be expended in whatever manner the Tourist Board desires— provided, of course, that their expenditure is in conformity with their statutory powers. 24. Deputy S. Collins.—Is there anything significant in the over-estimation of the expenditure of the Tourist Board? Is there anything significant in the £10,000 gap in such a small estimate?— There is nothing significant in it. The activities of the Board for the year were less considerable than had been expected. 25. Did that activity take any particular distinctive form or affect any particular section of the Board’s activities?— No, the administrative and other expenses which this Grant-in-Aid covers simply turned out to be less than was expected. No special pressure was put on the Board to exercise economy in particular directions. 26. I was wondering if there was any explanation, such as extra receipts by the Board, that might account for the fact that it did not want as big an amount as was estimated?—So far as I am aware, there was no special reason of that kind operating in the present case. VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.27. Deputy Sheldon.—According to the note on subhead A.1.—Irish Manuscripts Commission—Salaries, etc.—the excess was due to the appointment of a chairman for which no provision was made in the Estimate. Did the Commission not have a chairman and, if so, how did it suddenly happen that they needed one?-The previous chairman died and there was an interval before the appointment of a new chairman. Dr. Best was the new chairman, appointed at a salary of £500 a year. 28. Had the previous chairman not a salary?—I am not sure on that point. Chairman.—I think he had an allowance. I do not think it was £500?—It was something less. It would have been less than £500. Possibly £200. I am not sure. 29. Deputy Sheldon.—In that case, I venture to say that the note was scarcely accurate. It was not due to the appointment a chairman; it was due to increased remuneration of a new chairman. 30. Chairman.—I am only speaking from recollection. What are the facts, Mr. McElligott?—The note states specifically that there was no provision made in the Estimate for the remuneration of a chairman. I rather infer from that that the previous chairman was not paid any salary. He may have been paid some travelling or other expenses.* 31. Deputy Sheldon.—I see from the Estimate that it was not expected that the chairman would receive any remuneration?—The Estimate for 1948-49 shows that the chairmanship would be vacant and no provision was made in the Estimate for any salary. 32. I suppose this matter should have been raised at the time the Estimate was before the Dáil. It is odd to suppose that you would not get a chairman during the year. That is what it looks like. It is hardly a question for this Committee. 33. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to the Committee on the Disposal of Sewage Sludge, that has now finished its functions? It had no expenditure at all during the year?—No; it has finally disposed of all its activities. 34. There were two other Committees which, apparently, finished earlier than had been expected—the Committee on Extension of Piped Water Supplies and the Committee on Post-Graduate Medical School at St. Kevin’s Hospital? I presume that could not have been foreseen at the time of the preparation of the Estimate?—No. The Estimate, as the Deputy is aware, is prepared well in advance of the financial year to which it relates. It is prepared at least three months before the financial year opens. So that, it is very difficult to say in some cases whether committees will be active during the financial year or not. They may finish up their operations before the financial year opens at all. I suppose the Department of Finance is so used to committees continuing on that they never expect them to stop. 35. Chairman.—I omitted to ask about the suspension of the Place Names Commission. The activities of the Commission were suspended during part of the year. Were they resumed?—They were resumed on a limited scale. They have a certain staff which are engaged in the consideration of the existing information. There is a director and another employee. They are carrying out the preparation of a list of place names by districts. They are carrying on the activities of the Commission on a limited scale. That is the present position?—That is the present position, yes. 36. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Is the Commission on Youth Unemployment still in session?—Yes. I made some inquiries before coming to the Committee. I thought the Committee would be interested in the matter. I am told that the Commission hope to present their report before the end of the current financial year. I could be given no assurance on that point. I was informed that they would expect to have a token provision, at any rate, in the 1951-52 Estimates. Chairman.—A token provision for what?—For any expenditure or any possible continuance of their activities into 1951-52. 37. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to the Committee on Extension of Piped Water Supplies, I presume a committee of that type merely reports to the Minister who set it up. There is no question of a public report?—No. The Committee was appointed by the Minister for Local Government and it reported to him. There was no question of a public report. 38. Deputy S. Collins.—Is this Committee nearing its conclusion also? Chairman.—It has concluded, according to the note on page 67—”The work of this Committee was terminated early in the year.” 39. Deputy S. Collins.—What is the Committee on Medical Education doing? —The Committee was appointed by the Minister for Health and the terms of reference of the Committee are set out in the Estimate for the particular year, 1948-49, and, as the savings on the provisions show, the Committee was not very active for the full year. 40. Is this a Committee that is likely to drag on?