Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1951 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1949 - 1950

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Dé Céadaoin, 17ú Deireadh Fomhair, 1951.

Wednesday, 17th October, 1951.

The Committee sat at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), and Mr. J. O’Donovan (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

GENERAL REPORT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.

1. Chairman.—Paragraph 1 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Out-turn of the Year.

The gross estimates for public services for the financial year 1949-50, as shown by the summary on page xxxi, amounted to £78,066,604, and the gross expenditure to £76,759,201 15s. 9d. Appropriations in Aid, which were estimated at £3,459,140, realised £3,446,630 7s. 6d., and the actual amount applied in aid of expenditure was £3,372,900 17s. 6d., the balance falling to be surrendered.

The total amount to be surrendered is £1,294,892 11s. 9d., which is arrived at as follows:—

The amount to be surrendered, £1,294,892 11s. 9d., represents approximately 1.7 per cent. of the supply grants.

In no case has the provision made by Dáil Eireann been exceeded, nor is an excess vote necessary.”

I think the figure of 1.7 per cent. is unusually low?—That is so.

2. The figure for the previous year was 9.8 per cent.?—1.7 per cent. is unusually low. In the previous year, the balances surrendered amounted to over £7,000,000 as compared with £1,294,000 odd in the year which we are discussing. There has been nothing lower than £1,294,000, at any rate for the last 15 years. The nearest approach to it was £1,631,000 in 1937-38. Of course it is a matter, from some points of view, of regret to the Department of Finance that the savings were not greater, but, on the other hand, we welcome the ability of Departments to make a closer estimation of their requirements because it saves us the necessity of imposing taxation in order to meet these requirements. It does help us when the Departments are formulating their estimates for each financial year if we can tell them that the Public Accounts Committee takes a very close interest in this matter because if the Departments show a greater saving on their Votes it means that taxation is being imposed on the country which may not be necessary. Of course we realise that in some cases the savings are inevitable. For example, the Department of Finance itself accounts for a number of Votes like Commissions and Special Inquiries, Secret Service and the Civil Service Commission; at present we are engaged in drawing up the Estimates for 1952-53, at least in the preliminary stage. It is very hard for us to tell now or in the course of the next two months what Commissions or Special Inquiries are likely to be functioning in 1952-53 or how many examinations, tests or competitions the Civil Service Commission or the Local Appointments Commission are likely to hold or what is likely to be the outlay on the Vote for the Secret Service. In the case of other Departments like the Fisheries section of the Department of Agriculture or the Gaeltacht Services or, say, the Aviation or the Meteorological Services in the Department of Industry and Commerce, there is a good deal of capital equipment and machinery and so on which has perhaps been ordered and which may not be delivered in time to have payments made within the financial year in which the orders were placed. We realise that a certain amount of latitude is necessary in the framing of the Estimates, but we welcome, as I say, a closer approximation to realities on the part of the Departments. It helps everyone all round.

3. It would be true to say that the closeness in these cases in some respects was due to the introduction of a good number of Supplementary Estimates—did not they materially affect it?—Yes, there were a number of Supplementary Estimates but they were not an undue number I think. Every year we have to face a certain number of Supplementary Estimates, as the Chairman is aware, but in 1949-50 there was not an undue proportion.

4. Chairman.—Paragraph 2 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which is of a general and informatory character, reads as follows:—

“Stock and Store Accounts.

The stock and store accounts of the Departments have been examined. The results are satisfactory, with some exceptions which are referred to in paragraphs relating to the votes of the Departments concerned.”

5. Chairman.—Paragraph 3 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General state:—

“Surrender of Balances on 1948-49 Votes.

The balances to be surrendered out of votes for the public services for 1948-49 amounted to £7,074,421 0s. 11d. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered to the Exchequer.”

Mr. McElligott.—These balances amounted to 9.6 per cent. of the total Estimates as compared with 1.7 per cent. for 1949-50. Therefore, the improvement has been very considerable.

6. Chairman.—Paragraph 4 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Foreign Exchange Account.

The Foreign Exchange Account established under the provisions of section 49 of the Finance Act, 1941, has been examined for the year ended 31st March, 1950. I certify that, in my opinion, the operations and transactions coming within the purview of such examination have been conducted and effected in accordance with the statutory provisions.”

VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined

7. Chairman.—Deputies will see in reference to subhead B—Travelling Expenses of Teachtaí—the Department’s explanation on page 4 of any variation between what was granted and what was actually spent. Deputies got into the habit of using cars more frequently and that accounts for the excess on subhead B.

