|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 10ú Iúil, 1952.Thursday, 10th July, 1952.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Miss Máire Bhreathnach and Mr. S. P. O Muireadhaigh (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 50—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.Mr. J. Leydon called and examined.373. Chairman.—Paragraph 57 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads:— “Subhead J.1.—Food Subsidies. The amount, £1,650,000, charged to this subhead was paid to Tea Importers, Limited, as subsidy on tea. The audited accounts of the company for the year ended 31st March, 1951, revealed a net trading loss of £1,610,018, and after deducting £29,155, the balance due in respect of an excess payment of subsidy in the previous year, the net amount of subsidy payable was £1,580,863. Accordingly, a balance of £69,137 was due from the company on 31st March, 1951.” Did this happy condition continue whereby Tea Importers owed the State money rather than the other way around?—We make monthly advances to Tea Importers on the basis of estimates as to what the amount of subsidy will be. The object of this is to have given them exactly the amount of the subsidy by the end of the year. The estimates do not always turn out correctly and, in fact, it is impossible to expect that they should. What happens in cases of this kind is that we recover over-issues from further advances. In this case the over-issue was adjusted by the following July. It is only when we get the actual figures for the whole year that we know the exact amount. 374. Did the position of over-estimation continue or did Tea Importers sustain losses subsequent to this?—The company sustained losses in the following year because rationed tea was sold at a price below the economic price. In this particular year we under-estimated the amount of unrationed tea that would be sold, which disclosed a slight profit for Tea Importers. 375. I was wondering did that position continue?—No. In that particular year sales of unrationed tea were considerably more than we anticipated, mainly because there was a lot of buying up of tea owing to the panic created by the Korean War. A considerable amount of unrationed tea was sold and the profit was rather more than we anticipated. 376. Chairman.—Paragraph 58 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report states: “Subhead J.2.—Remission of Penalties. Millers who mill wheat in excess of the quotas allotted under the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, 1933 to 1939, are liable under section 30 (1) of the 1933 Act, as amended by section 9 of the 1934 Act, to pay to the Minister for Industry and Commerce certain penalties calculated on an ascending scale according to the quantity over-milled. As stated in a note to the account, penalties totalling £21,387 8s. 7d. for the cereal year 1948-49 and £18,219 5s. for the cereal year 1949-50, have been waived with the sanction of the Department of Finance, the quotas laid down having been exceeded by direction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce because of certain emergency conditions. The remission of these penalties was brought to the notice of Dáil Éireann by the inclusion in the estimate of a token provision of £5.” Could you give us some idea of how much has been remitted up to this date by way of penalties?—I am afraid I should have to enquire into that. I will write to you and let you know if you want an up-to-date picture. I have not got these figures with me.* 377. Yes, I would like an up-to-date picture. Are these payments made generally over the trade? Does every firm involved in milling get a portion of these remissions?—No, not every firm. As you know, the position is that under the Cereals Acts a mill must be licensed. A quota is fixed for each mill under statute by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I need not go into the reasons for this; it is to prevent bigger mills from swamping the smaller ones. If a mill exceeds its quota penalties are imposed, and these are on an ascending scale, according to the amount of the excess. This arrangement goes back to the Cereals Acts, 1933 and 1934. During the Emergency we found we could achieve considerable economies in transport. It was then not merely a question of cost but a question of physical transport. By re-arranging the distribution of flour from the various mills we were able to save a considerable amount in transport costs. However, it involved permitting some millers to exceed the amount of their quotas. This was done after consultation with the milling industry, with their full agreement and by direction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It would not, therefore, have been reasonable to impose penalties. 378. If the Minister selected one or two mills it might be unfair to the others?—The point was raised by the Department with the Millers’ Control Committee. It was a committee of the millers themselves who selected the new pattern of distribution. It goes without saying that no mill gained anything by this arrangement; it did not affect the amount of their profits. 379. Chairman.