|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 8 Iúil, 1954.Thursday, 8th July, 1954.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. J. F. Maclnerney and Mr. L. V. O’Neill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.1. Deputy J. Brennan.—I propose the out-going Chairman, Deputy Sheldon, for re-election. Deputy H. P. Dockrell.—I have great pleasure in seconding. Question put, and agreed to. DEPUTY SHELDON took the chair. Chairman.—First of all I want to thank the members of the Committee for electing me as Chairman. I consider it a very great honour. I should also like to express my appreciation of the way in which room was made for me on the Committee, as the Independent Deputies have no longer the right to direct representation. I appreciate that gesture very much indeed. It is usual at the first meeting of a new Committee for the Chairman to give the members an outline of the functions of the Committee. I did that a couple of years ago and I think the best thing I can do now is to read what I said then because I managed to keep it very short and that is an advantage:— “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.” I would add that it is possible of course, to supplement one’s experience at the Committee by reading what happened in the past and in the Library there are documents of various sorts dealing with the past. There is the British epitome which deals with the work of the Public Accounts Committee since 1866 and an epitome which deals with the work of our Committee from 1922 to 1934. After that, there are individual reports. I should like to add that the members will find, considering the amount of money and the amount of detail in the Appropriation Accounts, that not very many matters do arise and it might be thought that the Committee is not of very great importance. The Committee is exactly in the same position as a police force. The fact of its being there is a safeguard and only by functioning properly can it continue to be a safe-guard. We will now proceed to the agenda. GENERAL REPORT.Mr. O. J. Redmond called and examined.2. Chairman.—Paragraph 1 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report reads:— “Out-turn of the Year. 1. The gross estimates for public services for the financial year 1952-53, as shown by the summary on page xxxvii amounted to £101,876,811, and the gross expenditure to £97,635,776 10s. 0d. Appropriations in Aid were estimated at £4,310,053, and the amount realised was £4,367,188 5s. 4d., but on some Votes the estimated receipts were not realised and the actual amount applied in aid of expenditure was £4,138,213 17s. 0d., the balance falling to be surrendered. The total amount to be surrendered is £4,298,169 15s. 4d., arrived at as follows:—
Amount to be surrendered, being 4.4 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.” 3. The surrender percentage is about the average, Mr. Redmond?—It is somewhat below the average. The actual percentage is the lowest but one since 1946-47. 4. That would be partially accounted for by the number of Supplementary Estimates, which was very high?—Dependent on the time the Supplementary Estimates came along, that is, whether early or late in the year and, consequently, whether there was an opportunity of taking account of excepted savings. If they came early in the year, account could not normally be taken of savings; it would be too early to measure them. 5. Chairman.—Considering that there are £8,000,000 worth of Supplementary Estimates and a surrender of £4,250,000 and £500,000 of extra receipts it looks as if there was almost £13,000,000 over provided for in the Budget, Deputy A. Barry.—How do you arrive at that? Chairman.—£8,000,000 of Supplementary Estimates were provided, £4,250,000 surrendered and £500,000 of extra receipts. That is getting up to £13,000,000, which is a considerable sum. Deputy Bartley.—What is the reason for adding the three together? Chairman.—It was originally provided to bring in enough revenue to meet a Budget of £94,750,000, later amended to £93,750,000, less of course Appropriations in Aid. In fact we were able to meet it and to meet £8,000,000 of Supplementary Estimates and still have £4,250,000 surrendered. Deputy Bartley.—Assuming that the surrender arises from Estimates that have no relation to the Supplementary Estimates, how could you take advantage of an anticipated surrender during the course of the year? The surrender takes place at the end of the year does it not? Chairman.—Yes. I was not making any particular point. Mr. Redmond.—The figures of estimated expenditure in the Report include, of course, voted capital services. 6. Chairman.—What is meant by Budgetary provision?—When you speak of Budgetary provision you mean for current services only. 7. Chairman.—Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 are for information and read:— “Exchequer Extra Receipts 2. Extra receipts to the Exchequer as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts amounted to £522,361 15s. 2d. Surrender of Balances on 1951-52 Votes. 3. The balances to be surrendered out of Votes for the public services for 1951-52 amounted to £4,302,256 15s 11d. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered to the Exchequer. Stock and Store Account. 4. 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. Foreign Exchange Account. 5. 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, 1953. I certify that, in my opinion, the operations and transactions coming within the purview of such examination have been conducted and effected in accordance with the statutory provisions.” VOTE 1.—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.Mr. O. J. Redmond called.No question. VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.8. Deputy H. P. Dockrell.—In subhead E—Salaries, Wages and Allowances of Officers and Staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas—there is a figure of £2,275 1s. 6d. less than granted. Is there a vacancy for some official or something of that nature?—The saving was due mainly to staff vacancies. 9. Deputy J. Brennan.—With regard to subhead J—Restaurant—Contribution in respect of Catering Expenses—what does the £500 represent? 10. Chairman.—Would you care to explain this grant to the Restaurant?—The £500 was a maximum. The entire Vote provision was expended that year, as you will see. Chairman.—It is done on the certificate of the Ceann Comhairle. 11. Deputy A. Barry.—Is there a developing deficiency? Chairman.—We are led to believe there is. This is the same as a Grant-in-Aid. Mr. Redmond.