8. Deputy Davin.—In reference to subhead J.—Restaurant—Contribution in respect of Catering Expenses—could Mr. McElligott explain how the contribution in respect of ware and utensils is operated?—The restaurant, of course, is managed by the Joint Committee of the two Houses, and the Department of Finance has very little to say in it. The management is entirely a matter for the Committee itself and the Department of Finance only comes into it when it has to make a payment to the caterer. These payments are made on the recommendation of the Ceann Comhairle, and they are made in recoupment of expenses as shown in the certified accounts. These accounts, I understand, are examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. At least, he gives any assistance that he may be called upon to give in that respect by the Ceann Comhairle, and the Department of Finance then has no option but to pay any certified losses that are shown up to the extent of the amount in the Vote which is fixed at an annual figure of £500. In fact, we have not been paying anything like £500. We paid only £230 17s. 3d. in the year under discussion, 1949-50, and in 1950-51 we paid only £44. We paid nothing in the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 and 1948-49. So that, from the point of view of calling on the Exchequer, the restaurant has not been a very serious burden.

9. Deputy Davin.—Could Mr. McElligott say where is the effective authority in this matter? Is it the Clerk of the House, the Ceann Comhairle or the Department of Finance?

Chairman.—The Ceann Comhairle.

Mr. McElligott.—The Ceann Comhairle.

Chairman.—You will see that on the Estimate. It is quite plain on the Estimate.

10. Deputy Davin.—I do not want to raise questions of policy on this, but there is a general opinion prevailing that this restaurant committee is just a glorified body without any authority and that the recommendations, whenever they are submitted, are just simply ignored.

Chairman.—I do not know that it is a function of this Committee to criticise another Committee of the House.

Mr. McElligott.—Still less, I think, the function of the Accounting Officer.

11. Deputy Davin.—I am merely concerned to find out where the authority lies so that the members of the restaurant committee can go to that individual or individuals.

Deputy Dockrell.—It looks as if the restaurant committee is not asserting its authority.

Deputy Gallagher.—Deputy Davin is not criticising the committee. You could not accuse him of criticising the restaurant committee.

Chairman.—By implication. He does not think it is working very hard.

12. Deputy Davin.—I want to ensure —and I hope I have your support and the support of the members of the committee —that if there is a Committee of the House with duties to perform they will be given power to perform the duties to the satisfaction of those who appoint them.

Chairman.—As. I understand, the restaurant committee is purely an advisory body, that the power rests with the Ceann Comhairle, but I think the right time to raise the matter would be on the Estimate in the House.

Deputy Davin.—I have done so before without much success.

Chairman.—If you cannot get satisfaction from the Dáil, you cannot expect it here.

Mr. McElligott.—I may say for the information of the Committee and with particular reference to the points raised by Deputy Davin, that in general, it was agreed in 1933 between the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for Finance that certain principles should be accepted in regard to the restaurant. I do not want to detain the Committee but I might briefly refer to these principles. They are: (1) That the provision of good food, well served and at reasonable cost must be considered as a necessary service if members are to discharge their parliamentary duties satisfactorily; (2) that the main purpose of the restaurant should be, therefore, the provision of such service and not the making of profits; (3) that if the proper working of the restaurant should involve loss, such loss should, within limits, be borne by the State in the interest of the service, and (4) that provision should be made from State funds for the proper working of the restaurant, such as maintenance, improvements, light and heat, cutlery, ware and utensils.

I just quote these principles to show that the Minister for Finance has not been unmindful of the welfare of the two Houses.

Deputy Davin.—I want to assure Mr. McElligott, through you, Sir, that there is no attempt on my part to criticise the Accounting Officer.

13. Deputy Dockrell.—In reference to subhead I.—Inter-Parliamentary Activities—what was that made up of?—The total figure was £1,991 4s. 3d. It was made up of travelling and subsistence expenses of people going to Stockholm in September, 1949, £478 8s. 4d.; and in the same month to Bigwin Inn, which is in Canada, £1,233 2s. 4d; and then there was a balance of £140 in respect of expenses to Monaco. Our annual subscription amounted to the small sum of £138 8s. 2d. The total—£138 8s. 2d. plus £1,852 16s. 1d., which was the expenses to those other places that I have mentioned—was £1,991 4s. 3d., which is the figure entered in the account.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 5—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

14. Chairman.—The details of the Appropriations in Aid are on page 9. The Commissioners for Public Works also get fees for the management of the Local Loans Fund. How does that arise?— They make certain charges in connection with their investigations of proposals for the local loans and these are provided for in the rules appertaining to the Local Loans Fund. The expenses of the Department of Finance are not very considerable, as you will see from the figure of £1,000, in relation to the total amount of the local loans outstanding, which is very considerable, running into many millions of pounds.

