|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Céadaoin, 18ú Meitheamh, 1952.Wednesday, 18th June, 1952.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Mr. W. E. Wann (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. M. Breathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.1. Deputy Palmer.—I have much pleasure in proposing that Deputy Sheldon be elected Chairman for the coming year. He rendered very good service as Chairman last year and made the work of the Committee much easier for all of us. Deputy McGrath.—I second. Question put, and agreed to. DEPUTY SHELDON took the chair. Chairman.—At the outset, I want to thank you for electing me Chairman of the Committee. It was customary in the past for the Chairman, each year, to make a few remarks on the functions of the Committee for the benefit of new members. To make the matter clear and, without going into great detail, it is necessary to give a general outline of the financial transactions of which the work of the Public Accounts Committee is the final phase. It is an essential precept of Parliamentary Government that Parliament should jealously safeguard its rights as the sole authority, both for levying taxes and deciding how these are to be used in providing State services. The Public Accounts Committee is one of the safeguards used by Parliament to maintain its rights in these matters. In the Finance Act, the Dáil gives legal force to the taxes which it has agreed to levy, on the initiative of the Government, in the Budget proposals. These are paid into the Exchequer. In the Appropriation Act, the Dáil similarly gives legality to the appropriation of the payments from the moneys in the Exchequer to carry out the State Services of which it has approved when adopting the Government’s proposals in the Estimates. In order to secure Parliamentary control, the Dáil delegates to the Department of Finance, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee the business of securing on its behalf that the expenditure is made faithfully, with regularity and with due regard for economy. Faithfully means in strict accordance with the proposals which have been adopted in the Estimates, and regularity means within the rules of good accountancy which experience has dictated from time to time. “Due regard to economy” explains itself, subject to the consideration that the first essential is that the service be maintained. The Department of Finance controls the spending of all other Departments, and none of these can act without its sanction. The Comptroller and Auditor General, who is not a civil servant but an officer of the Dáil, controls the issues from the Exchequer and audits the accounts of the Departments. When the financial year ends, he presents the Appropriation Accounts and his comments on them to the Dáil, and the Dáil appoints the Public Accounts Committee to report to it on these accounts with its comments. In this connection, the Committee has power to send for persons, papers and records and does, in fact, interrogate the Accounting Officer of each Department. It will be seen that the Public Accounts Committee is not concerned with policy but only with an examination of the accounts to ensure that the wishes of the Dáil, as expressed in the Estimates, have been, in fact, carried out, or that any deviation is satisfactorily explained. It is also customary to get the consent of the Public Accounts Committee to any material change in the form of the Estimates. It will be obvious from a glance at the Appropriation Accounts that the amounts spent rarely coincide exactly with those authorised. It has been found in practice, and proved to the satisfaction of our predecessors that it is an advantage that there should not be complete rigidity in following the Estimates. The Estimates have to be prepared much in advance of the year in which the moneys are needed, and if the amounts granted in the subheads were enforced literally there would be a tendency to overestimate to insure against unforeseen increases in cost, or else a great deal of Parliamentary time would have to be given to correction by means of Supplementary Estimates. To avoid these difficulties, the practice of virement was adopted. By this, savings on one or more subheads can be used to meet overspending in others. Special Finance sanction is needed for this, and other limitations are also provided. Virement can only be used inside a Vote and not between different Votes even when they are controlled by the one Minister, and also the subheads concerned must have something in common. If any novel expenditure is found to be necessary, or if there are not savings in relevant subheads, the permission of the Dáil must be sought by Supplementary Estimate. These are the somewhat bare bones of the matter, and only experience will make members fully aware of the many details which can properly be reviewed by the Committee. They can, however, profitably study the epitome to learn how their predecessors did their work and arrived at the principles which now guide us. There is also a very interesting book in the Library on the Control of Public Expenditure, by Professor Basil Chubb, now a Fellow of Trinity College, which, I think, is an invaluable guide to members of the Public Accounts Committee. Our first business on the Agenda is the consideration of the Department of Finance Accounts. GENERAL REPORT.Mr. J. J. McElligott called and examined.2. 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 1950-51, as shown by the summary on page xxxiii. amounted to £84,048,907, and the gross expenditure to £79,481,973 15s. 3d. Appropriations in Aid were estimated at £4,009,743, and the amount realised was £4,054,087 1s. 9d., but on some Votes the estimated receipts were not realised and the actual amount applied in aid of expenditure was £3,908,644 8s. 9d., the balance falling to be surrendered. The total amount to be surrendered is £4,611,277 6s. 6d., which is arrived at as follows:—
The amount to be surrendered, £4,611,277 6s. 6d., represents approximately 5.8 per cent. of the supply grants. In no case has the provision made by Dáil Éireann been exceeded, and no excess Vote is, therefore, necessary.” This does not represent quite such a satisfactory figure as last year when, I think, the amount to be surrendered represented 1.7 per cent.?—It was, as you say, unsatisfactory in comparison with last year, when the amount to be surrendered represented 1.7 per cent., but it corresponds rather closely with the average saving over the last ten years, from, say, 1941-42 to 1949-50, when it worked out at 5.2 per cent. There were exceptional circumstances during the year of account—1950-51—which left large savings particularly in regard to capital supply services. As you know, in that year a distinction was first drawn on a large scale between capital and non-capital services in the Departmental Estimates. The original provision for capital services was £12,113,680. Then we had various Supplementary Estimates during the year on which there was a saving of £1,499,887, leaving the net capital provision of the year at £10,613,793. The issues amounted to £8,086,847, leaving savings of £2,526,946. On the non-capital side, the original provision was £66,013,553. The Supplementary Estimates amounted to £3,411,818, making a total of £69,425,371. The issues amounted to £67,554,778, which meant savings of £1,870,593. The total savings, in round figures, amounted to £4,400,000. As you will see, over £2,500,000 of that was on the capital side. These figures show that the surrenders in 1951-52 were mainly on capital services. In regard to a number of other services, such as Public Works and Buildings, Fisheries, Department of Industry and Commerce works of various kinds, there was a certain amount of overestimation. The year 1949-50 was rather exceptional. The experience in 1950-51 conforms more to the pattern of the earlier years. If the savings in capital services were excluded, I think the results for 1950-51 are not at all unsatisfactory. 