—There was an agreement between the Ceann Comhairle and the Caterers to recoup certified losses up to a limit of £350 in any one year and, in addition, to pay a catering fee up to £150. Deputy J. Brennan.—I only ask this question by way of becoming familiar with the procedure. This is my first time on the Committee. 12. Deputy Bartley.—Is the total of £500 always paid? Mr. Redmond.—No. Payment depended on the amount of the losses incurred. As I said, losses up to a maximum of £350 could be recouped making iwith the catering fee a total of £500. 13. Deputy A. Barry.—Has the subvention ever been less than £500?—Yes. In some years, there was no loss and nothing was paid. 14. Deputy J. Brennan.—That was the loss for 1952-53. The Restaurant is under different management now, I understand?—There was a new agreement to operate from the beginning of June, 1952, which provided for a higher State subvention. That has since been superseded by the fact that the caterers served notice of termination of the arrangement and the Joint Restaurant Committee themselves are now operating the restaurant. 15. Deputy Bartley.—They served notice to terminate the agreement even after the amount of aid had been increased. Is that so?—The new agreement I mentioned was to operate from 1st June, 1952. 16. The new figure was greater than £500. Is that so?—It was £2,000 and that amount appeared in the Estimates for 1953-54. 17. Chairman.—That is for 1953-54?— Yes. The new agreement permitted of payment of a fee up to £400 to the caterers, in lieu of the earlier £150, and losses up to a maximum of £1,200. The balance of the £2,000 was for contingencies. As you will see in the current year’s Estimates, there is a break-down of the £2,000 as between £1,600 for catering expenses and certain losses and £400 for other expenses. Payment fell to be made on the recommendation of the Ceann Comhairle. 18. What really happened will arise at a meeting of another Committee. 19. Deputy Bartley.—What sort of witnesses’ expenses is referred to at subhead H? Chairman.—That is in case a Committee of the Dáil or Seanad should have to summon witnesses. Deputy Bartley.—I am afraid I do not quite understand. Chairman.—It is only a token estimate in case anything should take place during the year. Deputy Bartley.—It was not used at all. Mr. Redmond.—No. It is intended to cover expenses of witnesses summoned to give evidence before Select and Special Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas. 20. Deputy Bartley.—I see. What is the reference to Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer—Fee for translation services?—It was a fee for the translation of the report of Bord na Móna for the year 1950-51. VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.21. Chairman.—With regard to Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer—Repayment of salary of loaned officer—was he loaned outside the State service?— Yes, to a body outside the State service. 22. With regard to the note on subhead C—Incidental Expenses—it is a bit vague?—It is always hard to hit the mark where a number of incidental items is concerned. 23. The note does not add very much to what is said in the subhead?—Without actually knowing the details, I would say that it would be rather difficult to explain all the items in what is probably a very miscellaneous collection. Each individual item would be relatively trivial. VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.24. Chairman.—Has the National Farm Survey Inquiry started?—It is expected to start about the middle of next month. 25. I think there was extra provision in this year’s Estimate for it?—Yes, Mr. Chairman. The figure this year for the National Farm Survey is £10,000. 26. What are the Appropriations-in-Aid in this Vote?—They consist mainly of charges made by the Central Statistics Office for statistical information supplied to the public. 27. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Under the Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, how does it arise that there was compensation for loss of services of an officer injured in an accident? Where does that money originally come from? Suppose a civil servant is injured in a motor accident, are we to take it that the money goes to the Department and not to the man himself?—The Department continues to pay salary during the period of incapacity and seeks recoupment. The officer is, of course, free to pursue any personal claim for damages. VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.28. Chairman.—With regard to subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances —the Supplementary in this case arose because of the delay in debate. Is that not correct?—That is so. There were four Votes on which there were Token Supplementaries. To enable the original Estimate to be taken and the Appropriation Bill enacted in good time, an arrangement was made that time would be afforded later for general debate on the token Estimates. 29. Deputy J. Brennan.—Subhead AA refers to “Actuary.” How is it that there was no expenditure under that subhead?—No occasion arose on which it was necessary to engage the services of the Actuary. 30. Chairman.—Details of the Appropriations in Aid are to be found on page ten. The commission on the purchase of securities was very low this year, was it not?—Yes. In other years the amount realised was frequently in excess of the estimate. The explanation as regards 1952-53 is that all available Departmental funds were utilised for Exchequer financing and stock exchange transactions took place only to a small extent. VOTE 11—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.31. Chairman.—The estimation here was very close, was it not?—We are always able to do that. We know the amount of each of the securities outstanding at the crucial date. It was only in the case of one of them, namely, the external portion of the 5% Second National Loan, the records of which are still maintained by the National City Bank of New York, that the very small saving occurred. VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.32. Chairman.—It is fairly clear that more was spent on new apparatus. It was a fairly considerable addition to the Vote. How did it arise that more apparatus was needed than had been expected?—I am afraid I cannot say definitely. 33. One would think the State Laboratory should be able to give a fairly clear picture of requirements. It does not appear from the note that prices went against them or that anything cost more than was expected, is that not so? —Possibly they had to get a particular apparatus for a particular testing they were making. There was, of course, extra work done which would mean larger demand for chemicals and renewals of apparatus. 