|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTN(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 5ú Aibreán, 1951.Thursday, 5th April, 1951.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Miss Máire Breathnach, Mr. M. Breathnach, and Mr. J. O’Donovan (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.813. Clerk.—The Chairman, Deputy Derrig, informed me some days ago that he would be unable to attend to-day, so it will be necessary to elect a Chairman for this meeting. Deputy O’Sullivan.—I move that Deputy Sheldon take the Chair for this meeting of the Committee. Deputy Commons.—I second the motion. Question put, and agreed to. Deputy Sheldon took the Chair accordingly. VOTE 55—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.Mr. J. Leydon called and examined.814. Chairman.—The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, paragraph 49, reads:— “Subhead C.1—Incidental Expenses. With a view to ensuring the maintenance of supplies of milk in the Counties Cavan, Meath and Monaghan during a strike by milk vendors in those areas in June, 1948, the Minister for Finance sanctioned the recoupment to the local authorities concerned of losses incurred in operating milk depots. A charge of £492 2s. 1d. has been made to this subhead in respect of the cost to the local authorities of providing and distributing milk, and £429 12s. 0d. has been credited under Appropriations in Aid in respect of sales at the milk depots.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Wann? Mr. Wann.—Three urban district councils were concerned, one in each of the counties mentioned. The net amount recouped to the local bodies was £62 10s. 1d. 815. Chairman.—Could you tell the Committee, Mr. Leydon, why this charge was made to the Department of Industry and Commerce? It would seem as if it would have been the Department of Agriculture that would have been involved? Mr. Leydon.—Well, the Department of Agriculture is always very reluctant to take on a responsibility of this kind. I might mention that we had a similar squabble with them within the last six months. In the end, it had to be done, and the Department of Industry and Commerce is willing to take it on rather than let the people go without milk. The Department of Industry and Commerce may, of course, be blamed for the trouble arising because it does arise from the fact that we are refusing to agree to the increased price demanded by the milk suppliers. 816. But there was a controlled price? —Yes. It arose because they were looking for an increase which we were not prepared to allow. They said that if they did not get the increased price they would refuse to supply and we said: “All right, we will make alternative arrangements.” 817. In that case, it is probably fair that you would hold the baby. The first sub-paragraph of paragraph 50 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— “Subhead K.—Food Subsidies. The expenditure charged to this sub head, totalling £12,385,889 6s. 4d., was made up as follows:—
The flour subsidy paid to Grain Importers (Eire), Limited, was the amount required to control the price of flour and to regulate the earnings of the milling industry, which were limited to a percentage of an agreed figure representing capital employed together with the cost of providing any additional capital in excess of the agreed figure, the amount of £9,859,642 5s. 2d. included in the charge of this subhead represents payments of subsidy, on account, in respect of losses incurred in the allocation of imported wheat and flour during the period 22nd February, 1948, to 26th February, 1949. The final adjustment of the subsidy payable for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 had not been completed at 31st March, 1949.” Mr. Wann.—The total amount claimed by Grain Importers (Eire), Limited, for the period 22nd February, 1948, to 26th February, 1949, was £11,020,909 3s. 11d. The amount paid was £9,859,642 5s. 2d., leaving a balance due for the period of £1,161,266 18s. 9d. The claim in support of the balance due is dated 26th April, 1949, and, accordingly, fell to be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture, together with the final adjustments of subsidy for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48. The functions of the Minister for Industry and Commerce relating to the flour subsidy were transferred to the Minister for Agriculture as from 1st April, 1949. 818. Chairman.—I take it then that that balance will fall within the next year of account? Mr. Wann.—Yes. Chairman.—It will be dealt with in the next year? Mr. Wann.—Yes. 819. Chairman.