3. I think the Committee will be satisfied if the position continues to be satisfactory. We are naturally anxious to see that this is done?—There seems to be a certain amount of misapprehension in regard to the figures in relation to surrenders. The amount surrendered is the total Vote provision, that is, the original Estimates, plus the Supplementary Estimates less the actual amount issued. It is not a saving on the original Estimates. It is a saving on the original Estimates, plus the supplementaries. In most years, the actual issues for supply services do exceed the original provision for supply services by substantial amounts, so that, when the Budget policy is being formulated, you cannot take into account savings on the original supply service Estimates because, in fact, they are usually exceeded before the end of the year by reason of supplementaries. 4. Deputy S. Collins.—I suppose it is nearly impossible to avoid Supplementary Estimates?—We do our best in the Department of Finance to discourage Departments from making Supplementary Estimates, but the habit has grown and it is very difficult to check it. 5. Chairman.—I think the Committee would prefer Supplementary Estimates to some of the other evils that might arise as, for example, excess Votes?—As a choice between two evils, I agree that Supplementary Estimates are preferable. 6. Deputy McGrath.—Would you say that it is more usual for Departments to under-estimate than to over-estimate? —It is more usual for Departments to over-estimate their probable expenditure because there are about 70 Estimates and the number of Supplementary Estimates would not normally be more than 20 or 25 so that, on the whole, Departments do make sufficient provision at the outset of the year for their requirements. But then there may be new services started during the year. In any case, the number of Departments looking for Supplementary Estimates would be a minority on the whole. Some Departments come along with two or three Supplementary Estimates and we find that very aggravating. 7. Chairman.—Paragraph 2 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 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 the paragraphs relating to the Votes of the Departments concerned.” This is for information. 8. Chairman.—Paragraph 3 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:— “Surrender of Balances on 1949-50 Votes. The balances to be surrendered out of Votes for the public services for 1949-50 amounted to £1,294,892 11s. 9d. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered to the Exchequer.” This again is for information. 9. Chairman.—Paragraph 4 of the Report, which is also of an informative character, states:— “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, 1951. 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.” 10. Chairman.—Paragraph 5 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Extra Remuneration. With the object of bringing into one view the whole of an officer’s official emoluments from whatever source, a note of extra remuneration, pension or other emoluments payable to an officer is appended to the Estimate in which his salary is provided or, where that course is impossible, to the relevant Appropriation Account. In recent years such notes in the Estimates or Appropriation Accounts have related to officers whose additional remuneration in any year exceeded £30. For the year under review the Department of Finance directed that the notes in the Estimates should be confined to extra remuneration exceeding £50, and this limit has accordingly been adopted for the notes of extra remuneration appended to the Appropriation Accounts.” I cannot see why this matter was not brought before the Public Accounts Committee. Changes in the Estimates are customarily so brought. In fact, when changes in this very matter were made at other times, the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee was sought. In the Epitome at page 627-8 (Public Accounts Committee, 3rd Report, 1921) the Committee stated that it would not object in principle to a moderate raising of the £25 limit hitherto prevailing to say £50. The matter had been referred to the Committee. I would like to hear why this matter was not brought before the Public Accounts Committee?—Before the preparation of the Estimates, a circular goes out from the Department of Finance in the autumn of each year. We consider the terms of the circular together with the standing instructions to Accounting Officers which go with the circular. When the Estimates for 1950-51 were being prepared on the basis of the circular issued on the 12th October, 1949, the question of this £30 limit came up for consideration. When we looked into the matter, we found that, prior to 1929-30, the amount of which a separate note was made was £50. In view of the depreciation in the value of money and the fact that we were simply reverting to an earlier figure we made a change. We modified our instructions, the new instruction being:— “In cases where remuneration exceeding the sum of £50 for the financial year is payable to any officer from public funds in addition to the ordinary emoluments of his office, a note must be appended stating the amount of such remuneration, the service for which it is payable and the source from which it is provided. This instruction is intended to apply to all extra remuneration, however casual or variable, and to any pension or compensation allowance in respect of public service which an officer may receive, its object being to bring to notice the whole of his official emoluments from whatever source. The fact of the officer being provided with an official residence, fuel or light at the public expense should be recorded. Each item of extra remuneration should, where practicable, be shown separately. Official residences or living accommodation should, in all cases, be described as ‘furnished’ or ‘unfurnished’ as the case may be.” We went into considerable detail on this matter here and, as you will see from the note I have read, it was purely an act of administrative convenience. 11. Deputy S. Collins.—Are we to take it then that the real reason why it did not come before the Public Accounts Committee in the manner referred to by the Chairman was because, in fact, it was not a change of principle but a reversion to what was done previously?—That is substantially correct. 12. Chairman.—I am personally not willing to accept that. I fully understand the reasons behind the move but at the moment I am not concerned with whether it was right or wrong but merely with the fact that a custom has been broken?— I agree, having thought about the matter a little further, that we should have brought it to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee and I can undertake that if there is to be any variation in future we certainly will consult the Committee beforehand. Deputy S. Collins.—I do not want the Chairman to misunderstand me. The only elucidation I required was if there was a practice heretofore whereby sums less than £50 were not shown and if there was a reversion to the practice that previously existed. I am prepared to accept that it might be infinitely wiser, as Mr. McElligott agrees, to inform the Public Accounts Committee. However, I was anxious to know if there was previously an arrangement whereby sums in excess of £50 were shown and those less than £50 were not shown. Chairman.—That is quite true, but the changes are brought to the notice of the Committee whether they are up or down. 13. Deputy S. Collins.—I was not questioning your right, Mr. Chairman, to refer to this as something that should have been brought to our notice but I was anxious to elucidate the position prior to this? Mr. McElligott.—That was a factor that we were reverting to a figure which was adopted when the value of money was considerably greater than it was in the year 1950-51. I might also mention that a lot of the procedure in relation to the Appropriation Accounts of the Public Accounts Committee derives from British practice and while we do not follow British precedents now, Britain has, I understand, abolished all reference to extra remuneration in their Appropriation Accounts. Chairman.