15. Deputy Davin.—How much?—It was £24,794,000 on the 31st March, 1951, and we have contracted certain other borrowings on its behalf and have made very substantial issues since 31st March. I think that the figure of £1,000 was modest in the circumstances.

16. Chairman.—Yes, but it is not the only figure. The management of the fund costs a great deal more than £1,000?—I have not before me the figure——

Chairman.—The estimated amount recoverable as expenses of management of the Local Loans Fund is given on page 18 as £14,000.

Mr. McElligott.—I am looking at the Appropriations in Aid, Vote 10, which is the Public Works and Buildings Vote. In Vote 9—page 18—it is shown that fees under the Local Loans Fund (Fees and Expenses) Regulations, 1946, were estimated at £8,000 and realised £18,751 11s. 0d. Of course, the issues from the fund that year were very large and, as I say, there is a growing amount of capital outstanding and I think, in relation to the magnitude of the transactions of the fund, it is modest.

17. Chairman.—I was not really querying the amount. I was wondering why you got £1,000 and also realised £10,894 —paragraph (6) of the Appropriations in Aid of Vote 9, page 18—for the management of the fund. Everybody seems to be managing it. I could not quite follow. Perhaps the word “management”, like charity, covers a multitude?—In the Department of Finance, at any rate, we have to exercise a certain amount of supervision. We have to provide all the capital, of course, and, as I say, the demands made by the Fund are very considerable on the Exchequer and we charge what we regard as a modest fee for our services. The Board of Works, of course, have a very big staff employed on Local Loans Fund matters because they have to investigate the various applications that come before them and have to examine plans and estimates of cost and have to satisfy themselves as to the technical details, feasibility and other matters of the various schemes submitted.

18. I can understand that part, Mr. McElligott. Call that payment for work being done in that respect. I cannot quite understand why the Commissioners of Public Works should be managing the fund as well as the Department of Finance. It is probably only that the phrase used is confusing?—Possibly a more suitable expression than the word “management” could be found. At any rate, we set out the details in the Estimate for 1949-50 which we are discussing, the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Finance. There is a footnote to the Estimate which states that the net expenses of management of the Local Loans Fund in 1949-50 are estimated at £19,550. This amount, we said, will be recovered from the fund and will be appropriated in aid of the Votes to which the expenses are attributable. Then we set out the Votes, including Vote 4— the Comptroller and Auditor General Vote. I think that he gets a little out of it, too. The figure, I think, is £350. He was the most modest claimant. The Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance gets £1,000, the Vote for the Board of Works, £14,000, and various other Votes get small sums, amounting in all to £19,550.

19. Deputy Hickey.—How do you get the money for the Local Loans Fund. Do you get it out of taxation?—We borrow it.

20. When you borrow it, what rate of interest have you to pay?—It all depends on whether we raise it on a short-term or long-term basis. We borrow from the public, or from departmental funds, or from the American Loan Counterpart Fund at varying rates of interest.

21. What would the average figure be? —It is very hard to strike an average figure because in the case of a public loan for example, not only the rate of interest but also the sinking fund has to be taken into account, and then there are the expenses of the issue: advertising, the printing of prospectuses and so on. The Deputy will not mind if I rather qualify my reply and say that the average will be not less than 4 per cent., something between 4 and 5 per cent.

22. And the people in the different areas under the local authorities are getting it at 3¾ per cent.?—They are getting it at 3¼ per cent. I think they are getting it very cheaply.

23. We are all paying it in the long run?—Yes, the community has to pay in the long run.

VOTE 8—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

24. Deputy Davin.—On what basis is this payment fixed?—This payment was fixed at the rate of £300 per million, and it was fixed as far back as 1892. It is a rate of payment which we have inherited and we feel that it is very economical from the Exchequer point of view, considering the services performed by the various banks. They keep the registers of Government loans. They have to enter in these registers, of course, the names and addresses of the proprietors of the stocks. They register sales and purchases and any transactions in respect of cancellation of stock. They have to send out the half-yearly dividends, and of course everything has to be performed with meticulous accuracy. We would not tolerate any mistakes, and no mistakes are, in fact, made. The percentage of remuneration was fixed, as I have said, as far back as 1892. Everybody knows that the expenses of the banks have very materially increased since that time. We are satisfied that the whole arrangement works out very economically from our point of view.

25. Could the Accounting Officer give us the allocations to the different banks?— Yes, they are set out in detail in the Estimate for 1949-50. The Bank of Ireland and the National City Bank of New York were to get a round figure of £1,900 between them for managing the Second National Loan. The Bank of Ireland, for managing the Third National Loan was to get £1,500; for managing the Fourth National Loan, it was to get £1,500; for managing the 4 per cent. Conversion Loan, it was to get £1,800; for managing the 3¾ per cent. Financial Agreement Loan, it was to get £2,700; for the management of the 4 per cent. Exchequer Bonds it was to get £1,900, and for the management of the 3¼ per cent. National Security Loan it was to get £2,200. The National City Bank, for the management of Land Bonds, which at that time was the largest single issue the Government had, was to get £8,000, making a round total of £22,000.