—The paragraph continues:— “The subsidy on wheaten meal for the cereal year 1947-48 was paid varying rates representing the difference between the average cost of production, together with a profit of 2/6 per sack, and the controlled selling price. Subsidy on batch bread ceased to be payable after 1st November, 1947, consequent on a reduction in the price of flour, but the sum of £28,479 10s. 3d. is charged to this subhead in respect of subsidy payable for periods prior to that date. It was subsequently decided that the price of flour should be further reduced by 2/6 per sack as from 1st November, 1947, but it was not possible to give effect to this decision until after 21st February, 1948, and, in consequence, subsidy was paid at the rate of 2/6 per sack of flour used by bakers in the period 1st November, 1947, to 21st February, 1948, payments amounting to £17,477 17s. 6d. being included in the charge to this subhead. Subsidy on oatmeal calculated on the difference between 37/6¾d. per barrel and the actual price, subject to a maximum of 41/- per barrel, paid by the miller, was paid to each miller licensed under the Emergency Powers (Milling of Oats) Order, 1941 (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 417 of 1941) and was limited to oatmeal manufactured by the millers from native oats of the 1947 crop and sold by them in the period 1st September, 1947, to 15th April, 1948.” How did the necessity for a subsidy arise?—Because the Government thought it desirable to keep down the price of oatmeal. And the price of oats had risen?—The price of oats had risen. 820. Chairman.—The paragraph further states:— “The subsidy on tea was paid to Tea Importers (Eire), Limited, and represented the difference between the cost price of tea plus overhead expenses and the selling price. The audited accounts of the company for the year ended 31st March, 1949, showed a net trading loss of £1,989,785, which with a balance of £37,173 due from the previous account made a total deficit of £2,026,958. Against this sum was credited £1,830,000 paid as subsidy and £175,638 Indian excise tax refunded, leaving a balance of £21,320 due to the company at 31st March, 1949.” As regards this business about the excise tax, did the Indian Government agree to waive this tax, or how did that matter at arise?—I do not think there was any special diplomatic representation about it. I believe the position was that in the ordinary way when the tea was exported they allowed a refund of duty. In other words, their duty applies to their home consumption?—An excise duty, yes. 821. The paragraph concludes as follows:— “Subsidy at the rate of 2d. per lb. continued to be payable on sugar sold for domestic consumption. The sum of £519,479 8s. 4d. charged to the subhead was paid to Comhlucht Siúicre Eireann, Teoranta, but the amount due to the company had not been finally determined at 31st March, 1949. The sum of £16,820 14s. 9d. charged to this subhead represents subsidy at the rate of 3d. per lb. on margarine sold by manufacturers for domestic consumption in the period 1st to 31st March, 1948. Each claim was certified by the auditors of the manufacturers concerned and verified by officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce.” Mr. Wann.—With regard to the sugar, I understand the final claim of the Company for 1948-49 amounted to £528,136, which is probably subject to adjustment. Mr. Leydon.—That was the final claim of the Company. 822. Chairman.—Has the matter been finally settled?—Well, the figure for that year has been agreed, but the battle still goes on about later periods. 823. Deputy S. Collins.—What is the final agreed figure for that particular year?—The net figure for 1948-49 was £494,394. 824. Chairman.—Paragraph 51 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads:— “Subhead L.—Fuel Subsidy. The arrangements with Fuel Importers (Eire), Limited, under which losses incurred by the company on the sale of turf, timber fuel and coal were borne by the company and issues were made from voted moneys in recoupment thereof, continued in operation. The total payments to the company, including £1,000,000 issued in the year under review, amounted at 31st March, 1949, to £6,776,000.” Mr. Wann.—The issues in the year amounted to £1,000,000 and there was a small over-payment to the company of approximately £11,000. 825. Chairman.—If so, I presume that would be later brought to credit? Mr. Leydon.—Certainly, it would be brought to credit at a later stage. The subsidy payments during the calendar year 1948 were in the Estimate for 1948-49. £500,000 was paid out and a further payment of £500,000 was made at a later stage. There has not been any subsidy paid since March, 1949. If there is any slight excess payment it would be taken to credit in connection with adjustments which must be made sooner or later. 826. Chairman.—Paragraph 52 of the Report of Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:— “Subhead M.—Miscellaneous Turf Production Schemes. The charge to this subhead includes £60,977 11s. 0d. paid to local authorities in recoupment of losses incurred on the sale of turf otherwise than to Fuel Importers (Eire), Limited, government departments and local institutions. The total amount recouped to 31st March, 1949, including £113,466 17s. 9d. paid in previous years, was £174,444 8s. 9d. The remainder of the charge to the subhead, £820 2s. 0d., related to expenditure on the maintenance of the Glencree bog roads.” Mr. Wann.—The position on the 31st March, 1949, was that, in all, payments had been made to 41 local authorities. Thirty payments amounting to £63,939 16s. 9d. were final and 11 payments totalling £110,504, 12s. Od. were provisional. 827. Chairman.—How does the position stand now? Mr. Leydon.—There was a further payment in 1949/50 of £23,560. There was a provision in the 1951 estimate. I am afraid I cannot give you the payment due. It would have been of trifling dimensions. In other words, the matter is really closed?