—Yes, I understand that in 1947-48 they agreed to abolish notes in this connection. However, we cannot have it both ways; we cannot say that we are not following British precedents and say that we are?—I was not aware that they had abolished the practice until quite recently but we are maintaining it still at £50. I take it that the Committee does not want the figure reduced? 14. Chairman.—No, I am merely drawing your attention to the fact that the custom was broken. While I am on that, might I refer to another matter which is analogous and that is, the change, a very big change, which was made in the presentation of the Estimate for Public Works and Buildings, Vote No. 9. Up to this year, 1950-51, subheads C, D (1), E, F and G were shown in considerable detail. In this particular year all detail was left out and the whole thing was reduced to two pages showing lump sums. Of course, this also affects the Appropriation Account, because it is shown in similar manner?—The reason there was purely economy in printing, economy in time and in expense. It is always a rush to get out the volume of Estimates for the year in time to submit to Dáil Éireann and get through the financial business of the Vote on Account and the Central Fund Bill before the 31st March. Printing is a very difficult matter here in Dublin. The printers work a five-day week and it is next to impossible to get them to work overtime. The preparation of the Estimates involves every year in the Department of Finance long hours of late working and working over week-ends for weeks in advance of the appearance of the volume. In 1950-51, when we were making this change about the capital services the printing of the volume was a matter of even greater difficulty than usual because many alterations had to be made. In order to reduce the amount of work falling on the printers, and the amount of checking, and so on, to be done in the Department, we reduced the details shown in the Estimate for Public Works and Buildings from 21 pages to two pages, on the Minister’s instructions. We do get still in the Department of Finance in connection with the Estimates of the Office of Public Works the details that used to be shown in the Vote for Public Works and Buildings, so that we have to that extent a check on the expenditure the same as we had before. As I say, the move was dictated by the desire to save time in printing and save departmental labour in checking. 15. Chairman.—So far as I can see two points arise in this connection. The first is that the change was made without reference to this Committee. The second one is a matter as to whether the Committee’s work is being hindered by this limitation. I want to deal only with the first one here because it is the only one that concerns you. Again, it is a change that has been made without reference to the Committee and I think you will admit, Mr. McElligott, that it was a fairly considerable change?—I agree that a lot of information formerly given was no longer available, but if Deputies had chosen to put down a Parliamentary Question or asked for a copy of the details to be put in the Library, no doubt they would have been forthcoming. Chairman.—At the moment I merely wish to raise these two matters because changes were made without reference to the Committee, and I want to make known to the Department that we expect changes to be brought before us. Deputy S. Collins.—Do you not think it would be wise, in your capacity as Chairman of this Committee, to try to have the details available for the Committee when we come to investigate that account? Chairman.—I am sure that could be arranged.* That concludes the opening paragraphs. We turn now to the various accounts for which Mr. McElligott is responsible. VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.16. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—Is subhead D—Motor Cars—Replacement Grant —an annual grant?—D is an annual grant of £300 to the President for the purchase of motor-cars. There is, of course, a State car available to the President for ceremonial occasions which has not been financed out of the State grant of £300. The sum helps the President to replace the car which he has for his own use on all ordinary occasions. There is no provision in the Vote for expenses in connection with the maintenance and the running of the cars, which devolves entirely on the President. 17. Chairman.—Would I be right in saying that at no time was money provided for the cars originally? They have only been replacement grants?—In earlier years we provided—in 1938-39—a sum of £1,200 for the purchase of a motor car to be placed at the disposal of the President. It was the intention then that a further annual sum should be provided in subsequent years as a grant towards a replacement fund. However, the matter was further considered later on and it was decided in substitution for that arrangement that the President himself should purchase the cars required for his use and that an annual grant should be made to him for the purpose of replacing the cars. 18. Chairman.—Was that £1,200 actually spent?—I would not be positive that it was. Provision was made. I do not think it was.—Then it represented even less of a change of front than I thought. VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.19. Chairman.—I see that under subhead J a contribution had to be provided for the Restaurant. For some years there was no payment out of the Vote. I think there was in the previous year?—In the previous year there was a sum of £231. There was nothing paid in 1948-49, 1947-48 or 1946-47. Then in 1946-46, £309, was paid; in 1944-45, a sum of £468; in the year 1951-52, which was the year subsequent to the year of the present account we paid the full sum of £500 August last. VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.20. Chairman.—On subhead C—Incidental Expenses—could you give us a little information about the miscellaneous requirements? I think in a previous year the Estimate had been £350 and this was considerably overspent. You corrected the amount then to £700 and this was overspent. What type of miscellaneous requirements has shown this very great increase?—Cost of advertising was mainly responsible for the increase. There was a considerable increase in the cost of newspaper advertising in that particular year, and uniforms also showed a rise in cost. Between them they accounted mainly for the excess. A certain amount of laundry work, and so on, for the Department also rose in price. These various factors contributed to the excess of £127 over the Estimate of £700. 21. On subhead D, I notice that the excess is attributed to charges for telephonists’ services in respect of the previous year. How did it arise that this was not paid for in that year?—It was simply due to delay in furnishing accounts by the Post Office. That subhead had been overspent in the previous year, too?—Yes; there is sometimes a time lag in furnishing these accounts. 22. On the Appropriations in Aid, No. (2), there was a very considerable increase in the purchases of securities, apparently, Mr. McElligott?—Yes. We charge commission at the rate of 5/- per cent. on purchases of securities for departmental funds. We do not charge them anything on sales. Neither do we charge anything on purchases for Exchequer accounts, ordinary sinking funds, sinking funds for the capital services redemption accounts or for the savings certificates reserve fund. There was a national loan floated during that particular year and departmental funds had to take up a certain sum in purchases on the market following the issue of the stock. That accounts for the increase over the estimated appropriations, the realised appropriations being £1,222 compared with the estimate of £500. 23. Is there any other commission charged by the Government stockbroker or is this the only commission?—No. We pay the Government stockbroker a lump sum each year and he does not charge anything then for his services in respect of Government funds. VOTE 11—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.24. Chairman.