34. With regard to extra receipts, last year I asked about the fees for analyses and I think you mentioned that most of these arose from glassware that was imported but that the reports indicated that the demand was falling off. Yet, here again, we get an increase even on a much higher estimate. Have you anything further to say on that?—The increase was due to the number of instruments tested which, in turn, was probably due either to stockpiling on the part of the people who sent in the instruments for testing or to continuing replenishment after the war. In other words, the slowing-down process that I mentioned last year had not completed itself. 35. Deputy Bartley.—Is this service available to the public at large? Chairman.—Strictly speaking, the Deputy should ask that question of the Minister in the House rather than of the Accounting Officer. Mr. Redmond.—The fees are received for tests made for outside and semi-Government bodies. 36. Chairman.—There is an increase in respect of “Recovery from Road Fund of half of salary of an officer engaged on an analysis of road-making materials.” The amount realised is half as much again as the amount estimated, is it not?—Yes. It represents 1½years’ recovery. Chairman.—Last year, there was only the half year. VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.37. Chairman.—Subhead E—Appropriations in Aid—relates to receipts in respect of the Local Appointments Commission?—Yes. 38. Deputy J. Brennan.—No explanation is given in regard to subhead D—Incidental Expenses. Chairman.—It is only a casual variation. The amount is very close to the estimate. 39. Deputy Bartley.—Does this service cover the Local Appointments Commission as well? Chairman.—Yes. That is what the appropriations in aid are. VOTE 14—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON.Mr. O. J. Redmond called.No question. VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.40. Chairman.—The details of subhead G—Commissions and Inquiries not specifically provided for—are on page 33. This is the winding-up of the Commission on Emigration, is it not, or will there still be some expenditure to be brought to account?—The entire expenditure under subhead G is attributable to the Commission on Emigration and other Population Problems. 41. Does this conclude the expenditure or will there still be some outstanding? —There was some expenditure in 1953-54. VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.42. Chairman.—A peculiar situation arises under subhead F—Extra-Statutory Grants—does it not?—We gave a fairly long note explaining the circumstances. Chairman.—It seems a very small amount. Deputy Bartley.—Could we have some example of these extra-statutory grants? Chairman.—You will find a note on page 35 in relation to subhead F. There is just the one case. 43. Deputy Donegan.—It seems to be a very small amount? Chairman.—One week’s pay for each year of service, is that not so? Mr. Redmond.—Yes—On approximately 15 years’ aggregate service in this case. 44. Chairman.—Will regard to Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, the item for payments and refunds of teachers’ contributions is, I suppose, purely conjectural? You have no means of knowing in advance?—I understand that some were delayed from previous years. 45. Was there anything unusual about the miscellaneous receipts? It is a fairly substantial sum? 46. Deputy Bartley.—Can we have an explanation of the note on page 36—“Payment by local authorities under Sections 82 and 84 of the Local Government (Superannuation) Act, 1948, towards certain awards made under the Superannuation Acts.” How does that arise? Chairman.—It is a statutory provision, Deputy. Deputy Bartley.—That is just exactly what I want to get information about?— Mr. Redmond.—It would represent contributions towards the aggregate pension of a person who had served under a local authority and in the service of the State. When such an officer came to retire he would be pensioned on aggregate service. 47. Deputy Bartley.— If he served both for the Government and a local authority?—Yes. The local authority would make a contribution towards the pension related to the service under the local authority. I can send you a note, Mr. Chairman, if you like, showing the constituents of the £458 5s. 7d.* under the heading “Miscellaneous” in the Extra Receipts table. Chairman.—Very good, thank you. VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.48. Chairman.—With regard to sub-head B—Contributions towards Rates on Premises occupied by Representatives of External Governments—are claims which are not made in time honoured later on? —That is so. Two cases were concerned for which the provision in the Estimates for 1952-53 aggregated £290 1s. 1d. The actual saving was £323 13s. 8d., so that the subhead was pretty tightly drawn. 49. Deputy Bartley.—Do foreign Governments not bear the full expense of the rates on premises here?—It all proceeds on the basis of reciprocity. The concession takes the form of a contribution towards the rates on premises occupied by representatives of foreign Governments. Our diplomatic representatives abroad get concessions similar to what we give here and we do not pay except on that basis. Deputy Bartley.—It seemed to me rather an unnecessary arrangement. 50. Chairman.—That is hardly the concern of this Committee. If the Dáil makes the arrangement it is not our business to criticise it?—The rates demand is broken up as between beneficial rates and non-beneficial rates, and our contribution is made on the basis of the non-beneficial element in the total. VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.Mr. O. J. Redmond called.No question. VOTE 19—EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT AND THE JURIES ACT.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.51. Deputy H. P. Dockrell.—What is this money actually spent on?—On recoupment to local authorities of portion of the expenses incurred by them on the preparation of the register of electors. VOTE 20—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.Mr. O. J. Redmond called.No question. VOTE 21—LAW CHARGES.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.52. Chairman.—You seem to strike a very fine balance on what you consider the appropriate fees to counsel. I see that you did not pay them as much as expected and the result, of course, was that the State costs went up. There is no connection, I presume, between the two, but at any rate you saved some fees?—The provision is estimated on the basis of experience, and in the event it depends on the extent of litigation whether more or less is spent. 