—Yes. 828. What other consumers of turf are involved in this?—County councils supply local institutions and Government offices in the locality. Some turf was taken off their hands by Fuel Importers and in those cases the full cost was paid. Where turf was being sold in a local market it had to be sold at the local price for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was to prevent increasing the cost of turf locally. 829. Deputy Coburn.—This would not apply to merchants who sell turf—This applies only to local authorities, county councils and a few urban councils. 830. Deputy J. J. Collins.—Is this matter finally disposed of in regard to commitments to local authorities?—Yes, sir, it has been substantially disposed of now. Quite recently we had a case in Limerick where our accountant told us that there is a sum still due, something over £4,000?—I will get that looked into. I did not know that there is a claim of that magnitude outstanding. In view of that, I would like to be allowed to send a note explaining what the up to-date position is in regard to claims outstanding from local authorities.* Chairman.—That would be helpful. 831. Deputy Pattison.—What is the position in regard to the making good of damage done to property that was on loan, lease, or lent for the storage of fuel?—That is a matter for Fuel Importers Limited. Fuel Importers Limited is a joint stock company and any person who has rented or lent to that body is entitled to his ordinary legal remedy. There have been some claims of that kind which, so far as I know, have been dealt with in the ordinary way. Some of them have been settled. The Department does not directly interfere in these cases. They are settled between Fuel Importers Limited and the owners of the property. 832. I have in mind the position of the public Fair Green at Kilkenny, the use of which was obtained from Kilkenny Corportion by Fuel Importers Limited. When it came to the question of putting the Fair Green back into suitable condition and use for the farmers, the amount of money offered was by no means sufficient to carry out the restoration. Our lowest figure was £1,000. We got £300. Chairman.—The matter really lies between the Corporation and Fuel Importers. Deputy O’Sullivan.—Does the same thing apply in the case of storage in the Phoenix Park?—Yes, and in the case of the refinery site also. Deputy Pattison.—Important work of that kind should be covered by this, having regard to the fact that so much public money was voted to Fuel Importers to cover losses. Chairman.—I am afraid that the Deputy will have to raise this as a matter of policy in the Dáil. Deputy Pattison.—I was puzzled about the matter. Mr. Leydon.—I think I ought to say that I would hate to press Fuel Importers Limited to pay more than they thought was a reasonable amount to pay in any given set of circumstances. Chairman.—I think the Committee would back you up on that. 833. Chairman.—Paragraph 53 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:— “Subhead O.1.—Advanees to Mianraí, Teoranta. In paragraph 55 of the previous report particulars were given of the adjustment of the liability to the Minister for Industry and Commerce of Mianraí, Teoranta, pursuant to Section 2 (3) of the Minerals Company Act, 1947. After giving effect to this adjustment the indebtedness of the Company for advances, including £16,428 in the year under review, and for interest thereon, was at the 31st March, 1949, £96,706 4s. 3d.” Mr. Wann.—The sum of £96,706 4s. 3d. is made up as follows:—Net assets. on 30th September, 1947—£66,554 7s. 6d.; advanced in half year to 31st March, 1948—£10,710 Os. Od.; advanced in year 1948-49—£16,428 Os. Od.;Interest amounted to £3,013 16s. 9d., making a total of £96,706 4s, 3d. 834. Chairman.—Has the Company ever made any repayments to the Minister since 1942? Mr. Leydon.—I think the idea was that when the Slieveardagh property reached a stage when it would be producing on a commercial scale and making money, the Company would repay. They have not made any repayments so far. How is the interest charged?—I am afraid, sir, that I could not answer that question off-hand. I think the Department of Finance have a standard rate of interest for matters of this kind. Mr. Wann.—The interest rate has been 2½ per cent. from 1st July, 1946. Originally it was 5 per cent. Mr. Leydon.—I have a note here. The interest rate has been 2½ per cent. since the 1st July, 1946. 835. Chairman.—For record purposes, could you tell us what is written off in the adjustment of the liability?—The amount written off was, I think, £379,864 3s. Od. 836. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of paragraph 54 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states:— “Operations of Bord na Móna. Subheads P.1 to P.5. The issues from the Grants-in-Aid during the year comprised £4,000 for cost of administration (subhead P.2), £45,000 for experiment and research (subhead P.4) and £222,667 in respect of the cost of the turf production scheme hitherto undertaken by County Councils (subhead P.5). It is stated in the note to subhead P.5 that it was decided during the year to confine production under this scheme to machine-won turf and that only 90,000 tons was produced against a revised estimate of 200,000 tons. It is also stated that the reduced production was due to adverse weather conditions, late arrival of machines from abroad, and inexperience of the crews operating the machines. The unexpended balance on this subhead was £1,677,333 whilst there was a deficieny in the estimated receipts of £1,756,797 11s. 5d.” 837. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Would the matters under that subhead be due to any failure in the distribution or to the procuring of turf from the bogs and bringing it to the centres where needed? Or were they due to the fact that the turf was bad?—Adverse weather conditions is one of the factors explaining the difficulty. There was a difficulty about getting turf cut, saved and dried. 838. With regard to the turf that was cut and saved, what was the reason why that was not sold?—I know that a great deal of turf was cut in Kerry by Bord na Móna and it was just left on the bogs. 839. In 1948-49?—Yes, last year. At that particular time the fuel situation was generally improving, contrary to expectations. It began to improve early in 1948. Coal began to come in in increasing quantities from Great Britain. In addition to that, about one million tons of American coal had already been procured. I am afraid it was just a period when there was not a very strong demand for turf. That is only a hypothetical explanation, but I am afraid I could not give any better in relation to Kerry without a detailed investigation. Deputy J. J. Collins.—That is correct; in that particular year, turf could not be sold. There was too much coal available. Institutions would not take the turf. They would be glad to take it now. 840. Chairman.—What amounts were expended and how much was got in the way of receipts up to the end of this year under review, that is, for the two years? —Receipts from sales up to 31st March, 1949, were £43,202. There was some turf remaining in stock which was carried forward. That represents sales of only 26,000 tons of turf. The amount produced was only 90,000 tons. 841. How much had been expended up to that date?—The expenditure from the Vote for that year was £222,667. Was that the total amount for the two years?—No, only for 1948-49. Mr. Wann.—I think it was £450,000 in 1947-48. Mr. Leydon.—I am afraid I have not got the accounts for the previous year. 842. Chairman.—About £670,000 for the two years?—You really need to set against that the receipts for the year. If the committee desire it, I can send a statement giving the receipts and expenditure for the two years. 843. The previous year’s Appropriation Accounts show an expenditure of £450,000?—I will send you a note on it and give the best figures I can get for stock because the receipts and expenditure figures are incomplete without the stock figures* 844. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report continues; “Section 52 of the Turf Development Act, 1946, provides for the payment out of voted moneys during 1946-47, and in each of the nine subsequent financial years, of grants towards expenses incurred by Bord na Mona on experimental and research work, subject to a limitation of £120,000. The issues under this head, including the sum of £45,000 charged to subhead P. 4. totalled £100,300 at 31st March, 1949.” That does not leave a great deal for the subsequent years?—In 1950, the ceiling was raised, and the figure of £120,000 to which reference is made in that paragraph was increased to £250,000. 845. The paragraph of the Report further states: “A sum of £10,221 10s. 2d. was received from Bord na Móna, and is included in the exchequer extra receipts, in respect of interest on advances made for the development of Clonsast Bog. At 31st March, 1949, the amounts outstanding, including interest, for advances made from voted moneys for the development of bogs were:—
Mr. Wann.—Interest is chargeable to Bord na Móna on each of these advances only as from the date when the bog in respect of which the money was advanced goes into production, or after a period of five years from the establishment of Bord na Móna, whichever is the earlier. 846. Chairman.—How many of these bogs are making repayment?—There are no actual repayments being made—it is only interest which is being paid so far.* 847. Paragraph 55 of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report which is of an informatory nature reads:— “Subhead S.—Repayment of Advances for Rural Electrification. Section 41 (3) of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1945, provides that one moiety of the total amount of the moneys advanced for rural electrification to the Electricity Supply (Board out of the Central Fund shall be repaid to the Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The sum of £225,000 charged to this subhead relates to the repayment to the Central Fund of one-half of the amount of £450,000 advanced during the calendar year 1947 for rural electrification.” 848. Subhead A.A.—Completion and Issue of Ration Books—is a special subhead?—Yes. It was raised during the course of the year. The expenditure was not foreseen. 849. Deputy Coburn.