—Paragraph 59 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads as follows:— “Subhead K.—Fuel Subsidy. The sum, £466 13s. 8d., charged to the subhead was paid to Bord na Móna in recoupment of the loss incurred on the supply of machine turf to the Aran Islands consequent on a serious shortage of fuel which arose in November, 1950. Some 300 tons of turf was supplied at a cost, including transport, of £1,338 18s. 3d., while the amount realised by Bord na Móna on its sale was £872 4s. 7d.” I presume that in this case the land transport was done by C.I.E.?—I could not say offhand whether it was or not. I would have to inquire into that, but I know that the transport was done by road. 380. The point I want to get at is this: a loss was involved and, presumably, a considerable part of the expense was transport?—The cost ex Turraun Works was £600; road haulage to Carraroe was £425; transport from the mainland to the Aran Islands was £302; and then there were some small items amounting to £12. 381. Do you know how the transport was arranged? Were tenders asked for?— I am afraid I am not in a position to answer that question. I should think it most unlikely that tenders were invited because there was not time. A critical situation arose in November, 1950, owing to fuel scarcity in the Aran Islands. 382. Sea transport was about £1 per ton, I understand?—The cost of transport amounted to £302 for 304 tons. 383. That seems to be fairly high for sea carriage. How was it arrived at?—I do not think the cost was out of order for the transport of fuel in small boats from the mainland to the Aran Islands in November. Of course, it is a difficult time of the year. 384. Chairman.—Paragraph 60 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads as follows: “Subhead L.—Miscellaneous Turf Production Schemes. Payments to local authorities in recoupment of losses incurred on the sale of turf otherwise than to Fuel Importers (Éire), Limited, Government Departments or local institutions amounted to £1,782 1s. 2d. and are charged to this subhead. The total amount recouped to 31st March, 1951, including £198,004 13s. 2d. paid in previous years, was £199,786 14s. 4d.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann? Mr. Wann.—In all, 41 local authorities participated in these schemes. Full recoupment of the losses incurred had been made to 39 authorities by the 31st March, 1951, and payments on account have been made in the remaining two cases. 385. Chairman.—A final settlement has not been made?— Mr. Leydon.—Yes. My information is that this closes the transactions. 386. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of paragraph 61 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Subhead L.L.—Recoupment to County Councils of Losses on Turf produced. The charge to this subhead includes a payment of £597 16s. 8d. to a local authority in respect of the loss involved in the disposal in December, 1949, of a quantity of turf produced for sale locally but which could not be sold at an economic price as supplies of cheaper fuel became available.” Could you tell us a little more about this case? How much turf was involved?— In the case of Limerick County Council— I do not think this is the Limerick case; I think this refers to Tipperary?— There were two cases—Limerick and Tipperary. In the case of Tipperary there was a residue of about 110 tons of turf produced in 1947 which remained on their hands at Clonmel and of which they were unable to dispose. 387. How did this loss arise? How much was the turf sold for?—£1 per ton was paid for 40 tons which was reasonably good and stored under cover, and 10/- per ton for the rest, which was out in the open and not in very good condition. 388. I suppose it was just one of those things?—It was just one of those things. Looking back it is easy now to put undue emphasis on the financial aspect; but at that time we asked local authorities to produce all the turf they could and they were assured that they would not be at any loss as a result of their production. In fact, some of them did very well and made quite a substantial contribution to turf production. Some of them produced under considerable difficulties because they had no experience of the work, and in many cases heavy expense had to be incurred in the transport of inexperienced men from urban areas to the bogs, so that there was the cost of transport and the fact that the men were not really skilled turf cutters. These are factors that should be kept in mind. 389. Deputy J. J. Collins.—To whom was the turf sold?— Chairman.—To the county council. Mr. Leydon.—The council produced the turf and took it back at an economic price. There were obvious difficulties in regard to this question of the price of turf produced by local authorities. It would not be reasonable to expect them to use it all themselves at an uneconomic price because they could perhaps buy turf locally which might be at least as good, if not better, at the prevailing local price. One of the other considerations, and an important consideration, was that if this turf was put on the market in a period of relative scarcity at a very high price, obviously private turf producers would step up their prices to keep in line, and we did not want that to happen. 