53. Deputy H. P. Dockrell.—Subhead E refers to defence of public servants. Do they need defence? Deputy T. Lynch.—You see how little defence they need with £69. 54. Chairman.—This Chief State Solicitor’s business seems to have been fairly profitable?—I think last year you commented on the balance preserved between estimated receipts and the amount realised. The imbalance this year is explained by the costs in the Foyle and Bann case coming in unexpectedly. 55. With regard to that, I do not know whether it is proper to raise it now, but there was an account of the whole Foyle and Bann business, and I presume that these fees must be brought to account somewhere. These fees were really part of the arrangement made. Is that correct?—The settlement made provided for recoupment of certain outlay. 56. The fishery lost their case in the High Court and appealed, but then withdrew the appeal?—There was an appeal pending at the time the settlement was made, but the Estimates were prepared before costs were determined. VOTE 22—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.57. Deputy H. P. Dockrell.—Is not the grant under subhead G—College of Surgeons (Grant-in-Aid)—very small as compared with the others? Chairman.—Presumably there is some reason. Better raise that in the Dáil and ask why. It is a matter of policy. 58. Chairman.—What is the explanation in regard to the saving on subhead B—University College, Dublin?—That arises in respect of one particular grant for University College, Dublin, and there has been this small surrender every year since its inception. It arises from a vacancy, does it?—Payment of the full grant is contingent on a certain staffing scheme which in fact has never been implemented in its entirety. 59. Deputy Bartley.—The National University is given a separate subhead? In view of the fact that the colleges are constituent colleges how is it that this segregation is made?—The provision under subhead A is for the National University Institution in Merrion Square. Deputy A. Barry.—The colleges are autonomous. 60. Deputy Bartley.—Have they no income other than this grant? Chairman.—They probably get fees. Mr. Redmond.—The National University also gets £10,000 from the Church Temporalities Fund. The footnote on page 82 of the Estimates Volume for 1952-53 refers. VOTE 23—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.61. Deputy Donegan.—On subhead E. —The Irish Plate. Is it a race? Chairman.—I take it to be a race? Mr. Redmond.—Yes—the Irish Plate of 300 sovereigns run at the October-November meeting at the Curragh. 62. Chairman.—Subhead H is the winding-up of what used to be a separate Vote?—Yes—compensation for war damage to property. 63. This business of non-fulfilment of reinstatement conditions referred to in the note—would you amplify that for us a bit?—Under the Act of 1941 the Minister or the Courts— in fact, very few cases went to Court—when awarding compensation could impose a reinstatement condition in the case of buildings, and generally it was the practice to impose such a condition in every case where reinstatement was a physical possibility. That was intended to preclude what sometimes happened in the 1920’s when damaged buildings were left unrepaired, an eyesore in the middle of the street for years. VOTE 70—TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.64. Chairman.—Frankly the more I study this business the less I know about it. Deputy A. Barry.—What chance have I? Chairman.—Can you give us some more detail about the difference between the extra receipts and the expenditure under subhead A? I understood last year that these two things were related and there was a minor variation which was accounted for by the fact that some particular work was not passed by E.C.A. or its successor. Is that true in this case as well? Is it true that the difference between the amount expended under sub-head A and the amount transferred from the Counterpart Special Account represents projects which have not been passed? Mr. Redmond.—In framing the Estimates for 1952-53 there was a relation between the provision made under sub-head A and the estimated receipt from the Grant Counterpart Special Account. It was believed at the time that approval of the U.S. authorities would be forthcoming for full recoupment from Grant Counterpart of the expenditure. It turned out, however, that approval for the use of Grant Counterpart to cover the cost of non-E.C.A. technical assistance projects was not received during 1952-53 nor has it been received since. The whole of the £41,703 odd spent under subhead A related to non-E.C.A. projects, and the £5,726 realised in 1952-53 was in recoupment of E.C.A. projects of earlier years. 65. Has E.C.A. not come to an end? —Discussion is still taking place with the American authorities as to the use of the £6,000,000 odd in the Grant Counterpart Special Account. There was a question about it recently in the Dáil. 66. Deputy Bartley.—Does all this technical assistance come under the E.C.A. provision?—No. All the projects financed out of subhead A in 1952-53 were non-E.C.A. projects. If the Deputy is interested, I could indicate some of these projects. 67. In other words, they are projects financed entirely from our own resources? —That is right. 68. Chairman.—Would you like to have a note on the details, Deputy? Deputy Bartley.—Perhaps they could be made available to the Committee as a whole. Mr. Redmond.—Very good.* VOTE 71—OIFIG NA GAELTACHTA AGUS NA gCEANTAR gCUNG.Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.69. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—With regard to the note on subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—has the additional staff been recruited since?—Yes. The staff requirements of this Office have been fully met. And in the current years’s Estimates there is an additional provision of £500 to meet possible contingencies. 70. Chairman.—The service was not long in operation this year?—It was in its second year. VOTE 74—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.Mr. O. J. Redmond called.No question. The witness withdrew. VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.Mr. R. P. Rice called and examined.71. Chairman.