—With regard to subhead E—Advertising and Publicity— there is a big difference in the amount voted, £28,000, and the amount spent, £7,130? Chairman.—That arose through its not being necessary to put in large advertisements?—Yes. It was decided to curtail the advertising. 850. Exactly what is meant by the note on subhead G—Fees to Vocational Educational Committees under the Apprenticeship Act, 1931—that “the number of apprentices who were required to attend courses of training was less than was anticipated?”—This relates to the requirements of the apprenticeship committees which make rules relating to apprenticeship in certain trades. 851. It does not seem very clear from the phrase “required to attend” whether there were not as many apprentices as expected or whether some provision turned up by which they did not need training. I do not think there is anything material in it, but, if you discover that there is, you could send us a note? —I do not think there is anything material in it. I have been looking through the very elaborate provisions of the 1931 Apprenticeship Act which sets out the various matters in respect of which an apprenticeship committee may make rules and I find that the whole thing is rather comprehensive. Perhaps the word “required” was not the happiest word to use, but I will look into it, and, if there is anything material in it, I will send the Committee a note.* 852. Has subhead J—Health Embarkation Certificates—disappeared or is it disappearing?—I am glad to say that it has disappeared from this Vote. It has gone to the Department of Social Welfare but I do not know to what extent they still maintain it. 853. Subhead K—Food Subsidies—is another subhead you have got rid of?— Not entirely. We still have tea. 854. How did the item on page 194 in the details of miscellaneous exchequer receipts—Recovery from Grand Canal Company in respect of Robertstown House, £100—arise? I am afraid I cannot give you the explanation on that with any confidence. I would like to send you a note on that, explaining what it is.† 855. Deputy J. J. Collins.—Under the heading, Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer, Item (2) shows an estimate of £1,645 and the sum realised was £2,057 5s. 4d. What explanation can you give us of that?—It is very difficult to forecast the amount that will be realised. This represents fees payable for the grant or renewal of passenger and merchandise licences. Then there are fees for the issue of vehicle plates also. It is very difficult to forecast, precisely, when these estimates are prepared, how much will be received in the year to the 1st April. Are not you aware in the Department of the number of licence plates there are? 856. Chairman.—There could be more hackney vehicles licenced? There is no restriction on the number?—Yes, there could be. Deputy J. J. Collins.—Do the restrictions still obtain regarding the issue of plates?—Of new ones? Yes?—There are restrictions and it is very difficult to get them. Have any new plates been issued?— They may have been for Córas lompair Eireann. 857. Chairman.—There are notes on pages 196 and 197. I see you were very generous in waiving an amount of 4/9 for excess turf cutting. VOTE 56—AVIATION AND METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES.Mr. J. Leydon further examined.858. Chairman.—Paragraph 56 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General reads as follows:— “Subhead G.—Constructional Works, including furnishing of Buildings— Shannon Airport. Subhead H.—Constructional Works, including furnishing of Buildings— Dublin Airport. Expenditure during the year on constructional works including furnishing of buildings at Dublin. Shannon (Rineanna) and Shannon (Foynes) Airports amounted to £134,741 8s. 9d., £165,511 17s. 6d., and £482 5s. 4d., respectively, bringing the total expenditure, as at 31st March, 1949, to £862,302 18s. 1d. for Dublin Airport, £1,586,051 18s. 8d. for Shannon Airport (Rineanna) and £163,262 18s. 5d. for Shannon Airport (Foynes), exclusive of expenditure on the acquisition of land. It was observed that expenditure amounting to £1,169 12s. 3d. was incurred on work for which a sum of £757 8s. 3d. had been sanctioned and I have asked that the approval of the Department of Finance be obtained for the excess expenditure.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann? Mr. Wann.—The Department of Finance has given the sanction. 859. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 is as follows:— “Subhead M.—Management of Dublin Airport. The agreement between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Aer Rianta, Teoranta, provides, inter alia, that the Minister, with the approval of the Minister for Finance shall determine the actual loss arising out of the management of the airport. The loss so determined for the year ended 31st March, 1949, and charged to this subhead, was £4,689 10s. 11d. Under the agreement the Company was granted the use of certain equipment purchased from public funds and was required to maintain inventories of all the items supplied. It was observed in the course of audit that the inventories envisaged in the agreement were not maintained but I understand that with a view to rectifying the matter a comprehensive stocktaking has now been carried out. I have inquired whether it has been found possible to effect a reconciliation between the records of purchases from voted moneys and the stocktaking returns.” Mr. Wann.