390. Chairman.—The remaining portion of paragraph 61 of the Report reads: “The expenditure charged to subhead L.L. also includes £5,358 14s. 6d. paid to a local authority in recoupment of a loss arising from the diversion for the use of the public in the area in the season 1946-47 of 2,000 tons of turf required for its institutions, which it had arranged to purchase from private suppliers at approximately £2 per ton. As a consequence, the authority was compelled to use for its institutions turf produced by it under the county council turf production scheme for sale to Fuel Importers (Éire), Limited, an essential part of this scheme being that local authorities should not be involved in any loss. Owing to severe weather conditions which caused widespread floods, a considerable proportion of this turf was lost, with the result that the production cost of the remainder was raised to 93s. 9½d. per ton. It was decided, with the approval of the Department of Finance, to recoup the local authority the difference between the actual cost of 2,000 tons of turf produced under the scheme (£9,379 11s. 2d.) and the contract price (£4,020 16s. 8d.).” This is the Limerick case?—Yes. I think the note explains what happened. 391. Chairman.—Paragraph 62 of the Report states: “Subhead N.1.—Advances to Mianraí, Teoranta. The charge of £20,000 to this subhead represents advances made during the year to Mianraí, Teoranta, under section 3 of the Minerals Company Act. 1947, as amended by section 2 of the Minerals Company (Amendment) Act, 1950. The total liability of the company for advances and for interest thereon amounted at 31st March, 1951, to £158,136 12s. 3d. In exercise of the powers conferred by sections 11 (2) and 12 (3) of the Minerals Exploration and Development Company Act, 1941, and section 8 (2) of the Minerals Company Act, 1945, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, agreed to the postponement to 1st April, 1951, of the payment by the company of interest on advances and of the repayment of instalments of advances which fell due on 1st April and 1st October, 1950.” What happened on 1st April, 1951?—I am afraid there was a further postponement. The position at 31st March, 1952, was that the total amount due was £179,708 against the £158,000 odd mentioned in the note. 392. Is there any prospect of any repayment at all?—It is a very difficult question to answer. Personally I think there is but I give that reply with all reservations because in a mining proposition there are all sorts of difficulties to be encountered, and at best it is rather speculative. There is one mine which the board of Mianraí Teoranta think should reach a profit-earning stage shortly. 393. Presumably the profits would be swallowed up by the other concerns? The fact that one made a profit would not unduly raise the hopes of the Minister for Finance that he would get something back?—I do not know what view the Department of Finance would have—we should have to discuss it with them. It might be that we should have to subsidise Mianraí in other directions, but on the coal mining side of their activities it might keep them on an even keel and enable them to start paying interest. I am not making any promise to my friends from the Department of Finance. 394. If somebody could not make a profit on the last price I heard quoted for anthracite there must be something seriously wrong?—Was it from this mine, Ballingarry? 395. It was anthracite quoted at over £18 per ton at port?—That must have been some time ago. Was it imported anthracite? 396. Yes. The position is that if people are willing to pay over £18 a ton for anthracite, it looks as if there ought to be some reasonable chance of profit out of mining it here?—In this particular mine they have run into quite a lot of difficulties and they have not really been able to get up to full production. One runs into all sorts of difficulties in a mine of any kind and this mine is no exception. 397. Some of the Irish anthracite seems to have a very high sulphur content. Do you know if any attempt is being made to extract that?—One of the things which Mianraí Teoranta want to do is to set up a coal-washing plant, which would improve the analysis of their coal. 398. Chairman.—Paragraph 63 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Operations of Bord na Móna. Subheads 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3. The issues from the Grants-in-Aid during the year comprised £19,000 for experiment and research (subhead 0.1), £5,000 for publicity and marketing (subhead 0.3) and £140,000 to meet the cost of the turf production scheme previously undertaken by County Councils (subhead 0.2). Production under the scheme was confined to machine-won turf and receipts from Bord na Móna in respect of sales amounted to £120,000, which is credited to subhead T.