—No; it has finished its activities. It has reported to the Minister for Health and in the following year, 1949-50, there was no provision made for the Committee on Medical Education. It had finished. Chairman.—That is the nature of a committee reporting to the Minister only, I take it?—Yes, Sir. 41. The total expenditure on the various Commissions is given at the bottom of page 67. If you include the remuneraation of staff temporarily lent to the Commission on Youth Unemployment in the figure of expenditure on that commission it would, of course, increase it?—Very considerably. VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 19—EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT AND THE JURIED ACT.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 20—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.42. Deputy Coburn.—Subhead CC sets out the contribution towards the cost of structural alterations in the Abbey Theatre, Dublin. What is the explanation of the sum of £5 for structural alterations—it seems so small?—It is only a token provision. We did carry a larger provision for some years, but that provision was not availed of and we did not like to suppress the subhead altogether; so we kept it alive in token form as we were sure that at some time or other the Abbey Theatre would come looking for the amount involved, which was a maximum of £2,800. 43. Deputy Collins.—It would not be a matter of structural alteration—it would be possibly a question of building a new theatre?—Yes, that was one of the considerations in mind—that a new theatre would have to be built. VOTE 24—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 25—LAW CHARGES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.44. Deputy Collins.—As regards subhead A.2.—State Solicitors—is the explanation of the saving there—the expenditure was less than the sum granted —due to the fact that the State Solicitors’ establishment is not full?— There is a note which indicates that it was due to vacancies, partly offset by the 1948 revision of Civil Service salaries. A revision was also carried out in the case of the State Solicitors. Then that vacancy saving is purely fortuitous?—It is purely fortuitous. 45. Chairman.—Under subhead D., general law expenses seem to be less than anticipated. I suppose that is not a permanent state of affairs?—I regret to state it is not. 46. There are certain appropriations and I see that the total surplus to be surrendered was £12,315. The Appropriations in Aid set out on page 88 come to nearly £6,000. VOTE 26—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 69—DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (NEUTRALITY) COMPENSATION.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.47. Chairman.—This is a disappearing service?—Yes. The provision in 1949-50 was £9,500 and for the current year it is £8,300. We hope it will not last much longer. It is mainly in regard to certain building grants which have not been availed of and that are still alive. VOTE 70—PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) COMPENSATION.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.48. Mr. McElligott.—This particular estimate, which is really the personal injuries complement to the estimate we were previously discussing, has disappeared. The year 1949-50 was the last year in which a separate Vote was taken for Personal Injuries (Civilians) Compensation. The provision for 1950 is contained in a special subhead in the Vote for Superannuation and Retired Allowances. The figure is £1,990 for compensation and £20 for medical expenses, a total of £2,010. VOTE 72—ALLEVIATION OF DISTRESS.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.49. Chairman.—There is the following paragraph, number 79, in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General: “The original estimate for this service provided £575,000 for the alleviation of distress in Europe due to war, including grants to international and other organisations in respect of relief activities. A supplementary estimate provided for relief supplies for refugees in Palestine. The Department of Agriculture expended £281,019 4s. 7d. on the purchase and shipment of supplies of canned meat and potatoes. Of this amount £204,847 14s. 9d. was expended on canned meat consigned to the National Catholic Welfare Conference, Bremen, £72,750 on canned meat consigned to the American Joint Distribution Committee, Antwerp, and £3,421 9s. 10d. on potatoes sent to Beyrouth to relieve distress among Arab and Jewish refugees. Payments amounting to £9,123 12s. 5d. were made to the Joint Relief Commission of the International Red Cross for transport charges and other expenses incurred by them in connection with the distribution of supplies sent to Europe in previous years. A sum of £2,740 15s. 1d. was paid to the Irish Red Cross-Society in recoupment of expenditure on the purchase and shipment of supplies. The charge to the Vote also includes £24,000 in respect of a contribution to the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees Organisation which was expended mainly on the purchase in this country of oatmeal and its transport to Beyrouth. The expenditure on potatoes for refugees in Palestine was met, in the first instance, by an advance of £3,421 9s. 10d. from the Contingency Fund in anticipation of a vote of the Oireachtas and the Contingency Fund was duly recouped when the supplementary estimate was taken.” Mr. McElligott.—This was the last year in which the Vote was taken—1948-49. 50. Chairman.—What was the total expenditure then?—The total expenditure from 1945-46, when these payments were first made, was £3,703,308. That is up to the end of 1948-49. There was a small amount expended from the Contingency Fund of £271 11s. 4d. in the year 1949-50 in respect of relief to Greece and France. That is not included in the total of £3,703,308 which I mentioned. 51. Will there be any official statement published on this matter when it concludes, showing the general effect of this expenditure?