—Paragraph 6 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Sub-head S—Customs Co-Operation. The European Customs Union Study Group was established in 1947 by a majority of the members of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, including Ireland. The Study Group devoted its attention to the field of Customs practice and its work resulted in the production of three Conventions and a Protocol. In 1952 the Irish Government decided to accede to two of the Conventions and to sign the Protocol. One of these Conventions established a Customs Co-operation Council and the Protocol provided, inter alia, for the sharing by the signatory Governments of the expenses of the Study Group from 1 January, 1951, until the Convention came into force. The charge to this special subhead, which was opened with the sanction of the Department of Finance, represents a contribution of £217 9s. 4d. towards the expenses of the Study Group for the year 1951, and travelling, etc., expenses, amounting to £605 0s. 2d., incurred by officers of the Revenue Department in attending meetings of the Study Group and the Customs Co-operation Council.” That is for information purposes? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—For information only. 72. Chairman.—Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:— “Revenue Account. 7. A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with generally satisfactory results. 8. As noted in the account, an officer of the Department embezzled official moneys and was prosecuted and dismissed. The total amount involved, which related to arrears of income tax, has not yet been determined and departmental investigations are proceeding.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I understand that departmental inquiries have not yet been completed, but perhaps Mr. Rice could give some information with regard to the present position. 73. Chairman.—Perhaps you could give us a general picture of what happened? Mr. Rice.—I can answer you by saying how far we have got. We think we have done most of the investigation of this defalcation. The amount we know of at present is something short of £1,730. We think, though we are not sure, that we may uncover something else. We do not anticipate that it will be very large, but the investigation is not yet complete. With regard to what happened, we have in the head office a branch called the Arrears Branch, which endeavours to collect moneys which for a variety of reasons cannot be collected locally by collectors. A collector might have sums of money due from say an employee amounting to £20, £30 or £40 and the only means he would have of getting that money would be to seize furniture or bring the man to court where the ultimate result would perhaps be imprisonment. In that type of case, we get the amount reported to this special branch and we endeavour to collect the tax due from the man’s employer under section 6 of the Finance Act, 1923. Very often, there are cases of hardship, and we endeavour so far as we can to spread the collection so that we do not take too much at the one time. Due to the diminished value of money from 1945-46 when wages were raised, people came into the income-tax net who had never been there before. I can illustrate the extent of the growth of work of the Arrears Branch by telling the Committee that, in 1946, the amount collected was roughly £100,000, and by 1952-53 the amount had increased to something short of £700,000. That simply meant that, with the increased number of taxpayers this Branch had to cope with a substantial increase in volume of collection. Let us say it was increased six times. The number of taxpayers were increasing so greatly that inspectors’ offices were becoming clogged up with all these new cases. We had a system whereby in the Arrears Branch we kept very close contact with the Inspectors as regards individual payments so that when a man who, let us say, owed £10 paid £2 a week, each payment of £2 was immediately notified to an Inspector, and so the case was kept under review. We found, in fact, that the machine was breaking down with the result that in order to keep things moving we had to say: “We will wait until the £10 has been collected in full and meanwhile we will put each £2 on deposit with our Accountant General. When a statutory instalment is paid we will notify you and it can be recorded in your books.” That was a getting rid of what you might call red tape in order to get the work done and to get the money collected. It was necessary to concentrate on getting money collected in this period. The official in question cashed in on this state of affairs. He was in charge of a small section dealing with the collection of arrears from employees; he was in charge of five, six or seven very junior people and was responsible for their work. At a time when a file should come up for review, if he was doing something in the particular case that was not right, he said: “I am looking after that case,” with the result that the necessary review was not carried out. Furthermore, he was not allowed to take in money— nobody in that branch is allowed to handle money—but he collected the money outside largely. Very often somebody knew him and he arranged the instalments, as he was given power to do. He apparently gave the impression to many of these people that he was arranging for particularly small instalments, and he got money from them—not in the office where he would have been seen by the other officials but in the corridor outside the room, and very often in the taxpayers’ place of business at which he called. He did not give them receipts— they got no official receipts. In the process of time he would have been caught. The only trouble was that by getting rid of this red-tape business he got a longer spell than he would ordinarily have got, by which time he had misappropriated, so far as we know, £1,700. We have since then tightened things up. It needs more checking, and so on, but we hope that is going to end it. When anyone takes money it is only a matter of time until he is found out, but anybody taking money not only from Government sources but other sources as well will get away with it for a certain time only. 74. That is very clear. There is one other point. I take it that the money involved will have to be made good to the Exchequer? How will that be done?—In process of time I imagine it will be done. The official gave some kind of acknowledgment in some cases, and we are satisfied that decent people came in and paid him money. The question will arise as to what should happen to such people. My own view is that in fairness the amount should be written off so that perhaps next year or the following year when we have established the full amount, it will be treated as a loss of public money. 75. Whatever happened to the money, surely it is revenue which was collected and must be paid into the Exchequer in some way, if necessary by a Vote?