—Appropriations in Aid. The limitation of £120,000 imposed by section 52 of the Turf Development Act, 1946, on grants toward expenses incurred by Bord na Móna on experimental and research work was raised to £250,000 by section 2 of the Turf Development Act, 1950. The total issues under this head, including £19,000 in the year under review, amounted on 31st March, 1951, to £137,800. Reference was made in paragraph 57 of my last report to the winding up of the turf camps scheme terminated in 1948. The camps and the equipment have been transferred to Bord na Móna at agreed figures of £21,887 15s. 4d. and £4,000, respectively, which have been brought to account as exchequer extra receipts, together with a balance of £75,034 4s. 9d. derived mainly from the sale of stocks of turf on hand at the close of the scheme. The exchequer extra receipts also include a sum of £9,671 4s. 6d. received from Bord na Móna as interest on advances made for the development of Clonsast and Derryounce Bogs. At 31st March, 1951, the amounts outstanding, including interest, for advances made from voted moneys for the development of bogs were:—
I notice that the estimate for the receipts from Bord na Móna in respect of machine-won turf was £120,000, which corresponded exactly with the amount received. I take it that that is not just a coincidence or very good estimation. Do you fix a sort of notional figure which is later corrected?—This is a case in which both sides knew the amount of the estimate. Payments are not made on the basis of issuing invoices and that sort of thing. I think it would be correct to say that they are payments on account up to a point, and a final settlement is made then. I do not want at all to claim that it was 100 per cent. correct estimation. 399. Could you tell us when is the final adjustment made? It appears to me that it would be possible, in view of what you say and the exactness of the figures, that Bord na Móna would have sold more than that and would retain the money and use it and so, in effect, be getting interest? —There could not be very much in it over a period because Bord na Móna would have to keep us informed of what the sales were. We get exact figures in that regard and make sure that we get the money eventually. 400. Of course, their accounts are audited by the Auditor General?—Yes. 401. Could you let us know what the actual cost of the turf camps and equipment was?—I am afraid I have not that figure with me. I would like to send you a note.* 402. I would like some information. I presume that there would be some loss?— Yes, there was. 403. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report reads as follows: “Subhead R.—Repayment of Advances for Rural Electrification. Section 41 (3) of the Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Act, 1945, provides that one moiety of moneys advanced to the Electricity Supply Board for rural electrification out of the Central Fund shall be repaid to the Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas at such time or times as the Minister for Finance shall direct. The Minister for Finance has directed that the amount of £625,000, being one moiety of £1,250,000 advanced from the Central Fund in the calendar year 1949, should be repaid by means of an annuity over a term of 50 years, interest being calculated at 3¼ per cent. The sum of £25,374 16s. charged to this subhead represents the first two half-yearly instalments of the annuity.” How much was advanced in the next two calendar years, 1950 and 1951?—In 1949 the advance for rural electrification was £1,250,000; in 1950 it was £1,450,000; in 1951 it was £900,000. 404. Half of each of these sums would have to come from voted moneys?—Yes, with this difference: for 1949 and 1950 they are paid on an annuity basis, while for 1951 the Government decided to revert to the previous practice of paying half the amount. 405. Could you say what the annual charge on the 1950 amount would be?— On the 1950 amount it would be £29,434 15s. 406. The amount outstanding under subhead D.—Telegrams and Telephones— for telephonists is due to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs? Is it the pay of the telephonists in your Department? Is that the system?—Yes, that would be due to the post office. 407. You say that that amount did not come in course of payment. It seems to me extraordinary that one Department of State cannot furnish another with its account at the proper time. They take very good care to furnish the ordinary public with accounts at the right time?— Perhaps the credit rating of the Department of Industry and Commerce is a little higher than that of the average telephone subscriber. 408. They do not threaten to cut you off I am sure. On subhead E.—Advertising and Publicity—there is a very considerable saving. Was there a change of policy regarding advertising?—Yes, in part. Provision was made for publicity in connection with a “Buy Irish” campaign and then it was decided to abandon that campaign. There was also an effort, in the interests of economy generally, to reduce and restrict the volume of advertising. 409. With regard to subheads N.2 and N.4, is any money paid under N.4 to the Minerals Company? One is for “prospecting” and the other is for “mineral exploration,” which, I take it, is very much the same thing?