—I think not. The expenditure was incurred partly by sending shipments of supplies direct to various countries—Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Austria, Palestine—and partly by contributing to various relief organisations operating on the Continent. These organisations included the Joint Relief Commission of the International Red Cross the International Centre for the Relief of Civilian Populations, the National Catholic Welfare Conference, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration and the American Joint Distribution Committee. These bodies distributed the relief goods over a wide area including, apart from the countries I have mentioned, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, and the British and American zones in Germany. Then there were cash grants made to the Irish Red Cross of £49,473 in recoupment of expenditure incurred in sending relief supplies to Europe, the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees got a grant of £9,750 and the United Nations Organisation for the Relief of Palestine Refugees got £24,000. 52. Deputy Collins.—Would you not think, as distinct from a statement showing where they ultimately finished, there should be a general statement showing what was done so far as we were concerned?—It is very hard to ascertain the results of the relief that we did give. More than half the money was passed over to the various International organisations I mentioned and the expenditure of that was swallowed up in the general purposes of these organisations and it would be impossible to trace the results. 53. My question was mainly directed to this did you think a report should be published showing, not where the relief we gave ultimately ended through other organisations, but where it parted company from us—otherwise, a general statement showing where all the grants went to?—There were statements made by the Minister for Finance in introducing the Estimates in these various years, 1945/6, 1946/7, 1947/8 and 1948/9, and there has been a certain amount of discussion in the Dáil on the matters mentioned by the Deputy and also a certain amount of discussion here at the Public Accounts Committee. Certainly, in the Department of Finance we have not felt that the matter required any comprehensive report covering activities of this kind since the beginning of the Vote in 1945/6. 54. Over the whole period in which this Alleviation of Distress was being administered, did we spend less than was estimated?—Yes, considerably less. We made provision of £3,000,000 in 1945/6 and spent £1,338,000; in 1946/7, we provided £3,000,000 again, which included a re-vote of £1,552,000 and we spent £1,815,000; in 1947/8, the Dáil voted £1,500,010, including a re-vote of £1,150,000 and in that year the expenditure was £232,290; in 1948/9, out of a provision of £575,010, we spent £317,000. The total expenditure was less than half the total provision. 55. Deputy Coburn.—In other words, when we were prepared to spend £3,000,000 in 1945/46 actually we were called upon to spend only £1½ millions? —That is so. We were prepared to spend the full amounts of the grants but circumstances were such that we were not called upon to make the total provision available. VOTE 74—CIVIL SERVICE REMUNERATION.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.56. Deputy Sheldon.—Would it be correct to say that you can get the total cost of this provision by adding the amount mentioned in the note at the foot of the page to the expenditure on the Vote?—The note says: “The accounts of other Departments and Offices include expenditure of approximately £181,800 in 1948/9 in respect of the 1948 revision of Civil Service pay.” Yes, that would give the total increase. 57. The amount would be somewhere in the region of £475,000 but that would not be for a full year. Could you tell us what would be the total cost of the revision in a full year?—The increases became effective as from November, 1948. That would mean about five months of the financial year and the total is £475,000, so the total would be about £900,000 for a full year. VOTE 75—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. The witness withdrew. VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.Mr. R. P. Rice called and examined.58. Chairman.—On this Vote there are three paragraphs by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, numbers 6, 7 and 8. Paragraph 8, which refers to remissions and amounts irrecoverable, includes the following:— “Following, however, an examination of the position the Revenue Commissioners have decided that on the true construction of the term “remission,” the duty in some of these cases could not properly fall to be remitted. In these instances the duty has been passed as irrecoverable and the schedules for the year under review have been furnished to me on this basis. I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results.” Would you like to add anything to that, from your point of view, for the Committee’s information, as to the expressions “remission” and “irrecoverable”?—I do not know whether I would put it as well as Mr. Wann. When we pass an item as irrecoverable, it simply means that we cannot collect it. In a case of poverty, for example, if we pursued our claim we might be faced with putting a person in jail while all the time we would know he had no money to pay. When we remit an item, it means that strictly if we pursued collection to the end we might get it. However, that would be at the cost of causing great hardship to a person, perhaps putting a man out of business. Therefore, we “remit,” where there is any money at all and we refrain from using legal means to enforce payment. 59. Deputy S. Collins.—In one case you exercise humanity, in the other you exercise common sense?