26. Deputy Hickey.—These were payments to the banks?—To the Bank of Ireland, the National City Bank and the National City Bank of New York—three of them. But since this Estimate was prepared, after the Appropriation Accounts were audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Second National Loan has disappeared, and some other loans including the Third National Loan, owing to the conversion operations that we carried out during the year. Of course, new stocks were, in the main, substituted for them, so that no saving will result on this Vote except in so far as stocks are redeemed. Of the total of about £21,000,000 of stocks affected by the conversion operations, £4,000,000 were redeemed—I am speaking in round figures—and the remaining £17,000,000 were converted into the new 3½ per cent. stocks which were issued. So far as the National City Bank of New York was concerned we were anxious to get rid of these payments because they involved dollars. The arrangements with the local banks were satisfactory.

27. Could not this work be done by the Department of Finance itself or through the Central Bank?—We think that it could, possibly, be more expensive if it were done either by the Department of Finance or the Central Bank. The present arrangement has the advantage that the registers are situated quite close to the Stock Exchange and so stockbrokers are in a position to register sales and transfers of securities very rapidly. If the stock registers were kept up here they would be completely out of the way of the Stock Exchange. The Central Bank would be more convenient, in view of the fact that its offices are situated at Foster Place. We think it better to have the commercial banks doing this because the transactions in these stocks are really commercial transactions. The banks are acquainted with all the stockbrokers and other dealers in the securities, and their offices are open and easily accessible to the various interests concerned.

It occurred to me that the Central Bank might do this instead of the commercial banks?—We did consider the matter from time to time and came to the conclusion that the balance of advantage lay with having the registers where they are with the commercial banks.

Deputy Dockrell.—It seems to me that the Government are getting very good value.

Deputy Hickey.—Of course there will always be a difference of opinion as far as that is concerned.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

28. Chairman.—I notice that the fees for analyses, under Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer were very much in excess of expectations. Is there any particular reason for that?—As I said at the outset of my evidence, these Estimates are prepared a good deal in advance of the financial year to which they relate, and, therefore, it is very difficult to form a proper appreciation of the extent to which specimens, equipment or apparatus will be submitted for examination by the State laboratory. Samples are sent in under the Food and Drugs Acts, the Dairy Produce Acts and the Coroner’s Act, and so it is quite a leap in the dark to estimate in advance for a particular year. I agree that a realisation five times in excess of the amount estimated looks a bit odd.

29. I was just wondering whether, in view of the fact that the amount realised was about three times as much as that realised in the previous year, there was any particular reason for this?—There was no particular reason operating during that year so far as I am aware. The estimate for Extra Receipts tends to be on the conservative side.

30. Most of this work would be concerned with road materials. There is a payment from the Road Fund?—That is in respect of the salary of a chemist who was engaged in road research work—research into road-making materials, their durability and other aspects of importance from the point of view of road making.

31. Where payments were involved in the case of road-making materials, would the fees he collected from the road authorities?—No. They would be collected direct from the Road Fund. The researches would be made on behalf of the Road Fund generally by arrangement with the Department of Local Government which controls the allocation of the fund.

32. Deputy Davern.—Would the extra amount be attributable to industrial research?—Do you mean the amount of the fees for analyses?

Yes?—No, because in general, the State Laboratory works only for State Departments or bodies associated with the State like Bord na Móna, the Electricity Supply Board and so on. In the case of commercial institutions, these are usually referred to the public analysts who operate on commercial lines outside the State Laboratory. The fees for analyses here mainly relate to fees under the two Acts I have mentioned, the Food and Drugs Act and the Dairy Produce Acts, in respect of the testing of creamery appliances, samples submitted under these Acts of foodstuffs and the measuring of volumetric glass instruments such as pipettes and so on.

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

33. Chairman.—I notice that the explanation is that the savings are due to fewer appointments having been made and that there were not as many examinations and tests held, but the fees recovered from local authorities in respect of Local Appointments Commission meetings are up, or are very near the Estimate. Do I take it that most of the reductions in examinations was in the Civil Service Commission and that there was not much reduction in local appointments? —That would be a factor. There was also the consideration that moneys are recovered from local authorities in arrear. The recoveries in 1949-50 would relate mainly to examinations and tests conducted for local authorities in the preceding year.