—On subhead C—Apparatus and Chemical Equipment—the note says that new apparatus was not as costly as anticipated. Does that indicate that the saving was due to prices being more reasonable than was expected or does it mean that some apparatus was not got? —That prices were more reasonable than was expected. They get some unusual types of apparatus, like spectro-photo-meters, and I understand they are very variable in the matter of price. The subhead covers chemical equipment as well as pieces of apparatus. There is also quite a number of miscellaneous articles included. Of course, we have to take the expert estimates prepared by the State Chemist’s office and apparently the cost of many items was less than was anticipated. It was a very welcome outcome, naturally, to the Department of Finance. 25. It is just that I thought it was peculiar that things of that nature should be cheaper than anticipated. Nearly all that type of thing is going up in price? —A lot of ordinary chemical equipment, in the shape of beakers and pipettes and glassware of various kinds, went down in price after the war when supplies became much more plentiful and raw materials became cheaper. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—There must have been a catastrophic fall in prices, all the same. Chairman.—Not catastrophic, welcome. Mr. McElligott.—Very welcome. VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 14—IRISH TOURIST BOARD.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.26. Chairman.—Has the report of the Commission on Emigration and Other Population Problems been published?— The report is not yet available. I understand it is in a forward state. The Chairman is doubtless thinking of the Commission on Youth Unemployment which reported recently and the report was laid before the Oireachtas. 27. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—In regard to the Irish Manuscripts Commission, is that in reference to ancient manuscripts? —Yes, old manuscripts. The terms of reference of the Commission are: To report on the nature, extent and importance of collections of manuscripts and papers of literary, historical and general interest relating to Ireland and on the places in which such manuscripts and papers are deposited; to prepare and furnish calendars and catalogues of such manuscripts and papers; to edit and publish hitherto unpublished texts in old Irish, middle Irish and modern Irish and any other hitherto unpublished manuscripts relating to Ireland, due regard being had to their linguistic, literary and historical importance. 28. I was wondering whether it was under that heading that the famous dictionary which was being prepared by the late Mr. Seán Kavanagh would come. How was that eventually settled up? It was a monumental work?—I think that is being looked after by the Royal Irish Academy. 29. I remember it was up here some years ago?—If we look at the Miscellaneous Expenses Vote, I think we will find it. 30. It was being done under Government grant?—It is on page 87 of the volume for 1950-51—Subhead D—Cultural Institutions. (Grants-in-Aid)—Grant-in-Aid of Publication of Contributions to Lexicography of Early Irish—£800. The Royal Irish Academy was still engaged in this apparently monumental undertaking. 31. Chairman.—There is one point that arises on the total expenditure. Apparently, in the case of some of these Commissions, the greater part of their expenses are not borne on this Vote at all, but on other Votes. For instance, in respect of the Commission on Youth Unemployment the total expenditure to the 31st March was £602 19s. 8d. charged to the Vote and then the accounts of other Voted Services have managed to pay £1,436. Does that arise because it was found better that the staffing should be done from other Departments because of the casual nature of the work?—Yes. Chairman, that is the explanation. If you take the case of the Commission on Irish in the Civil Service, the staff would be provided by the Department of Finance or by the Civil Service Commission. In the case of the Commission on Youth Unemployment it would be provided by the Department of Industry and Commerce. In the case of the Commission on Emigration and Other Population Problems it would be provided probably by the Department of Industry and Commerce and, say, the Department of Social Welfare. In some cases it is necessary to second an officer full-time for the work, or perhaps more than one officer, and the rule is that the salary of the seconded officer or officers is borne on the Vote of the Department from which they come. The Vote for Commissions and Special Inquiries only carries any bonus or extra remuneration that he may get for his services, secretarial, or otherwise, for the particular commission. 32. It might be of interest to the Committee if you could let us have a note showing the total expenditure on these various commissions and boards, if that would be reasonably convenient?—You will find some information additional to what we have given here on the account. We give the total expenditure on the Irish Manuscripts Commission, the Youth Unemployment Commission, the Place-Names Commission and the Commission on Emigration and other Population Problems and the Flour and Bread Commission up to the 31st March, 1951. 33. Chairman.—That does not include moneys from other voted services although there is a note showing some of them?—You would like, in respect of the five commissions I have named, to have the expenditure from other Votes given in addition to the expenditure from the Vote for Commissions and Special Inquiries? 34. I take it that the three amounts shown in the note as being provided from the accounts of other voted services are all in respect of one year?—Yes. 35. It would be interesting to see what the total expenditure was on each of these five commissions?—Certainly, I shall supply it.* VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.36. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead B—Additional Allowances, etc. An annual allowance of £728 10s., subsequently revised to £900 11s., with effect from 13th February, 1951, and a lump sum of £1,942 13s. 4d., subsequently revised to £2,401 9s. 4d., were granted by way of compensation, pursuant to section 6 of the Superannuation Act, 1909, to an officer who had been removed from office for the purpose of facilitating improvements in the organisation of his Department by which greater efficiency and economy could be effected.” Have you anything you would like to say in regard to this matter?—On 12th February, 1951, the Government removed the officer in question from his position as secretary in a certain Department and from the Civil Service. The Government decided at the same time that he should be awarded the maximum benefits by way of superannuation that were permissible. The pension of £728 10s. and the lump sum of £1,942 13s. 4d. were computed on the basis of the full amounts which might have been granted in case of retirement on ill-health. The case, in other words, came under the provisions of Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1909, which is referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his note. These payments were increased on the 29th August, 1951, to £900 11s. 0d. for pension and to £2,401 9s. 4d. lump sum, following the increases in pay for Civil Servants. The original calculations were based on a salary of £1,880 which, after revision and restoration of the super-cut, amounted to £2,324. What was done was, I submit, done as a result of a Government decision and in conformity with the terms of the Superannuation Act, 1909. 37. Has this officer subsequently been re-employed?—Yes. He has been appointed adviser to a certain Government Minister, by virtue of a Government decision which was taken on 28th August, 1951. He took up duty on 11th September, 1951. That only affected the Superannuation Vote by the cesser of his pension which did not occur until September, 1951, i.e., outside the year 1950-51, to which the accounts before the Committee relate. The officer retains the lump sum which he got when his services were dispensed with originally. 