—In all these things we use both together—humanity and common sense. There was only one small case—one of £50. It was where a taxpayer died and the only asset was a house in which a sister was living and she had no other means. If we pursued that, the house would have been sold and she would have had nothing else to live on. That was a “remit” case. 60. Deputy Sheldon.—Your compassion just extends to the £50?—Yes. Chairman.—Does Deputy Sheldon mean that a larger sum would not evoke any compassion? Deputy Sheldon.—Out of all the revenue going through your hands, you felt you could be compassionate to the tune of £50. 61. Chairman.—On subhead A— Salaries, Wages and Allowances—how does the staffing position stand at present? Have you reached saturation point?—Not on the Income Tax side. We are short on that side. 62. Deputy S. Collins.—Is there any serious lack of staff on the Income Tax side?—I think it is due to this, that since 1947 with the increase in remuneration generally, more people have come into the Income Tax net. We cannot keep pace with the increase and there is a lag in assessing. It is due to the higher wages and higher salaries. 63. Deputy Sheldon.—Under subhead I —Uniform Clothing—I see that there is an excess due to the fact that deliveries of uniforms and clothing exceeded expectations. That does not mean that more turned up than had been ordered, does it?—No. 64. Is it the position that you are used to a delay in deliveries and therefore make provision for them when framing the Estimate?—We had been under that difficulty for some time. We could not get all the uniforms that were required and we budgeted at the beginning of 1948 on the basis that there would still be a shortage. Each uniform is supposed to last a certain period. Prior to 1948-49 we were not able to replace all the time-expired uniforms and some officers were deprived of renewals. Unexpectedly then in 1948-49 more became available and we took the opportunity of taking them. Deputy S. Collins.—You got a better delivery than you anticipated?—We did. 65. Deputy Davern.—Does subhead K —Motor Cars for Frontier Patrols—really represent the actual cost of running the cars? Are repairs and depreciation included? Chairman.—There is a note on the subhead on page 12, which reads: “Savings, resulting from the fact that provision for purchase of new cars was not utilised, were large offset by increased expenditure on petrol and repairs.” Mr. Rice.—The subhead provides for the supply and maintenance of the cars used on the frontier; included in the cars is one for a travelling mechanic. We did not use all our Vote because during that period we seized some cars as you will see in the note at the end. I think we were entitled to get three cars but, instead of buying new cars, we used the seized ones. 66. Deputy Davern.—You got four cars actually?—Yes. Deputy S. Collins.—Three of them were fairly good?—The whole four were pretty good. Deputy Davern.—I thought the sum of £4,300 rather small in comparison with the duties of frontier patrols. Deputy Sheldon.—It is a matter of policy. 67. Deputy S. Collins.—Under subhead M—Law Charges, Expenses of Prosecutions, Fees, Rewards, etc.—is there any particular significance in the increase shown there? Have you had more difficulty in that connection or have you had a new batch of prosecutions?— I think there were several factors. We had more important cases which were taken to the High Court. They were rather more numerous in that period. I think the reasons are twofold. We had some very important cases in the Courts in that year which we had not anticipated, and we also increased temporarily the investigation staff dealing with Customs offences. That was really the cause of the excess in that year. 68. Deputy Sheldon.—Under subhead N —Incidental Expenses—is there any particular reason why copies of Poor Law Ratings for Income Tax purposes were not subject to the expenditure anticipated? —The same reason would apply that I gave earlier in relation to shortage of staff. We were not able to tackle it. I think I explained that last year too. We were not able to cope with the new work. It means making new assessments under Schedule A for all the property and we were not able to tackle it during the year. Chairman.—Under Appropriations in Aid, subhead R, variations are shown on page 12. 69. Deputy Davern.—Are you satisfied that the grant is sufficient under subhead K—Motor Cars for Frontier Patrols —to prevent any smuggling across the Border?—I think so. We review our requirements under that subhead from time to time and we think it is sufficient. 70. Chairman.—How many cars have you altogether?—Twenty-two—twenty on the frontier and two elsewhere. 71. Deputy Kitt.—Did you really want these new cars or was there intelligent anticipation of the fact that you were going to seize four cars?—It was not anticipation. The new cards were required and those seized were more or less in the nature of a gift. The witness withdrew. VOTE 22—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.Mr. C. C. McElligott called and examined.72. Deputy S. Collins.—Under subhead B—Travelling Expenses—the excess there was due to the abnormally heavy amount of revision work. Was there any particular reason why the revision work should suddenly become abnormally heavy?—It is due to post-war building and reconstruction generally going on everywhere. That increased the number of cases from 26,000 in the preceding year to 39,000 in the year we are dealing with now. 73. Chairman—Were you able to complete the 39,000?—Yes. We are compelled to do it under Statute. We must do it somehow or other. Deputy S. Collins.—It must have imposed a heavy strain on your staff?—They rise to occasions like that. 74. Is your staffing satisfactory?— We find it very difficult to cope with the increased amount of work. Recently we have got an increase in the number of valuers and, when they are fully trained that will help us a lot. VOTE 23—ORDNANCE SURVEY.Mr. C. C. McElligott further examined.75. Deputy Sheldon.