—This matter, I understand, is still under discussion with the Department of Finance. Mr. Leydon.—The task of reconciliation is still proceeding. We have had quite a number of discussions with the Department of Finance and with the Air Company about it. 860. Chairman.—Have you any hope of coming to an end of the matter soon?— We must come to an end, Sir. We must see how far we can get with the reconciliation. If there is a deficiency, we will have to ask for sanction to write it off. I think that is the only way out of it. We have not reached that stage yet. 861. Just arising out of this matter of the loss on the management of Dublin Airport, I notice that, as was mentioned in the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s note here, a loss is charged to subhead M but, in the Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer—Item 1, it is shown that there was a receipt from Aer Rianta, Teoranta, in respect of profit on management of Dublin Airport, £10,787 15s. 3d. Perhaps you could reconcile the apparent discrepancy here?—The actual loss for the year was £4,689. I think. They could not have been keeping two sets of books, showing a loss on one and a profit on the other, I hope. I think Mr. Wann has discovered the explanation. In the previous year there was a profit which has not been brought to account in that year. That was shown by way of Extra Exchequer Receipt. I think that is the explanation?—In 1947-48 there was a profit of £10,787 15s. 3d. Yes. That is the amount now brought to account as Extra Exchequer Receipt?— Yes. That is the exact amount. 862. Chairman.—Paragraph 58 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:— “Subhead N.—Subsidy in respect of Air Services. In paragraph 61 of the previous report reference was made to the fact that subsidy up to the limit of £750,000 prescribed by Section 19 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1946, had been paid to Aer Rianta, Teoranta. Pending the enactment of legislation to extend the subsidy limit no payments in respect of subsidy could be made to Aer Rianta, Teoranta, in the year under review, and the provision of £600,000 fell to be surrendered.” Mr. Wann.—Section 25 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1950, empowers the Minister for Finance to authorise, by order, the payment of subsidies to Aer Rianta, Teoranta. I understand that a large payment was made on 30th March, 1950. 863. Chairman.—Would the payment made in the following year take this amount into account? Mr. Leydon.—Yes, Sir. That has been adjusted since. 864. Chairman.—Paragraph 59 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General is as follows:— “Suspense Account. It was observed that receipts described as concession fees were credited to a suspense account and in reply to an inquiry I was informed that these receipts represent fees charged by the Department on sales made by certain companies operating from sites at Dublin Airport, and that the sites have been let to the companies at annual rents payable in addition to the concession fees. I have asked for further information on this matter.” Mr. Wann.—I understand that the receipts in question represent the product of a concession fee which is charged in respect of the sale of aviation fuel by two oil companies. Each company pays a rental of £75 per annum exclusive of rates and a concession fee of one-tenth of a penny per gallon is paid on all sales by the companies at the airport. I do not know whether the suspense account has yet been cleared. Mr. Leydon.—The suspense account has I think, been cleared. The arrangement now is that Aer Rianta, as managers of the Airport will act as the Minister’s agent and will look after the collection of rents and concession fees and the rents and concession fees which have been credited to that suspense account have been transferred to the Dublin Airport Management Account in September, 1950. I think that was after the date of our reply to your query, Mr. Wann. 865. Chairman.—In regard to Subhead E—Acquisition of Land, Buildings, etc.— I notice, Mr. Leydon, that you suffer the same delay as everybody else in connection with land in producing evidence of title. Has there been any improvement in that matter?—Generally, I do not think so. These delays are inescapable. Where there is any question of title to land in this country, it is painfully slow. 866. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—In regard to subhead G—Constructional works including furnishing of Buildings—Shannon Airport—were the constructional works proceeded with subsequently or have they just been written off altogether?—Some of them have and some of them have been abandoned. It is very difficult, without producing complete lists, to say what exactly has become of the various items for which these provisions were made. I think some of them were deferred and some were, perhaps, abandoned altogether. 867. Chairman.—In regard to subhead K—Fuel, Water, Light and Cleaning Shannon Airport, etc.