—I think the Auditor General has drawn your attention to this. In a subsequent year when he knows the exact amount and he is satisfied that amount has been paid, it will be a matter of approaching our Minister so that it can be charged against the particular Vote for defalcations. Then it will have to be borne by the State. People may claim that they have paid the amounts involved, but so long as we are satisfied that they did so, my view is that they should not be mulcted again. 76. I was not thinking of getting it again but of what machinery you would use to make good to the Exchequer the loss?—I am sure the Auditor General has the exact answer, but I imagine that either next year or the following year we will have to get authority to charge the loss against the particular subhead, which I think is subhead Q. 77. Deputy Bartley.—In reality, there is no method of recouping this money to the general Exchequer? Chairman.—Yes, there must be. Deputy Bartley.—You could not take it from some other Vote? Chairman.—No, from this Vote. Deputy Bartley.—Where are you going to get it? Chairman.—It is a technical matter for keeping the Exchequer correct. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I think the amount of the defalcations would be voted by the Dáil to make good the deficiency to the Exchequer. Deputy Bartley.—I accept that, but my point is that the State is not recouping anything. That could only be done if the official were a bonded official. I take it this man is a civil servant in the ordinary way and that civil servants are not bonded. Chairman.—It is not likely that the State will get the money from any source other than the State itself. 78. Deputy Bartley.—One thing I see is that Mr. Rice has made a very good case for red tape? Mr. Rice.—I am very sorry to agree with that. However, I do not think the loss to the State will be very much more than £1,700. The loss will be more apparent than real. This man has got 14 months’ imprisonment. He is getting on to 60, and has lost a sum of money he would have got when he retired, about £1,100 gratuity and so on. It is unfortunate that these things happen, but when you look at the revenue that is collected the loss may not seem so very high. I have figures here that show that from 1947, £535,000,000 was collected, and fortunately for civil servants this is the worst case we have ever had. It is a matter of pride that of the £535,000,000 collected the amount taken has been very small. It is a tribute to the probity of civil servants generally, and you have got to rely to a great extent on their probity. You will get people who set out to take sums of money, but thank goodness it is very rare in our case. Chairman.—I think the interest we take in the odd case that crops up is a measure of our natural surprise. 79. Deputy Bartley.—The amount due to this man is payable out of State funds and that has been reclaimed? Mr. Rice.—He has lost that. 80. So that the State is recouped to that extent?—Yes, and perhaps I may add that in the ordinary way he could have retired at 60 and he loses a pension, so that in fact the loss is more apparent than real in this case. 81. Chairman.—Paragraph 9 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General which is for information reads as follows:— “Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £12,125 11s. 8d. and £2,185 13s. 8d., respectively, were made during the year.” 82. Chairman.—Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “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, 1953. I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results. The total amount, £3,682 3s. 2d., related to income-tax and the distribution according to the grounds of remission or, write-off was:—
Is this total of £3,682 3s. 2d. the total of the amounts of £50 or upwards or is it the whole total?—The total of amounts of £50 and upwards. 83. What would be the whole total?— There were 534 cases and the total was £4,778. 84. That means about £1,000 not accounted for here? Deputy Bartley.—That is, representing sums under £50? Mr. Rice.—No, as well as those figures. There were 534 cases which totalled £4,778. 85. Chairman.—The figure of £50 was fixed in 1897. It just strikes me, if that is so and the £50 was considered a fair limit in 1897, it might be possible to consider bringing it down a bit now?— Bringing it up. Deputy Bartley.—Would the Chairman explain what this limit to which he is referring means? Chairman.—It means that by law a remission of less than £50 is not specifically to be brought to the Auditor General’s attention. I am suggesting that the Auditor General might consider whether the figure of £50 is a proper one now. Deputy A. Barry.—In relation to the change in the value of money or the growth in the number of income-tax payers? 86. Chairman.—It might be found necessary, after so many years, to have a revision? Mr. Rice.—I do not know whether I am correct in saying that although amounts of £50 and under do not come particularly to your notice here—they are not mentioned—in fact the Auditor General instructs his officers to test these smaller cases as well, and we rather welcome that. Therefore, every case of £10 receives as much attention from the Auditor General as would a case of £500. Whether he tests them or not every case is available to him. 87. On subhead G.—Machinery and Repairs in Stamping Branch, Dies, Plates, etc.—I know your business is to get your Vote disposed of in the most convenient way for you but I would be interested to hear the Department of Finance on the use of virement in this subhead. I cannot find an analogous subhead in the whole Vote except possibly on subhead L and that unfortunately also has a slight excess. Mr. O’Neill.—You said there is no analogous subhead. You are not necessarily tied to having an analogous subhead in the Vote. If the amount considered absolutely is not excessive or relatively to the grant provided is not excessive, you would feel free to exercise virement. While the saving might be deemed to have been drawn from an analogous subhead if such were available, one does not feel constrained from exercising virement in the absence of an analogous subhead. Deputy Bartley.—What is virement? Chairman.—The transfer of a saving on one subhead to a subhead on which there is an excess. Deputy A. Barry.—Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Chairman.