—This item refers to a contract for the investigation of gypsum and anhydrite at Kingscourt and diamond drilling carried out by Mianraí as agents for the Geological Survey. 410. That is why it is not under N.2? —It was not an ordinary Mianraí activity. It was a contract job, in effect. 411. Was all the amount here paid for that?—Yes, I think so. This was the outstanding balance according to my information. 412. Under subhead N.3—Compensation for Mineral Rights acquired—the amount arose out of one particular case?—Yes. 413. Does the figure here include the law costs?—It includes everything, as far as I know. You mean our law costs?— Yes.—They would be met from the Law Charges Vote. 414. You know the amount?—No, I am afraid I do not. 415. Presumably the other party’s costs would have to be paid too, seeing that they won the case. The amount would be more than just your costs?—I hope that you will not allow the Committee to provoke me into expressing my views about this. 416. I presume that they are the usual views of a defeated litigant. On page 150 there is a reference to unvouched expenditure. On the face of it it looks as if it should be borne by the Vote for Technical Assistance. How did they manage to push it on to you?—Presumably it was not regarded as a proper charge against the Vote for Technical Assistance because it could not be vouched. 417. You are not suggesting that that is a sufficient reason for handing it to you?—I would not myself be disposed to waste any time, paper or ink with the Department of Finance as to which Vote should bear it. It has to be paid. The Vote on which it falls is a technical question. It has to be met. 418. Could you say how it arose?—I understand that it was some travelling and subsistence expenditure that was not vouched. If you want further information I would ask permission to send you a note.* 419. If you would, please. Miss Breathnach, I take it that the Department of Finance were fully satisfied when they gave covering sanction? Miss Breathnach.—It just happens that it was not on my side. Mr. S. P. Ó Muireadhaigh.—I think that what happened was that the amounts charged to the Vote for Technical Assistance under that subhead were to be recouped from the American authorities. In this case the vouching requirements of the American authorities could not be complied with. That is why it was charged to the Department of Industry and Commerce Vote. 420. Chairman.—I cannot say that I am delighted to find that our Department of Finance are a bit weaker than the American one. Mr. Leydon.—If I may come to the rescue of the Department of Finance, I think that it should be appreciated that we are all in a difficulty—the Department of Finance and other Departments —in dealing with American experts who come over here to do a job at the request of the Government under an arrangement made through the American Government. In other words, they might be tougher with us than they would be with Americans. In fact I am sure that they would. VOTE 51—TRANSPORT AND MARINE SERVICES.Mr. Leydon further examined.421. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows: “Subhead A.1—Payments in respect of Steamer Services. Section 2 of the Aran Islands Transport Act, 1946, provides that the Minister for Industry and Commerce may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, enter into a contract for the operation of a shipping service between the City of Galway and the Aran Islands, and pay a subsidy for the operation of the service subject to the terms of such contract. It was observed that although contracts with the company operating the service had not been entered into for the years 1950 and 1951, subsidy amounting to £1,000 was paid during the year under review. The Accounting Officer has informed me that the company refused to sign agreements for these years unless certain provisions were deleted. It was essential in the public interest that the existing arrangements for the operation of the service should be continued so that effect could be given to the primary purpose of the Aran Islands Transport Act, 1946 (i.e., the maintenance of an efficient shipping service between the City of Galway and the Aran Islands). This could not be done by the company owing to its unsound financial position, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, authorised the payment of subsidies to the extent necessary to enable the company to continue operating the service until August, 1951, when it was taken over by Córas Iompair Eireann.” How are the amounts arrived at when there was not a contract; I take it the company actually carried on although there?—Yes. These payments to which the Comptroller and Auditor General refers were round figures to keep the service going. 422. What provision did the company object to in the agreement?—There was an agreement made each year and one of the provisions to which they took exception at this stage was that in the event of the company ceasing to use the vessel on the Galway-Aran service on termination of the agreement they would, on request, transfer the vessel to the Minister without encumbrance. 423. What did the Minister for Finance rely on for this clause?