—I notice that under the heading, Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, refunds from the Electricity Supply Board of charges made in previous years are described as overcharges. Was there in this year a complete revision of the agreement between the Electricty Supply Board and the Department in this matter?—Negotiations had been proceeding for a couple of years with the Electricity Supply Board about the charges and they reduced the charges and made a refund. 868. The excess on this particular subhead arises through 17 months’ accounts coming in in the year?—Yes. I presume there was a delay in paying the accounts because of the discussions? —That was the position, Sir. 869. In respect of subhead R—Incidental Expenses—the note mentions the cost of the carriage of hydrogen cylinders. I take it the cost of the hydrogen cylinders, or the hydrogen, would be borne on subhead T—Equipment?—Subhead T is actual equipment. Yes. Subhead R is only the cost of the carriage of the equipment?—That is all, Sir. 870. In connection with the Appropriations in Aid, the details of which will be found on page 201, I notice that there is a big falling off in the receipts in respect of landing fees and concession fees, apparently due to less traffic than had been anticipated. Has the traffic position improved since?—It is not easy to give a simple answer to that question because the traffic might be understood as relating to the number of landings or the number of passengers passing through the Airport. The number of passengers has actually increased. The number of aircraft landings is a rather variable factor because the bigger the aircraft used, the smaller the number of landings. 871. You really need two sets of figures to show the traffic—one relating to the number of passengers and the other to the number of aircraft landings?—Aircraft landings in 1948 numbered 6,812; in 1949, 5,983, and in 1950, 5,934. The total numbers of passengers, which include passengers embarked, passengers disembarked and passengers in transit, were: 1948, 156,570; 1949, 157,112; 1950, 187,901. Therefore, you see that although the number of aircraft landings has decreased, as between 1948 and 1950, the number of passengers actually increased by over 30,000. It just reflects the increase in the size of the planes?—Yes. 872. Note No. 5 states that there were no receipts from the catering service as the audit of accounts was delayed pending the determination of certain financial adjustments affecting the accounts. Has that matter been cleared up?—That matter has now been cleared up satisfactorily and the catering service is now showing a profit. It showed a loss up to a certain period but up to the last completed year, it has shown a profit on balance over the whole period. 873. In regard to Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, Item No. 4 relates to: “Compensation in respect of damage to property and loss of time owing to stoppage of work arising out of damage to a dredger.” Is that the same matter as is referred to on page 202 in the fourth note from the bottom, in regard to subhead G. where the receipt of £58 16s. Od. from the underwriters in respect of damage to the dredger, is referred to?—I am sorry, Sir, I still cannot link it up. The note which I have in regard to the matter says that it includes compensation from a contractor for damage to cables at the Dublin Airport and also the receipt from the underwriters of a certain sum in respect to damage to the dredger Erin-go-Bragh. 874. I think it is reasonably, clear that the amount in respect of damage to the dredger was £58 16s. Od. and that there was a sum of £7 paid by the contractor for damage to the cables?—I think it is reasonably clear that it is in respect of the same Vote. It may relate to the other item, the cable at the Dublin Airport. This is Shannon. 875. The item refers also to: “loss of time owing to stoppage of work.” Is that outside the payment by the underwriters? —I shall send you a note explaining exactly how that is arrived at.* 876. I see from notes on pages 202 and 203, that the Post Office does not let another Department off where they make agreements about a telephone circuit?— No, they did not let us off on this occasion. 877. Did that apply just because it was in connection with the Air Companies or would it apply in the normal way to a telephone circuit asked for by the Department as such?—You are referring now to subhead C.? To the note on subhead C.?—Well, I would assume it is the general practice. Certainly this was not the Air Companies. This was the Department of Industry and Commerce. 878. There is mention in a note on page 202 relating to subhead H. of expenditure in respect of architects’ fees and expenses for preliminary work in connection with the proposed Aircraft Repair Depot at Dublin Airport. How does that arise? I see it was abandoned?—It was decided not to go on with the Repair Depot at Dublin Airport but any expenditure that had been incurred up to that time had to be met. There was a scheme for a fairly elaborate Repair Depot at Dublin Airport which would have been able to do a good deal of work in connection with the Aer Lingus fleet and the Constellations but that was abandoned. 879. The total expenditure which proved to be nugatory was considerable? This only mentions architects’ fees and expenses in connection with the preliminary work?