—When the Dáil passes an Estimate it passes Part II. Part III of the Estimate is only for information. The Committees of Public Accounts have always been very jealous of anything which wandered too far from the details as presented to Parliament. The idea is that the Dáil would not be happy to find that so many thousands of pounds were put down as outlay for salaries and a small amount for some other subhead, whereas the Department went on blandly and spent ad lib on the small amount. That is why I understood it was considered advisable always that there should be some analogy between the subhead on which there was a saving and the one on which there was an overspending. Now the Department of Finance view is not quite the same on that—and personally I do not like it. In this case the amount £3,800 is not big in relation to the size of the Vote of the Revenue Commissioners, over £1,500,000, but it is a 50 per cent increase on the amount that the Dáil was advised the Department proposed spending on a particular service. I do not particularly like to see that nearly £4,000 more is spent on machinery and repairs for the Stamping Branch and so on and that has been obviously taken from something like salaries, where there is a saving, the only considerable saving there was. That is why I raise it here. Later on, the Committee will consider its views on the various accounts, but it is only fair at this stage, when taking evidence, to get the views not only of the Department that is being investigated but the views of the Department of Finance. You have now heard the views of the Department of Finance. Mr. Rice.—I wonder can I help you on this particular matter. I am not quite sure whether my remarks will help you or help the Committee on this matter of virement, but regarding the particular item of machinery and repairs perhaps we could get a picture of what this covers. You know that we have a very efficient Stamping Branch and that, for example, we print all the stamps for the Post Office, for which we do not charge and we print many things for other Departments for which we do not charge. We do not charge, but you see in the Appropriation-in-Aid accounts we charge some nominal amounts for some other things. We have necessarily to estimate for machinery at the beginning of the year. If you remember, Mr. Chairman, in past years there were, I think, savings very often because we wanted machinery and could not get it and there was consequently an excess for perhaps a later year. There was an excess in one year because we got the machinery but did not get the bill for it. That is peculiar to one subhead, where it is not possible to estimate precisely what machinery is going to be obtained or paid for during the year. Also under this particular subhead, we have had these commemorative stamps. We have not got the machinery for printing those stamps, which are done by recess process. For instance, we were not able to print the airmail stamps by our own surface printing and they were done by recess printing in London. Some other recess printing of commemorative stamps was done in Dublin. In this particular year we had provided for some of this printing but the Thomas Moore stamp was one of which we had no prior knowledge. Therefore, the rather large excess this year is mainly due to that one stamp. I do not know whether that helps you in this matter of virement. 89. Chairman.—That explanation certainly mollifies me—but not on the general question? Mr. Rice.—The general question I will not touch. 90.—Deputy Donegan.—With regard to subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—do collectors or inspectors derive any commissions for the collection of new taxes?—No. Perhaps I cannot give a direct answer. No Inspector or official gets any commission. As well as Inspectors, however, we have collectors who are not civil servants and, in the old days, I gather that they got a certain commission. As time went on, that was stopped and we endeavoured to remunerate them by reference to the volume of work they do. I do not think it is commission, but I want to give a full answer. For instance, say a collector has to issue 1,800 demand notes, his remuneration might be fixed so that there might be ¾d. or 1d. for each demand note and then there would be a certain amount fixed for his rent, clerical assistance and so on. The only way in which a reference to commission as such would arise would be by measuring the volume of demand notes or work that he had to do regarding taxpayers. It is not really commission: it bears no reference to amounts collected. 91. There is no such thing as an ordinary citizen deriving commissions for information given to the Revenue Commissioners, re income-tax, about another ordinary citizen?—Well there are such things but I have not seen any for a very long time. If a man gives information which leads to the collection of revenue he will get a reward, if he asks for it. Deputy Lynch.—I have heard it called by other names. 92. Deputy M. P. Murphy.—What would be the nature of the reward? Would it be on the basis of the amount by which the revenue benefited?—I may say it is so long since I have seen an award that I do not recollect at the moment; but the very most, I am told, that would be given would be £250, and that would mean that there would be a considerable amount of revenue collected. I do not think I have seen one for many years. I do not know whether that would be pleasing or unpleasing to you. Deputy Donegan.—Very pleasing. Chairman.—Not as a Committee. 93. Deputy Desmond.—On subhead K —Motor Cars for Frontier Patrols—could we get any idea in regard to the amounts spent on petrol and repairs?—The expenditure was £2,847 on petrol and £1,642 on repairs. 94. Are the repairs carried out mainly in the place of operation?—I will tell you roughly what happens. We do not look on ourselves as experts in cars but we get very good help from the Department which deals mostly with cars, the Post Office. When we are in trouble and want advice, we go to the post office engineer-in-chief and are guided by him as to what we should do, even in buying cars. In other words, in the upkeep and maintenance of them, we rely on the advice of the Post Office car section. 95. I would like to know if these repairs, those of a minor nature as well as the others, are done in the place of operation or done in one big place here, as in the case of Government cars?—I could not give an answer. Would you like a note on that? 96. Yes?—I am told now that the larger repairs are done through the Post Office and small repairs are done locally. Would that satisfy you? Yes. 97. Chairman.—On subhead Q—Losses by Default, Fraud and Accident—you are a bit unfortunate in that there are several?—Yes. You complimented me last year on the situation—but you were a bit early. 98. On this point, in the case of the £138 0s. 4d. where the supervising officers made good the balance of £20, was that a sort of fine on them for failing to supervise?