VOTE 14—IRISH TOURIST BOARD.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

34. Chairman.—Has the Commission on Youth Unemployment finished its work?— Yes. The Commission reported in July. The Report has appeared in the papers and is at present in course of printing and will be put on sale very shortly.

35. Deputy Hickey.—What is the function of the Commission on Place Names? Does it involve legislation ultimately?— If there is to be any wholesale change in nomenclature, I suppose it will, but that Commission, which has been in abeyance for some time, is now in the process of revival. We have yet to see what will emerge from its deliberations.

36. Deputy Davin.—What is the position with regard to the Commission on Emigration?—The position is that we have received no report from that Commission. Some inquiries which I addressed to that body prior to my examination by the Committee failed to elicit any conjectural date as to when the report would be presented. I understand that they have been actively engaged in preparing the Report and that it is at an advanced stage.

37. Chairman.—This Commission on the Condition of Art in Ireland—is this a new Commission or a fairly recent Commission?—That refers to the investigation which Dr. Bodkin undertook on behalf of the Government.

38. What is a Local Authorities Formulary?—It is something of a pharmaceutical character relating to medicine and drugs of various descriptions.

39. You do not know what they are inquiring into?—I cannot say I do. It was an expert inquiry by the Department of Health, so far as I understand. In any case, the question ought to be addressed to the Minister in the Dáil.

40. Deputy Davin.—I should like to be assured, and we have been assured, that the Commission on Emigration has a living existence.

Deputy Gallagher.—Is it going to cost another £3,000?

Chairman.—I take it from what I saw in the Press that they are active at the moment?

Mr. McElligott.—In fact, no provision was included in the 1951-52 Estimates for the Commission on Emigration and other Population Problems, but that does not necessarily mean that they cannot continue their work, because if there is any small balance of expenditure required to keep them going, it can be found from other sources.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

41. Chairman.—With regard to subhead F.F.—Increase in Certain Pensions and Allowances—why, when a special subhead was opened, was it then decided to distribute the expenses proper to that special subhead to three other subheads, A.J. and K, instead of showing the pension authorised by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1950, under the subhead opened for it?—I think it was to draw special attention to the fact that such increases had beeen authorised and were being given. The increases would have been lost otherwise in the three subheads A., J. and K. It was rather an exceptional step, not contemplated at the time the Estimate was framed and this seemed to be the best method of directing the attention of the Committee to the fact that such increases were being given.

42. I do not think it quite right to say “the attention of the Committee”—it was really for the Dáil. It was introduced as a Supplementary Estimate and the only explanation I can think of is that the exact amount was not known at the time of the introduction of the token amount?—That is true. The exact figures were not available, but we felt that we could meet the expenses by savings on other subheads, so the Estimate was of a token character.

43. If these increases had not been allowed, would it have meant that there would have been any considerable total surplus to be surrendered? To put it more directly, what amount was involved by this increase?—I have not got that information by me, but I can supply the Committee with it.

It just struck me that, in spite of these increases, there was a fair surplus surrendered, and, if they were of any magnitude, there would have been a very considerable surplus?—I can obtain some information on the point for the Committee.*

44. Chairman.—How does it arise that there was this substantial amount under item 3 of the Appropriations in Aid in so far as it was not foreseen—£854 15s. 11d. —due to payments by local authorities under sections 82 and 84 of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1948? —That surplus was due to payments by local authorities under sections 82 and 84 of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1948, towards certain pensions granted under the Superannuation Acts. At the time the Estimate was framed, we had no idea what the amount was likely to be. That Act, as you are aware, enabled persons who retired from the Civil Service and who had served under a local authority in a pensionable capacity to aggregate their services in the two places together for pensions purposes; and then we recovered from the local authority the amount appropriate to the period of service spent with them. At the time the Estimate was framed, the basis of recoupment had not been settled and accordingly the figure was a shot in the dark. Since the basis of assessment was agreed between the local authorities and ourselves, we have estimated this more or less accurately.

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 JURIES ACT.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 20—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

45. Deputy Dockrell.—What is the meaning of subhead C.—The National Theatre Society, Limited?—That is an annual Grant-in-Aid to the Abbey Theatre, in aid of the expenses of the Abbey Theatre Company. It has been kept at that figure for same time and the figure is £3,000 in the current financial year also.

They certainly need it all.

46. Chairman.—Subhead CC—Contribution towards cost of structural alterations in Abbey Theatre, Dublin—looks like being a rather substantial subhead some time?—Yes, I feel it will become a very substantial subhead.

The days of this token vote are numbered?—Yes.

47. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—What cultural institutions can benefit under subhead D?—Is there a specific list?—Yes. For 1949-50 the list was: Royal Zoological Society, £1,000; Royal Irish Academy, in all, £8,050; Royal Irish Academy of Music, £300. That makes a total of £9,350 provided by the Estimate. £9,000 was spent and £350 was saved, the reason being that, as stated in the note, “the claim in respect of the Grant-in-Aid of publication of contributions to lexicography of early Irish was less than anticipated.” That was work being carried out by the Royal Irish Academy. We paid the Academy of Music the full £300 and the Zoological Society the full £1,000, while the Royal Irish Academy got £8,050 less £350.

Deputy Dockrell.—I think we ought to be ashamed of ourselves for what we paid the Royal Irish Academy of Music. However, I suppose this Committee cannot concern itself with that.

Chairman.—It certainly cannot. There is a place for everything.

48. On subhead E., who gets this money for the Irish Plate?—The Racing authorities at the Curragh get it, but it is supplemented by grants from the Racing Board. The race itself is run at the Curragh. The money is payable to the winners of a certain event. I think the total amount is brought up to 300 guineas by grants from the Racing Board. This amount is 100 guineas.

49. Deputy Davern.—Does this grant rotate? Has it rotated in the past?—No, I think it was this certain event all the time.

50. I know the Department of Finance stipulate certain conditions governing the grant in regard to the Irish Plate. Would it be possible to stipulate conditions under which it would rotate? I have in mind small races at places around the country.

Chairman.—I think the Deputy will have to keep that until the Vote comes before the House. Normally the Derby is always run at Epsom, and I am sure the Irish Plate similarly at the Curragh?

Mr. McElligott.—This grant takes the place of the Governor-General’s Plate. They were always run at the Curragh and a change would be a violent break with tradition.

Deputy Davern.—What was known as the Governor-General’s Plate was not run at the Curragh always. It was run at Mallow.

Chairman.—At any rate, this is not the place to discuss it.

VOTE 24—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 25—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

51. Deputy Hickey.—On subhead C., is there any idea of the number of counsel engaged for the year or the fees paid?

Chairman.—The Deputy could get that by putting down a question to the Minister. I remember seeing that done.

Mr. McElligott.—I have the informtion, but it is rather lengthy. There are three pages of names. I could leave it with the Secretary to the Committee.

Deputy Davin.—There was no shortage of applicants.

52. Chairman.—Does the Deputy wish that list to be left?

Deputy Hickey.—No, it is all right.

Mr. McElligott.—The arrangements for counsel are made by the Attorney-General, not the Department of Finance, as the Deputy will understand. I have the lists for earlier years and for 1950-51, if the Committee wishes to see them. The information is available in the Department of Finance at any time.

Deputy Hickey.—Substantial fees were paid.

53. Chairman.—Subhead E—Defence of Public Officials—is the only one which shows an excess. The note says it is conjectural?—Yes, it is even more conjectural than some of the subheads we have been considering. The number of alleged assaults by officers of the law on members of the public are very unpredictable.

54. I see the Local Loans Fund figuring here again—Yes, the Finance Solicitor’s Office has a finger in the pie there

VOTE 26—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. J. J. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 69—DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (NEUTRALITY) COMPENSATION.

VOTE 70—PERSONAL INJURIES (CIVILIANS) COMPENSATION.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

55. Chairman.—The saving is very considerable. It is said that the items “did not mature for payment”. Does that mean that the details were not completed?—The claims had not been furnished in sufficient detail and further particulars were asked for and were not available in time to have the payment made before the end of the financial year. Most of the claims outstanding were paid in 1950-51, with the result that that Estimate as a separate item in the volume of Supply Services has disappeared. The payments in 1950-51 amounted to £6,707 as compared with £1,262 in the year we are considering. The figure provided for in the current year is only £790, which we have tucked away in a Miscellaneous Expenses Vote.

56. Deputy Dockrell.—What particular damage is still unpaid and unaccounted for? Is this in respect of the North Strand and Dun Laoghaire bombing incidents? Could I have particulars of all particular things still left unsettled?— This is in respect of the North Strand, where the principal damage was done and there are some claims still outstanding in Dalkey.

57. Does this involve damage to life or to property?—This deals with property only.

Chairman.—We could take Vote 69— Damage to Property (Neutrality) Compensation and Vote 70—Personal Injuries (Civilians) Compensation—together.

58. Deputy Dockrell.—Under Vote 70, is the matter of damage to individuals settled now?—That has been settled. There are some continuing grants in respect of injuries but they are not numerous. The expenditure in 1950-51 was £2,192 which was not in excess of that for the period 1949-50, the period which we are considering. The provision in the current year is £2,000. Both these Votes are getting smaller and we hope they will disappear shortly.