—I think it could be maintained that the vessel had been paid for several times over. The company has been getting aid almost since it was established. Subsidies have been paid to it practically since 1891 and no dividends were paid on the company’s shares since 1910. I understand that it originally got a Government loan to buy the vessel. 424. Chairman.—Was not that partly repaid and partly wiped out? Miss Breathnach.—Yes. A Supplementary Estimate was taken to wipe out what was unpaid of it, plus a lot of interest, I think it was about 1933-34 that we took that Supplementary Estimate. 425. Chairman.—Since the service was taken over by C.I.E. have they been operating the boat?— Mr. Leydon.—The boat has had to undergo extensive repairs and I do not think it is back in service yet. 426. It was taken over and given to C.I.E.?—Yes. 427. Did C.I.E. pay anything to the State for it?—There is no provision. I think most people would think we were lucky in not having to pay C.I.E. I am afraid they are taking over a liability, not an asset. 428. As to subhead A.A.—Payments to Córas Iompair Éireann—I was pleased to note in the Estimate that you finally gave way on this subject of the debenture interest. The debenture interest is now to be repaid to the Central Fund. You remember that last year there was a discussion on that?—Yes, I remember. 429. As to subhead L.—Medals and Certificates—how did it happen that there was such a considerable difference between the actual cost of these medals and the Estimate; did you decide to go in for a less expensive medal?—I can only surmise that at the time the Estimate was prepared we had really nothing definite to go on—that we had no tenders or anything of that kind. It took a very long time to get a satisfactory design approved for the medal. The actual cost depended to some extent also on the design. I am afraid I cannot really add anything to what is in the note—that it was less than anticipated. VOTE 52—AVIATION AND METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES.430. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report states: “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 £69,842 13s. 4d., £56,758 11s. 3d. and £1,432 5s. 10d., respectively, bringing the total expenditure, as at 31st March, 1951, to £1,148,753 4s. for Dublin Airport, £1,795,341 16s. 6d. for Shannon Airport (Rineanna) and £168,223 18s. 8d. for Shannon Airport (Foynes), exclusive of expenditure on the acquisition of land.” That is for information I presume? Mr. Wann.—Yes. The total expenditure on the acquisition of land, including the sum of £9,892 charged to subhead E. in the present account, amounted approximately to £161,290. 431. Chairman.—Paragraph 67 of the Report reads: “The hostel at Foynes, to which reference was made in paragraph 59 of the report for the year 1946-47, was taken over by a local authority for use as an hospital on 24th June, 1949, at an agreed price of £5,000. This amount has not yet been received as the necessary legal documents have not been completed. Portion of the furniture and equipment in the hostel was sold to the local authority for £3,462 14s. 6d., which is included among the extra receipts payable to the Exchequer. The remainder of the furniture and equipment was transferred to Rineanna.” Can you give us, just for the records, Mr. Leydon, the cost of this hostel?—The cost of the construction was £57,000 and it was fitted at a cost of £6,700. 432. You did not lose very much on the fittings, then?—No. 433. Has the matter of the payment been cleared up yet?—No. I regret to say that it is not. There are difficulties about the title and they always tend to drag out. 434. Was the title not cleared when the hostel was built at a cost of £57,000? It seems extraordinary that there should be a difficulty about that when the local authority is getting it for £5,000?—It is a longish story. The negotiations for the purchase of the site commenced in 1943 and the deed transferring the site to the Minister was not executed until August, 1950. Then when that was lodged in the Land Registry by the Chief State Solicitor’s office the Land Registry raised certain questions. What they are I am afraid I am not in a position to say at the moment, but they involved discussions between the Chief State Solicitor and the solicitors for the vendors. I understand that, while it is dragging its way along, the law advisers say that it will be straightened out all right. I cannot give you any clear explanation for the delay beyond that, but it has been in the hands of the lawyers all this time. 435. Deputy McGrath.—Would the local authority be charged interest?— Offhand, I should say that that would depend on the terms of the contract of sale. I think it is usual in a contract of sale to have a provision for payment of interest. 436. Chairman.—What I do not like is the building of this when there was not a clear title?—Of course there are powers of compulsory acquisition. 437. Deputy McGrath.—I am afraid it is quite usual?—I am afraid I cannot say what the point was. I will endeavour to get an explanation, but of course it will have to be provided by the lawyers.* 438. Chairman.