38. Is there any precedent for that?— Yes. It is, in fact, I understand, the rule that if an officer who has been retired is re-employed in the public service, his pension ceases or is abated but the lump sum which he has already received is not affected. He simply holds on to that. I understand this practice has been in operation ever since the passing of the Superannuation Act of 1909 and that there have been a few cases of reinstatement of officers retired owing to ill-health. The retention of the lump sum in these cases has not, so far as I am aware, been challenged. When the officer in question in the particular case referred to by the Committee eventually retires, the lump sum which he has already received will be deducted from any lump sum due to him on his retirement. 39. He has then been re-employed in a pensionable capacity?—Yes and his pension rights increase according to the additional length of his service. Accordingly, his lump sum will increase, so that the Superannuation Vote is not likely to suffer because the lump sum to which he will become entitled on retirement will be greater than the lump sum he has already received. 40. Deputy McGrath.—This amount will be deducted from it?—Yes. 41. Chairman.—Has any notice been taken of the interest which that lump sum would bear in the meantime?—I am afraid not. 42. So in fact the officer has the advantage of the interest on the lump sum during the term of his re-employment?— That is so. 43. There is another case where a clerk, who retired on marriage, got a lump sum and was subsequently re-employed as a widow, and was given the option of returning the lump sum or of having some deductions made from her salary. I am not quite sure that that is completely analogous because this arises under the Superannuation Act?—That was a case of the re-employment of a lady who had retired on marriage and subsequently became a widow. That happens in quite a number of cases. I am not quite sure what is the practice in regard to the lump sum there. If she is re-employed, I understand she repays the lump sum. 44. Where does the distinction come in between the two types of cases?—What happens is that she gets her pension rights restored when she repays the lump sum, so that she will have continuity of service. Her antecedent service will be taken into account eventually when she comes to retire. 45. What happens if she opts not to return the lump sum? Does she lose certain of her pension rights?—There is a question of the marriage gratuity. 46. Deputy Dockrell.—I would not be too happy to see extreme steps taken to get back a lump sum which the State had paid, unless the State was very certain that there was some particular circumstances in the case. Where a man or woman goes back to work for the State, I would assume that it is mainly in the State’s interest that that is being done. There may be cases which differ from that but still I would not feel very happy about demands to repay the lump sum?— I should make it clear, that when I was speaking about the lump sum in the case of a woman who retires on marriage, the lump sum and the marriage gratuity are one and the same thing. If she returns as a widow to the public service, she reinstates herself in her pension rights by repaying the marriage gratuity. 47. Deputy Palmer.—Supposing she could not repay it for the time being?— I suppose an arrangement would be made to deduct it from her salary by instalments. We would not inflict hardship on her. It might be that the circumstances of a widow left her unable to repay the full sum right away and in that case we would arrange for repayment by instalments. Deputy Dockrell.—Though anomalies may occur from time to time I would rather see the State err on the side of generosity. 48. Chairman.—I am afraid I cannot agree with the Deputy. Would it be fair to suggest that this particular officer is now better off than he would have been than if he had merely stayed in the service?—I think that is not an exaggeration. 49. Deputy McGrath.—Will this particular officer be entitled to some compensation for his ill-treatment? Chairman.—There is no statutory provision for that. Mr. McElligott.—I suppose there are other than financial considerations to be taken into account. 50. Chairman.—With regard to extra receipts payable to Exchequer, am I correct in taking it that the compensation recovered from an external Government may be related to the payments under subhead K?—That is so. Subhead K refers to Emergency Compensation in respect of Death or Personal Injuries and other Expenses in connection therewith. 51. Am I correct in assuming that the term “external government” means the British Government?—That is so. VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.52. Chairman.—I imagine that this Department must have been the only body corporate or incorporate in Ireland which found that the rates were lower than anticipated. Is that not the position, according to subhead A?—Yes, the complaints are usually the other way round. 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—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.53. Chairman.—I notice that the Accounting Officer’s note is a very frank admission that subhead D is unconstitutional. It says: “Local rates, which govern expenditure, were, in general, lower than anticipated.” Surely the Dáil governs expenditure?—I gather that it does from the provisions submitted to it. VOTE 21—LAW CHARGES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.54. Chairman.—How does it arise that the costs and fees recovered by the Chief State Solicitor, etc., show a marked increase?—It is very difficult to anticipate the receipts in respect of costs and fees recovered by the Chief State Solicitor. The Estimates are prepared in the autumn prior to the year to which they relate, that is, between three and five months in advance of the beginning of the financial year and fifteen to seventeen months in advance of the end of it. In such circumstances, it is very difficult to forecast with any accuracy either the number or magnitude of the cases in which the State will be involved and it is still more difficult to forecast the outcome of cases—whether costs will be awarded to or against the State. Some years, we get less than we anticipate. Other years, such as the year under discussion, we get considerably more. Here again, we have to be guided by the expert advice tendered to us by the Attorney General and by the Chief State Solicitor’s Office. Even then, with their expert knowledge, it is sometimes difficult to get anywhere near the target. 55. I suppose it is a happy situation when the costs against the State prove to be less than expected?—Of course, the expenses of the Office are still very considerably in excess of anything that is recovered. VOTE 22—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.56. Deputy McGrath.—The total of the Supplementary is very high, is it not?— There was a very considerable Supplementary Estimate of £190,000 as compared with an original estimate of £292,174. 57. What is the explanation? Chairman.—As long as the Dáil authorised it, I do not think we require an explanation. It should be given at the time of the Supplementary Estimate. Mr. McElligott.—There was an additional grant under the Irish Universities Act, 1908, of £2,000 for the National University of Ireland. There was a grant of £104,000 to University College, Dublin, £36,000 to University College. Cork, and £20,000 to University College, Galway, making a total of £162,000 to the National University and its constituent colleges. There was an additional grant of £10,000 to Trinity College, £3,000 to the Royal College of Surgeons and £15,000 to St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, making a total of £190,000, which, together with the original estimate of £292,174, brought the figure to £482,174. The Supplementary Estimate was, of course, passed by Dáil Éireann and the expenditure, as the Chairman remarks, is in order. VOTE 23—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.58. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—There is a note in regard to subhead D—Cultural Institutions (Grants in Aid)—at the top of page 48. Why was the expenditure less than the grant, bearing in mind the contents of the paragraph to which I have just referred? Chairman.—The witness told you about that on an earlier Vote. Mr. McElligott.—I think there is a fairly full explanation in the note to which the Deputy has referred. The note reads as follows: “Issues to the Royal Irish Academy in respect of the grants-in-aid of Publication of Contributions to Lexicography of Early Irish and of certain temporary professorships were less than anticipated, due to printing difficulties and the absence of a professor on special leave without pay.” VOTE 70—DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (NEUTRALITY) COMPENSATION.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.59. Chairman.—With regard to extra receipts payable to Exchequer, am I right in taking it that the sum of £26,990, which was realised, is associated with the £1,200 already referred to in another Vote?—That is so. This Vote, as the Chairman is aware, disappeared as a separate Vote and the small provision that has to be made in respect of compensation is now figuring in the Miscellaneous Expenses Vote. The change was made in 1951-52, the year following the year of account here. Provision in that year was only £790. Provision in the current year in the Miscellaneous Expenses Vote for this service is £593 only. 60. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—Does that now close the matter of damage of property? Will it be wound up?—Yes. It will all be wound up. Of course, it does not close the matter of trying to recover some claims which we made against external Governments that have not been paid. We made very extensive claims in respect of which we received no payment. The prospects of getting paid are not very rosy but we are keeping the claims alive. 61. Is that from the German Government?—Yes. 62. Have they admitted their liability in any way?—Not so far. There are a number of other claimants who have made demands on them and they consider that they are entitled to precedence in the matter of compensation if there is any available. VOTE 71—TRANSITION DEVELOPMENT FUND.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.63. Chairman.—Is this not one of the considerable savings to which you referred at the beginning, Mr. McElligott?—Yes, but savings were all spent in subsequent years. It was not a net ultimate saving. It was really a postponement of expenditure. 64. Deputy McGrath.—Was it due to local authorities not making their claims in time? I know that it happened in Cork. Am I right?—Yes, that was partly responsible. VOTE 72—TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.Mr. J. J. McElligott further examined.65. Chairman.—Paragraph 89 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead A—Expenses arising out of E.C.A. Technical Assistance Projects (Grant-in-Aid). The full amount of this Grant-in-Aid was paid into a deposit account under the control of the Minister for Finance. The issues made therefrom during the year towards defraying expenditure on travel, subsistence, etc., of participants in technical assistance projects approved by the United States Economic Co-operation Administration amounted to £10,333 1s. 4d., the balance remaining in the account at the close of the year being £39,666 18s. 8d. As indicated in a note to the Estimate, the deposit account is examined by me but expenditure out of the account is not accounted for in detail to me and the unexpended balance at the close of the year is not liable to surrender. The expenditure from the deposit account was offset by the receipt from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account of £10,333 1s. 4d. which has been accounted for as an Exchequer extra receipt.” Mr. Wann.—This paragraph summarises the transactions in connection with the deposit account. 66. Chairman.—Paragraph 90 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:— “Subhead B—Counterpart of Dollar Outlay by E.C.A. on Technical Assistance Projects (Grant-in-Aid). This Grant-in-Aid was transferred to a deposit account under the control of the Minister for Finance. A note to the Estimate indicated that issues from this account would be made from time to time, as required by the Irish-American Agreement of 28th June, 1948, to the American Grant Counterpart Special Account, and any unexpended balance in the deposit account at the close of the financial year would not be liable to surrender. The full amount of the Grant-in-Aid, £100,000, remained in the deposit account on the 31st March, 1951, as no issues were made from it during the year.” How did it arise that there were no issues?—The claims on the Grant-in-Aid did not come into the Department during the financial year in question. The Technical Assistance Vote relates to assistance mainly in two forms. It may take the form of visits by representatives of agriculture and trade to the United States to study technical problems or visits by United States experts to Ireland to advise on technical matters in the light of local conditions. These visits took longer to organise than was thought likely when the Estimate was being prepared and, accordingly, most of the expeditions started off later than was expected and did not mature for payment during the financial year 1950-51. Since then the matter has got under way to a large extent. 67. Is not what you said rather an explanation of subhead A? Subhead B deals with money given to the American Grant Counterpart Fund, but none fell due during the year?—I might refer you to the explanation of the subhead in the volume of Estimates: “Counterpart of Dollar Outlay by E.C.A. on Technical Assistance Projects (Grant-in-Aid): Amount required to effect the deposit in the American Grant Counterpart Special Account (No. 8 of 1950) (Sec. 4) of the equivalent in Irish currency of dollar outlay incurred on technical assistance projects by the U.S. Economic Co-operation Administration.” For the reasons stated the deposits were not effected in the American Grant Counterpart Special Account. There is a rather complicated procedure which must be carried out in agreement with the United States Government and various agencies operating under that Government. The general arrangements are set out in the Economic Co-operation Agreement between Ireland and the United States of America signed in June, 1948, a copy of which was presented to Dáil Éireann, and by the time the procedure outlined in the agreement and the arrangements made in the agreement were carried through the need to make a transfer to this deposit account had not arisen by the end of the financial year. 68. What I really want to get at is that considerable provision was made— £100,000—and that was introduced early in the year of account. Surely at that time there must have been some anticipation that it would fall due in the year of account?—We did expect that, but for the reasons I mention they did not mature, but here again it was only a postponement. They have since come along. VOTE 73—ALLEVIATION OF DISTRESS.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 74—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.Mr. J. J. McElligott called.No question. The witness withdrew. VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.Mr. R. P. Rice called and examined.69. Chairman.—Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General are of an informatory character and read as follows:— “Revenue Account. 6. A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with satisfactory results.” “Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties. 7. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £5,558 1s. 10d. and £1,570 10s. 7d., respectively, were made during the year.” 70. Chairman.—Paragraph 8 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 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, 1951. 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 £63,091 0s. 10d., made up as follows:—