59. Chairman.—I just want to clear up a slight point. I notice that on Vote 69 —Damage to Property (Neutrality) Compensation—most of the money under subhead A. was due to two local authorities under Section 15 of the Act. The Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer are contributions from local authorities under Section 16. Under the Act, did the local authorities bear a certain proportion?— They bore a considerable proportion in the early stages. In order to get things moving more quickly, we authorised them to incur certain expenditure on our behalf. Then we recouped them. When the legislation was passed, it enabled us to recover one-fourth of our expenditure from the local authorities. In that way we get the Extra Receipts.

VOTE 72—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.

Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.

60. Chairman.—Could you give us some information about the points in the Estimate? Votes 55 and 42 contain provisions for certain services which are being transferred to the Central Statistics Office. Those Votes would bear certain expenses. Could you let us know just what was transferred or what has since evolved out of that change? Vote 42 is the General Register Office. Was it a matter of the transfer of staff?—The provision of figures about unemployment, population, etc., went over from the Department of Industry and Commerce and the General Register Office to the Statistics Office. As a temporary arrangement, it was provided that the expenditure would still be borne on the parent Departments. I think that arrangement has since come to an end. There is no reference to it in the Vote for the current year.

61. What is represented by the expenditure under the Central Statistics Office?— As you see, Mr. Chairman, the Vote is only a total of £4,000 and the actual expenditure is £3,587 1s. 10d. In 1950-51, the Vote was £96,000 and the expenditure £83,000. For the current year the Estimate is £118,000. The Estimate we are discussing in detail at the moment was taken at the end of the financial year, 1949-50 and relates only to a portion of the year. There was not time to segregate the staff and make the transfer necessary to the new place. That was all worked out in the following year. This was a temporary arrangement just as a matter of accounting expediency and administrative convenience.

VOTE 74—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.

62. Chairman.—Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General are of an informatory character and read as follows:—

“Revenue Account.

5. A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with satisfactory results.”

“Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties.

6. Extra statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £6,327 5s. 5d. and £1,369 11s. 5d., respectively, were made during the year.”

63. Chairman.—Paragraph 7 of the Report states:—

“Remissions and Amounts Irrecoverable.

I have been furnished with schedules of the cases involving a loss of £50 or upwards in which claims for duty under the Revenue Acts were remitted without statutory authority or passed as irrecoverable during the year ended 31st March, 1950. I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results.

The schedules show that the total amount remitted or passed as irrecoverable in the year was £170,797 5s. 4d., made up as follows:—

The distribution according to the grounds of remission or write-off was:—

The remission of Customs duty, amounting to £129,298 6s. 10d., related to certain consignments of kerosene (vaporising oil) totalling 2,216,543 gallons imported for use in agricultural tractors. This oil would ordinarily be eligible for rebate of the full amount of the duty, but it was found, on test, to come technically within the statutory specification of mineral hydrocarbon light oil in respect of which there is no rebate provision. In view of the unsuitability of the oil for use as motor spirit and of the vital necessity of maintaining a supply of oil for use in agricultural tractors, the Revenue Commissioners decided, with the concurrence of the Department of Finance, to allow rebate of the full amount of the duty. The Department of Finance sanction also covers future cases of the same kind where the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that the oil is required for use in agricultural tractors and is necessary for agricultural operations.”

When you say that this is a remission, you do not mean that you gave anything back. Do you not mean that you just did not collect?—That is so.

64. Do you think it might be necessary to legislate in order to change the position?—We have legislated. Under section 9 of the 1951 Finance Act we have the power, ourselves, to give this rebate.

65. But you have not changed what you determine by “specific gravity”, have you?—There are three factors involved, two of which are distillation points. If the consignment satisfied one of the three, then, strictly, we should have charged the petrol duty. Oils are liable as mineral hydrocarbon light oils at a rate of 1/4 per gallon with no rebate if they (1) distil to the extent of 50 per cent. or more of their volume at a temperature not exceeding 185 degrees centigrade or (2) distil to the extent of 95 per cent. or more of their volume at a temperature not exceeding 240 degrees centigrade, or (3) give off an inflammable vapour at a temperature of less than 22.8 degrees centigrade. What happened in this case was that slightly more than 50 per cent. distilled at 185 but the inflammable point, which is really the distinguishing point, was about 37, which is more or less the flash point of ordinary t.v.o.

66. May we take it that you do not feel it necessary to change the figure in the first provision?—We have not changed it but we have this clause which enables us, ourselves, to say when we see that a consignment is virtually vaporising oil or t.v.o. that it is entitled to rebate. That clause enables us in such circumstances to give the remission.