—Paragraph 68 of the Comptroller and Auditor Generals’s Report states: “The erection of a hangar at Dublin Airport for the purpose of being leased to Aer Lingus, Teoranta, was completed in December, 1950, at a cost of approximately £137,000, including overhead charges, and it was occupied by the company as from 1st March, 1951, at a rent of £9,500 per annum, approximately. The company, on the same date, terminated an existing tenancy of another hangar which it had occupied at a rent of £1,850 per annum, approximately, and I inquired regarding the circumstances in which this tenancy was surrendered. I was informed that the latter hangar had been used to accommodate chartered and itinerant aircraft and that the company had found that, contrary to their earlier expectations, the demand for this accommodation had declined. I was also informed that this hangar had been converted for use as a cargo depôt at an estimated cost of £2,500 and that it had been reoccupied by Aer Lingus, Teoranta, from 21st January, 1952, from which date an economic rent would be charged.” Can you say, Mr. Leydon, what rent was fixed?—Yes, £1,875 as against a previous rent of £1,850. The increase was because of some expenditure that was incurred. 439. There was an expenditure of £2,500. £25 a year seems very little for that. Of course in fairness I should say that it was turned into a cargo depôt and you could not fairly charge Aer Lingus for that?—I do not think that is the explanation. We would charge Aer Lingus an economic rent in relation to the space they occupy. It may be that there is some part of the building occupied by some State service or something of that kind and that they have not the same area as they had before. If you would like an explanation I can get it. The whole question of this rent for the hangar has been raised again by Aer Lingus within the past few weeks and it is under discussion.* 440. Chairman.—Paragraph 69 of the Report reads: “Subhead M.—Management of Dublin Airport. The expenditure under this subhead includes £593, being the balance due to Aer Rianta, Teoranta, in respect of the loss incurred in the management of Dublin Airport in 1949-50, and an advance of £2,500 to meet anticipated losses in 1950-51. The accounts of the company for the latter year have revealed, however, a profit of £3,884 on the management of the airport and this sum together with the advance of £2,500 has, I understand, been surrendered by the company in the year 1951-52. Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann? Mr. Wann.—I have no later information than that contained in the paragraph. 441. Chairman.—I take it the amount was in fact surrendered? Mr. Leydon.—Yes, sir. 442. Chairman.—The first sub-paragraph of Paragraph 70 of the Report reads: “Subhead N.—Subsidy in respect of Air Services. The amount, £2,740, charged to this subhead was paid to Aer Rianta, Teoranta, under the Subsidy (Aer Rianta, Teoranta) (No. 2) Order, 1950 (Statutory Instrument No. 159 of 1950) to meet the estimated losses of the company in the year ended 31st March, 1951. The actual losses of the company for the purpose of the Order had not been determined at the date of my report. As noted in the account, the provision of £47,260 in respect of the proportion of the Aer Lingus loss on operations during the year falling to be made good by Aer Rianta was not required as Aer Lingus realized a profit.” Have you anything to add, Mr. Wann? Mr. Wann.—The deficit for the year ended 31st March, 1951, has been determined at £3,075 and an amount of £335 is thus due to the company. 443. Chairman.—Has the company been paid this amount of £335? Mr. Leydon.—The amount under the subsidy provision was £2,740. This is an account that gives rise to a problem as an excess of £335 was carried over to the accounts for 1951-52. The Department of Finance, ourselves and the Air Company are discussing just how to handle a problem of this kind. It does give rise to some technical problems. We are discussing how best to deal with the general administrative account of Aer Rianta. There is the airport management account, which shows a substantial surplus again for last year, and then there is what is called the general administrative account of Aer Rianta, which I think will always show a deficit. The matter is still under discussion. 444. Chairman.—The remainder of the paragraph reads: “Reference was made in paragraph 63 of my last Report to the payment of £104,500 to Aer Rianta, Teoranta, to meet the estimated losses of the company and of Aer Lingus, Teoranta, for the year ended 31st March, 1950. The actual losses for that year have not been determined.” Mr. Wann.—The losses for this year have since been determined at £66,724. A sum of £37,776 was thus over-advanced. All this has been refunded, I understand. Mr. Leydon.—That is correct. It has been refunded. 445. Chairman.—Paragraph 71 of the Report reads: “Losses. This special subhead was opened with the authority of the Department of Finance to bring to account a payment of £104 17s. 0d. for sundry small items of airport equipment for Shannon Airport, Foynes, stated to have been supplied during the emergency period. Owing to administrative difficulties at the time it has not been found possible to verify the receipt of these items. In the circumstances I have admitted the charge against the vote.” Mr. Wann.