The distribution according to the grounds of remission or write-off was:—
Reference was made in paragraph 7 of my last report to the remission of Customs duty by the Revenue Commissioners, with the concurrence of the Department of Finance, on certain consignments of kerosene (vaporising oil) 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 for which there is no rebate provision. During the year under review, further Customs duty amounting to £18,653 5s. 0d. on two consignments of kerosene (vaporising oil) totalling 319,770 gallons was remitted in similar circumstances. The position has now been regularised by Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1951, which enables the Revenue Commissioners to exclude oil of the kind referred to above from the scope of the duty on light oils.” 71. Chairman.—There are one or two matters on which I should like more information. The amount of income-tax and surtax which were declared to be irrecoverable are accounted for mostly by composition settlements. Can you say how much was collected by these composition settlements?—I have a note here dealing with income-tax. My total agrees precisely with yours. There is about £21,000. It is made up of five cases. In the first case we gave up £389 and got £217. An appeal was not taken in time: this was a case of hardship. We found that the correct amount was £217 and we accepted it. In the second case the tax was about £900. The person died outside the country, the executor was also outside the country and we had no means of securing payment. As a gesture, although we had no means of enforcing recovery, the executor offered us £261, and we took it. The third case was where an old lady had neglected her affairs for a very long time and assessments piled up against her. The tax amounted to about £1,800. She could not pay. We went into the matter and found liability round about £200, and we took that. It was true liability. That was the settlement. The biggest item, and this applies both to income-tax and surtax, was a case where but for the Emergency Powers Orders certain income would not have come into this country at all. Owing to these Orders under which people had to bring in all foreign income, certain income had to be included in assessment which in ordinary circumstances would not have been chargeable to tax. People had to bring the money in here. The position was that, owing to that state of facts, we said: “If you bring that money out again when the emergency regulations cease we will discharge the tax which in the ordinary way we never would have got and the collection of which will be held over until we see what you are going to do.” In this particular case what happened was that money was kept in a certain fund here in the expectation that it would be brought out of the country again. In fact, the taxpayer died and we dealt with the case as if the intention to take out the money had been carried out. We then wrote off the tax which we had held in suspense during the war period. One had the type of case where a person—not an Irish national—might find himself here at the outbreak of war and because he could not leave fell under the regulations compelling him to bring in all his money so that we could make use of it. It was only the intention to borrow the money— he not being an Irish national. 72. How much was collected in that case—I have not got the figure with me, but I imagine what was collected in that case over the particular period of time would be about £100,000. It was a very big case. This was just a particular segment of foreign income which would not have been chargeable in ordinary circumstances. We would have charged all other income except this particular segment of foreign income. 73. Did you remit all that?—We remitted all the income-tax relating to this segment of income which, but for the Emergency Powers Orders, would not have been brought into this country at all. In the period of time covered by the remission we would have collected, I imagine, about £100,000. It was a very large amount. I am sorry I have not got the exact figure with me. 74. What was the next case?—I find it is an item of surtax of £335. There was a liability of about £750 and the person died. The executors, again outside the country, made an offer and we accepted a sum of £399 and remitted the balance. It was a case in which we had no power to recover. 75. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—Under the special cases of remissions, recently the Minister for Finance referred to cases—this was in answer to a question —where people had businesses outside the United Kingdom. I was pointing out that an anomaly existed and the Minister said that the Revenue Commissioners in special cases made special arrangements dealing with persons so that they would not suffer a loss of income by living in this country in comparison with living in the United Kingdom?—I wonder was the Minister talking about double residence there. 76. Actually it was a case in relation to the profits arising from property held in South Africa, for example. In this country a person is charged on the profits, including the back profits, of such a business. In the United Kingdom a person is only charged on the declared profits. I think “declared profits” is an accurate description. The result is that certain people do not come to this country who might otherwise do so. The Minister assured me that the Revenue Commissioners often remit these amounts. Would such remissions appear in these figures?—No. I do not quite grasp the point I am afraid. Possibly the Minister may have meant that very often cases arise where people have incomes of the kind mentioned, and when they come along and give us all the facts it may very well be that we are able to apply the law in such a way that a hardship which might otherwise arise does not arise. Very often people think they are going to be charged, but when they come along to see us and give us the facts we are able to decide, having all the facts before us, that liability should be computed in a certain way. That may mean that what may appear to be a concession is in fact just the application of the law by us. If you would like to come along and see us in relation to the particular case you have in mind, I will certainly see if I can do anything. Without knowing the exact circumstances, I could not say what the position should be. 77. Chairman.—Under subhead AA, is this amount of £1,000 the total cost to us of the Conjoint Office?—Yes. With the exception that, arising out of the Conjoint Office work, we would have our own work at the Castle. We have two or three people in the Conjoint Office and we pay them their salaries under the first subhead A. Very often the work in the Conjoint Office entails that we should supply half a man or one and a half men for a period. We cannot do that and, until something is definitely fixed, the British Revenue authorities supply the extra staff. They pay that extra staff, and we recoup one-half of the cost. 78. You could not say how much offhand is in subhead A for that?—I suppose it would be roughly £2,000 or £3,000. Rent and so on is covered under the second heading. It might be £3,000. We are not bound to that. I am just taking the heads and roughly allocating the salaries, but it would be round about that figure. 79. Under subhead N—Incidental Expenses—the last part of the note at page 14 refers to £4 4s. 0d. paid from the Vote to an official in respect of a summons arising out of his driving of an official car. Usually is it not accepted that any expenses of that type should be borne by the person involved in order to impress on such person the necessity for exercising caution? Were there some special circumstances here?