67. Do you think that that is preferable to making a change?—I think so. It is a technical matter. It was very difficult to formulate the definition in the first instance. There are changes now in some of these refineries, and so forth. This particular lot came from the Middle East. At the time the definition was made out, very little was coming from that quarter.

68. With regard to subhead G of the Vote—Machinery and Repairs in Stamping Branch, Dies, Plates, etc.—I see that there is an excess which is due mainly to the issue of two commemorative postage stamps. May we take it that you do not, then, get the receipt from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs against this excess?—We print the stamps. We buy the dies and then we get the plates. We never charge in respect of the dies or things of that kind.

69. There is a note on page 12 in respect of subhead N—Incidental Expenses. I see that a sum of £3 3s. 0d. was paid to an official driver in respect of costs of a summons arising out of the driving of an official car. If drivers of official cars do things which cause them to be summoned and fined, would it not be better from a disciplinary viewpoint that they should bear these costs them selves?—That is so. The Committee may take it that we examine all these matters very carefully to see if the driver is at fault. With regard to the particular case in point, the driver took out a car, the machinery of which was somewhat defective. He was advised by our solicitor, for the purpose of lessening costs to admit the offence. This fine was the result. It was not the driver’s fault; it may have been the fault of somebody who was looking after the car. However, the fact is that the machinery of the car was defective and the driver was not personally to blame.

70. In general, would you allow them to pay their own fines?—The Committee may take it that each item is most carefully scrutinised in order to discover where the fault lies.

71. With regard to No. 7 of the Appropriations in Aid—Proceeds of Customs sales (seizures, etc.)—are we to understand that smuggling is declining?— Smuggling out is declining because there is greater liberty now to take things out.

Are there less offences?—Yes.

72. Deputy Davin.—I should like to know, roughly, what percentage of the estimated £17,000 which was realised represented smuggling across the Border and what percentage represented smuggling through the ports. Can you give us the figures now?—I am sorry that I cannot give the Committee the figures at the moment, but perhaps this information may help. We pay rewards in connection with these seizures, and so forth. We paid £4,420 in respect of export seizures and £993 in respect of import seizures. That would represent, roughly, about 4/5ths out-going and about l/5th incoming.

73. What are the figures in respect of the Border and the ports?—We have not such figures available at the moment, but we can send the Deputy, through the Chairman, the particulars he asks for.

74. In that connection, could you give the approximate cost for the supervision on the Border as compared with the cost of supervision at the ports?—I cannot do so at the moment but I shall let the Deputy have the particulars he asks for.

75. Through the Chairman, and at Mr. Rice’s convenience, I should like particulars of the cost of supervising cross-Border activities from a Customs point of view, as compared with the cost of supervising the ports within the jurisdiction of the State.*

Chairman.—The cost of the officers at the Border as against the cost of the officers at the ports.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 22—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.

Mr. C. C. McElligott called.

No question.

VOTE 23—ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. C. C. McElligott examined.

76. Chairman.—I notice that according to the notes on subheads C and D, the saving is due to non-purchase of stores and equipment. Is there any particular reason for that or was it that you could not get them?—Yes. In subhead C, it was a case of not being able to get the kind of paper we wanted. Subhead D covers a large number of small items where we were unable to obtain supplies.

77. It does not represent any reduction in the amount of work done?—No. The Estimate under those two heads is rather small. We tried to get all we could, but failed to get our particular requirements. We need a very special class of paper for our maps.

78. Has the position improved in any way?—It is not quite up to our requirements, but we are getting enough to carr on with.

79. I notice that in the case of many of the new maps, certainly the 25” maps, the paper is very thin compared to what it used to be?—We have not got the very good quality paper to which we were accustomed.

80. The sales of maps is tending to go up?—No, there was a decline compared with the preceding year, 1948-49. The peak year was 1948-49, when we sold maps to the amount of £7,324 as compared with £5,646 in the year under review, representing a decrease of £1,700. 1948 was our peak year for sales and since then they have declined. There was more money knocking around in 1948 than in subsequent years.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 43—DUNDRUM ASYLUM.

Dr. W. J. Coyne called and examined.

81. Deputy Davin.—With regard to receipts from attendants for rations under the Appropriations in Aid, are they charged cost price?—Cost price plus 2d. for cooking and the use of utensils.

82. Chairman.—That sounds reasonable. I see an item in the extra receipts in respect of a certificate issued. How did that arise?—We had a letter from a solicitor asking for a certificate for one of our patients stating that he was of unsound mind and unable to look after himself. We are no longer allowed to charge for a certificate, being civil servants, so when the fee came in we put it in as an extra receipt. It was the only one which ever came. The other solicitors must have got wise, because we have got no more since.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 39—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. D. Coffey called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

*See Appendix IV.

*See Appendix V.