—The amount in question represents a very small percentage of the total amount paid for equipment supplied. The inability to furnish receipts for the goods arose out of staff shortages and the inadequacy of records. The goods were supplied as far back as 1942 and 1943. 446. Chairman.—I should mention to the Committee that the Notes on the variations of the subheads are very informative. On subhead K.—Fuel, water, light and cleaning—Shannon Airport, etc.—we are informed that the excess of £21,000 was occasioned by a payment of the catering services for the cleaning of the passenger and public lounges at the Shannon Airport up to the 31st July, 1950. How many years are involved?—About 3½. The position is that the catering controller had been made responsible for keeping those lounges clean. The passenger lounges and the public lounges would have to be kept clean if there had been no catering service. The catering controller represented, quite fairly, that it was most inequitable to charge that expense against the catering account. We recognised the force of that argument and so did the Department of Finance. We fixed a basis of remuneration under which the Department bears 75 per cent of the cost and the catering service bears 25 per cent. That was a rough and ready arrangement. 447. In effect, he got £21,000 back? —Yes. It makes a very considerable difference to the catering account. It shows a very substantial profit now. 448. In regard to item 4 of the Appropriations in Aid, has this site been re-let—the one for which you got compensation on the making of a lease? —No, sir, I do not think so. The site was taken by an oil company which subsequently changed its plans. 449. You seem to have got out of the breaking of the lease very well?—I think we got out of it reasonably well. 450. In regard to item 6 of the Appropriations In Aid—Receipts from staff hostels—you note that the receipts were brought to account as receipts from passenger hostels. Are all the receipts handed over or does the catering service get part of them? Obviously, they must get paid in some way?—The receipts are all handed over but what the basis of the catering manager’s remuneration for doing this is I am afraid I could not say. You are talking about the passenger hostel used for staff? Yes?—The catering controller manages the other hostels and it was obviously a convenient arrangement that he should manage this one. 451. I appreciate that but I was just wondering how he is paid for running what is in effect a staff hostel?—I am afraid I could not say. I should like, if I may, to send you a note about it.* 452. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—There is a reference in the notes to voice-recording machines. Who are the persons who have their voices recorded?—I think these are in connection with the Control Tower. 453. Chairman.—I think an international agreement necessitates the recording of orders issued from the Control Tower?—If you want full details of what these particular machines are used for, I should have to send you a note about it. I am aware that in the airport it is used very often to make records of voices in the Control Tower, because if an accident occurs and there is a crash it would be most important afterwards to be able to produce a record of the conversation between the pilot and the control officer on duty. Voice recording-machines are used for that and also for the exchange of messages. These would have a special significance in relation to a serious accident. I think that is almost certain to be the explanation, but if you want fuller details, I shall have to send a note. I know that there are recording machines for that purpose. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—I was wondering what the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had to do with it. 454. Chairman.—It is an accounting matter really, The Department of Posts and Telegraphs provides these machines?— The Department of Posts and Telegraphs do the maintenance. The machines are really part and parcel of telephone and radio equipment. 455. The machines were bought by you?—They were bought by us but the Post Office are our technical advisers and have to do the maintenance. 456. Do you know anything about the machine that was burned at the Shannon in regard to which you have a note on the next page?—I see the same price was put on it?—Four of these machines were purchased at £395 each and three were transferred to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The fourth was destroyed in the fire at the Airport. That ties in with what I have been saying. That machine was in the Control Tower. VOTE 53—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE.Mr. J. Leydon further examined.457. Chairman.—You seem to have a very fair idea of how many people will be inventive during the year?—Yes, there is a steady flow of applications. 458. They seem to run at a steady rate?—Yes. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