—Yes. I think you can take it that each case is in fact reviewed by me. If there is any blame attachable to the person the aim and object is to make him pay. In this particular case it was found that the accident was not his fault. What happened was that an official car near the Border on a morning when it was snowing and visibility was very bad was coming along the main road and a small car came out of a side road and there was a collision. These cases are really border-line but, taking the bad weather and so on into consideration, we adopted a certain course. There was a case in the District Court and the District Justice decided against us. We were advised by the Chief State Solicitor that it was not wise to go any further. 80. Was this £4 4s. 0d. the total cost? —So far as I can remember £4 4s. 0d. were the law costs we paid. I think really the total cost was about £6 or £7. The other car had to be repaired and our own car repairs ran to something over 7/-. I think the £4 4s. 0d. given here are law costs. 81. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—I take it the official was held to be innocent?— He was not held to be innocent. He was held to be guilty. Both the driver and his superior officer who was sitting behind him in the car were convinced that he was not at fault. The witness withdrew. VOTE 25—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.Mr. C. C. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 26—ORDNANCE SURVEY.Mr. C. C. McElligott examined.82. Chairman.—Under subhead F— Incidental Expenses—I notice that in the notes extra photographic equipment is shown as costing £50. How does that come to be under subhead F, rather than subhead D which would seem to be the subhead dealing with photographic equipment?—That equipment was needed for archaeological purposes and hence it is placed in subhead F. 83. You refer in the Note on page 56 to the face value of free supplies of maps to libraries, colleges and societies. I notice the Estimate at page 103, Appendix C, dealt with the face value of maps presented during the year ended 31st March, 1949, and the total is given as 113. Is that £113?—Yes. The face value of maps supplied varies very much from year to year. In this particular year, 1950-51, the increase was due to a large supply to the Department of State. U.S.A. We gave them £191 worth of maps and the rest of it is made up of maps to the National Library, the British Museum, etc. Chairman.—Again I think we must congratulate Mr. McElligott on the great detail in his notes which saves the Committee a considerable amount of time. The witness withdrew. VOTE 69—DUNDRUM ASYLUM.Dr. W. J. Coyne called and examined.84. Chairman.—On subhead B, is this a misprint: number of criminal lunatics estimated for—100? The Book of Estimates shows 110 and that seems more in accord with what happened in that subhead?—The misprint is in the Appropriation Accounts. It should be 110. 85. I thought that the difference in money in the subhead looked more like a difference of twelve patients than of two. On D, could you amplify the note which says that the saving was due to curtailment of expenditure?—Actually that is almost an incorrect term: “Travelling and Incidental Expenses.” The subhead covers medicines, surgical instruments, operations, arts and crafts, leatherwork and so on. We were able to save on these things. We cut down on medicines because we had a fair stock in, and we cut down on surgical appliances because we had made a small stockpile the year before. The savings were principally under these headings. Travel is practically negligible. 86. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Does the saving under subhead B.—Victualling Patients and Rations for Attendants— mean that there were fewer patients and attendants or that they ate less?—The numbers have been going down. They have decreased from 115 patients in 1948 to 93 this morning. The witness withdrew. VOTE 36—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.Mr. Diarmid Coffey called and examined.87. Chairman.—The note on subhead A states that the saving was due to delay in filling vacancy caused by the retirement of an unestablished paper keeper, but in the Estimate no provision is made for an unestablished paper keeper so you could hardly have saved on him?—That seems to be right. In place of an unestablished paper keeper an additional searcher was appointed. 88. You admit that the explanation is somewhat at variance with the facts?— That is the explanation.* The witness withdrew. VOTE 37—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.89. Chairman.—Just for the record, can you tell us how much is under your control?—Yes. On the 31st December last the total funds held by the commissioners consisted of £1,585,781 plus $2,500. The dollar investment represents an old holding of which the testator thought so highly that he prohibited its sale by his will and the commissioners have carefully complied with his request. It must be a great temptation to the commissioners! The witness withdrew. VOTE 46—NATIONAL GALLERY.Mr. Thomas McGreevy called and examined.90. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—Do they give you enough money to buy pictures? —I could do with £25,000 to buy a Titian if you would like to get it for me. I will use my influence, I am sure that they do not give you enough. 91. Chairman.—You have a nice little balance, almost £7,000?—That was the year of my appointment. We were going slowly. We got 93 pictures that year from Mr. Chester Beatty. 92 Were many pictures bought this year?—It was not a bad year. We got a drawing of Robert Lynd by Henry Lamb and a small collection of paintings and drawings of George Petrie and his family; we got a small picture by Haverty, “The First Confession.” We bought it from a lady whose family bought it from Haverty himself; another acquisition was “Convent Gate at Dinan” by Kavanagh. This was a valuable one because Kavanagh was keeper of the Hibernian Academy and all his pictures there in Abbey St. were destroyed in the fire in 1916. We got portraits of Denis Coffey, James Joyce and Count Plunkett, all from the Brennan collection and all by Seán O’Sullivan. Another drawing by Seán O’Sullivan which we obtained was a portrait of Fred Higgins. A Clouet portrait we were very lucky to get was “Portrait of the Fair Geraldine”, Silken Thomas’ sister, at the Duke of Bedford’s sale. I was lucky to get it at the price. The auctioneer bid £25 more than I was empowered to pay and I was afraid that I would have to face the £25 myself but in fact it was all right with the Board. 93. Chairman.—That was very satisfactory. Have you got all the paintings in the Gallery catalogued?—We have a register. If the Minister for Finance will give my Minister staff for me, I could collate all the material and make a catalogue. A catalogue was printed in 1932 but a good deal has been acquired since then. It would be marvellous if we could get out a catalogue. I published a little selection of 133 illustrations last year covering a great many artists— about 100. We have 2,000 pictures, but it was still something to have to give to people visiting the Gallery as a souvenir of a very wonderful collection. 94. Deputy McGrath.—When was the last catalogue issued?—It was edited in 1932 and printed afterwards, but it is now completely out of print. 95. Deputy M. E. Dockrell.—And out of date?—And out of date, of course. 96. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—The position is that you cannot show all the pictures you have?—No; we are talking of a catalogue. The number of pictures of value in store is very small. I have just enough to ring the changes when we lend pictures. We lent a lot for the Festival of Britain and to Italy, Holland, Spain and France. While these are away, I have pictures of rather less importance which I can bring up, but, apart from that, there is not a great deal of major importance in the cellars. I am lending pictures to the Castle next week for St. George’s Hall, but I am taking only two off the walls. They are mostly from store, but people will not pay much attention to them at the ceremonies. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