—Where map revision is proceeding would there be any possibility about not being quite so hard and fast in regard to the time? I know one particular instance where a map was being revised and a building was about to go up; I think the building started about two days after the surveyors left and the result is, of course, that the map is out of date before it is printed. Would it be possible to have a little come-and-go in the movements of surveyors where they see something is actually about to happen?—It might be possible in certain cases, but you are faced with that problem in every revision. New buildings are cropping up every day and a map is out-of-date almost as soon as it is made in that sense. 76. Deputy Fitzpatrick.—If there were plans prepared would it not be possible for the surveyors to have copies of those? After all, these plans have to be approved before any work can be done?—The surveyor does not go on plans. He goes on what is on the ground actually. He measures that very carefully and he cannot take into account any projects unless they have taken definite shape on the ground. Deputy S. Collins.—You would be up against the difficulty that some of these planned projects might never in fact take shape even though they have appeared on paper?—Quite so. One might have a project on paper which would never materialise. 77. Deputy Davern.—I do not see any subhead which makes provision for a special survey of the country to ascertain what houses if any have been built and not reported by the local authority. I suppose I may take it that it is included under subheads A and B?—Yes. As regards the survey we try to keep up-to-date as far as possible in those areas where there is a good deal of building going on. That is in and around cities or where big engineering projects such as the Shannon scheme are being carried out. We keep our eyes on these areas and try to keep the survey up-to-date. As regards the rural areas, there are some of them which we have not touched for as long as 40 years simply because there is no movement there. The witness withdrew. VOTE 43-DUNDRUM ASYLUM.Dr. W. J. Coyne called and examined.78. Deputy Sheldon.—I notice that in the note to subhead D—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—there is a reference to the provision of Occupational Therapy treatment. I should like to know if you have succeeded in finding really suitable occupation for male patients?—Yes. Some of them are engaged in tailoring. We make practically all our own clothes, but they have got rather tired of that and now we have an instructor from the Dublin County Council. He comes to the Institution and at the moment the patients are doing leather work. We also sell quite a lot of the bags they make. Next week they are to start on the making of gloves and of lampshades. The patients seem to prefer the leather work and bag-making. 79. The reason I asked the question is that in the mental hospital in County Donegal our experience has been that it is easy to find occupational work for female patients but that it is rather difficult to do so in the case of male patients because of the fact that the making of so many things calls for the use of sharp-edged tools?—I think that Dr. Courtney there has most of the male patients on the land. We have quite a number of male patients who are unfit to work on the land. I may say that we have a special man in charge of the Occupational Therapy unit. Any sharp tools that are in use are counted before they are handed out and counted when they are being put back into a special chest. It will take two or three years to have the new Occupational Therapy unit going fully. Chairman.—Would not those male patients be able to help in the garden?— The majority works in the garden. I am speaking of patients who are unfit to go out. We have quite a number of city men who have never worked on the land and a number who are old and infirm. The majority of our men work on the land. 80. Deputy S. Collins.—I take it there is not any unreasonable risk in the use of sharp-edged tools by these patients?— The patients are seeded. The tools are all counted before they are given out and counted after they have been used and then they are locked in a special chest. 81. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the farm, what is the size of it? I take it that you have not a farm manager?— We have 30 acres inside the walls. So that you really do not need a farm manager?—We have a land steward and a land labourer. The land steward is an attendant. His title is that of attendant-gardener. He acts in the capacity of land steward. He came to us from the Civil Service Commission as an attendant with special gardening qualifications. 82. Deputy S. Collins.—Does he get any special remuneration by virtue of his gardening qualifications?—No. 83. Deputy Davern.—Is there any provision made for inmates who have served their sentence, who are now in good health and free from any mental deficiency but whose relatives will not take them out? I mean is there any provision made whereby they would no longer be a burden on the taxpayer?—That is a family issue. We have one man at present whose relatives will not take him. He has actually recovered. We have made arrangements with the Grangegorman After-care Committee that if his relatives will not take him they will try and get some charitable individual to take him. If they do not succeed in that then they will take him themselves and look after him in the Legion of Mary hostel. The main thing is to get someone to sign on the dotted line to take these patients out. This is the first case that has arisen within the last couple of months. Chairman.—What age is this patient? —He is 32. He came in when he was 20 years of age. The witness withdrew. VOTE 39—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.Mr. D. Coffey called.No question. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. * Note by witness: The previous chairman was paid £400 a year. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