—There is further expenditure included in the account for 1949-50. It will arise again next year. I understand the figure for the following year was about £1,900. 880. The last note on the page refers to an ex-gratia payment of £113 1s. Od. 10 a contractor. I wonder what percentage of the contract price this payment of £113 1s. Od. would represent? Does it make a material difference to the contract?—I am sorry, sir, I cannot answer that. I shall have to send you a note.* The only interest I have in it is that naturally if there was some material difference it might be unfair to the other contractors who had tendered?—I quite appreciate that point. VOTE 58—TRANSPORT AND MARINE SERVICES.Mr. J. Leydon further examined.881. Chairman.—The note on subhead B—Grants for Harbours—is not very clear to me. The end of it says: “Owing to improved trading conditions the need for grants towards the essential maintenance of harbours did not arise to the extent expected.” Does that mean that the Harbour Authorities got an extra income from normal trading?—Yes. Many of those harbour grants were given because during the Emergency the harbours had no vessels trading to them. Their revenue disappeared and they were not in a position to meet these expenses themselves. 882. In regard to subhead L—Medals and Certificates—I take it the medals and the certificates referred to are those just issued now?—Yes. We have had that under consideration for a long time. 883. Are you still removing the protective equipment against magnetic mines referred to in subhead M.?—This of course refers to 1948-49. It would be a mistake to remove them immediately after the war. This refers to “degaussing” or “wiping” which is a protection against mines. The mines were floating around long after the war. 884. I assume it has practically disappeared now or would you be still making payments in respect of the work done?— It should have disappeared now. 885. The only item in regard to the Appropriations in Aid that I think calls for any explanation is that referred to in Note No. 11. Perhaps you would explain a little more about the position in regard to the Dun Aengus?—The position in regard to that is that the Exchequer was responsible for the actual payment of the cost and it seemed only reasonable that they should recover from the company whatever the company recovered under the insurance policy. Actually, the repairs cost more than the amount recovered from the underwriters. 886. Can you say, roughly, how much of a net loss there was?—Speaking from recollection, I think it was about £1,000-or £2,000. 887. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—The note to No. 6 refers to applications for licences to remove beach material. Would that be sand or sea-weed for manure?—The sand or sea-weed referred to is a fertiliser. 888. Chairman.—I take it that great care is exercised in the granting of licences so that people will not remove the sand for building purposes?—I can say that great efforts are made in that direction. It is an extremely difficult thing to do, and has led to a great deal of trouble in certain places. The Garda Síochána have encountered difficulties in some areas. There has been a great deal of trouble in the south and south-west. 889. Deputy J. J. Collins.—Are these foreshore licences and leases available to all people who would ordinarily apply to the Department to remove sand from the seashore?—It all depends. In some places, the removal of the sand is more dangerous than in others from the point of view of erosion, and for that reason removals are restricted to the absolute minimum. They are generally limited to farmers residing within a certain radius of the locality. 890. Unfortunately, they do not do that?—Does the Deputy mean that it is not possible, in fact, to confine it in that way? There has been too much discrimination, but that is not your fault?—There is certainly no intention of applying any discrimination at all. These conditions are extremely difficult to enforce. We rely on the Guards to enforce them, but they have great difficulty, I know. 891. I would like to mention a case that occurs to me. I know two adjoining parishes. The people in one parish have absolutely free access to the foreshore to get this manure, while in the next parish, which is actually nearer to the beach, the people in it cannot get the manure at all. That is why I asked the question. An order was made by the Minister in connection with the same difficulty at Ballybunion foreshore?—If the Deputy will write and let me know what is the point about Ballybunion, I shall have the matter looked into, and will let him know what the answer is. I think I know the answer. VOTE 60—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE.Mr. J. Leydon further examined.892. Chairman.—In connection with the Extra Receipts, I take it that these are paid in cash?—Yes. Some payments are made in cash, but normally payment is made by means of a receivable order through a bank. Payment may be made by cheque in suitable cases. 893. But not in stamps?—No. VOTE 73—REPAYMENT OF TRADE LOANS ADVANCES.Mr. J. Leydon called.No question. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