—I will tell you exactly what it was. The official who did this—it was done in a petty way—brought up a book to be checked each day by a supervising officer, and the supervising officer in checking the particular figure should have looked at another book. Now, this official had been engaged on these particular duties for years but the two supervising officers did not follow their instructions in testing before they signed. If they had done so, they would have discovered the default earlier and we thought they should have done so—it was more red tape. 99. £20 worth of red tape?—Yes 100. In regard to the notes on extra remuneration, on page 14. I am interested in this case of the preventive officer who received £800 from the Vote for Science and Art. I take it that this was for some services rendered to that body outside of his official hours of duty?— Yes. 101. Would you not consider that taking in something which a man does outside his normal hours of duty is hardly extra remuneration?—I recollect this case and, perhaps, I can cover it for you. This was not in respect of any analogous kind of duty. This particular officer has a knack—I do not know whether I should or should not say this—of writing tales in Irish which appeal to boys. He has a particular kind of facility which nobody else seems to have of writing these stories and he spends all his leisure time in writing these particular tales. He received remuneration for them from another Vote and that is how we put in this particular sum. It has nothing to do with us; it is all done in his spare time. 102. That is why I am wondering why it should be noted at all?—Is it not your rule that we have to note it? 103. I think it probably varies a bit from Department to Department. My own view would be that it is hardly our business?—That is right. You are apprised of every fee; if anyone of the staff can sing and he gets an engagement on Radio Éireann it is noted here. 104. I am not in favour on my side of cutting down information required, but I think in a case where a civil servant earns money outside it is a matter for himself?—That is my own view, but I thought I was conforming to what you wanted. The witness withdrew. VOTE 25—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.Mr. C. C. McElligott called.No question. VOTE 26—ORDNANCE SURVEY.Mr. C. C. McElligott called and examined.105. Chairman.—As usual your notes, Mr. McElligott, are a model for other Departments in the detail that is given. In the Book of Estimates you give an appendix in relation to the face value of maps presented. By being in the Estimate, it is always considerably in arrears. I was wondering why it should be in the Estimates rather than in the Appropriation Account. Of course, I know it is useful when we are discussing the Estimate that the items should be clear? —From the accountant’s point of view one must take into account everything one gives out. 106. I appreciate that but in the normal way details of a matter like that would be given in the Appropriation Account?—Of course the statute lays down rules as to whom we may give our maps: the trustees of the National Library; Trinity College; the National University and the British Museum. Then we present them to various other people like the Bodleian in Oxford, the University Library in Cambridge, the National Library in Scotland and Wales. It is a matter of courtesy that we give them these maps and they, in return, give us their maps. 107. It is not the Survey Account I am querying. Do you think yourself it is better they should appear in the Book of Estimates rather than in the Appropriation Account?—I think we should follow the old practice. I have no particular feeling on it myself. The witness withdrew. VOTE 37—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.Mr. J. S. Martin called and examined.108. Chairman.—The funds under your charge continue to grow?—Yes. In the year ended 31st December, 1953, our funds stood at £607,811. That represented an increase of £21,649 on the previous year’s figure. The witness withdrew. VOTE 46—NATIONAL GALLERY.Mr. T. McGreevy called and examined.109. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report reads as follows:— “Subhead D—Incidental Expenses. Sums amounting to £1,000, issued in part payment for postcard reproduction of certain paintings, are included in the charge to this subhead. The postcards were not delivered until after the close of the financial year. As it would therefore appear that the accounts had not matured for payment I have communicated with the Accounting Officer regarding the charge to the Vote.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Kiely? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I think it well that I should read out the accounting officer’s reply:— “It should first be noted that the allocations of moneys for these cards have been limited to two years, and as an experiment. The contracts referred to were made well within the financial year 1952-53 and the contractors gave the necessary assurance that the work could be done and supplies of cards delivered within the financial year. In the event, though urgent and, as time went on, even desperate, representations were made to the contractors on the question, delivery was delayed. It was essential that we should keep within the allocation for reproductions under subhead B of our Vote. In view of the experimental nature of the work, we were at pains to keep expenditure down. Part payments were made from a fund donated for the purpose of publications and reproductions, to be expended at the discretion of the director.” In reply to further inquiries he stated:— “On the Estimate submitted, agreement was reached without formal contract; that the Irish firms which applied for work were all given orders; it has to be remembered that the scheme was an experimental one and the endeavour was to give the Irish printers the opportunity of doing the best work of the kind; that the Department of Education stated verbally at the time that, as the money was allocated to the National Gallery, there was no necessity to consult the Stationery Office.” 110. Chairman.—It is very unusual, Mr. McGreevy, for you to find yourself in this sort of trouble?—I am not much of a bookkeeper. I was made an accounting officer. I know something about the history of art, but I do not pretend to be a good bookkeeper. 111. We appreciate that but did you, for instance, try to make use of the services of the Stationery Office?—No, not at all. 112. The Department of Education considered it was not necessary?—Yes. The Minister, Mr. Moylan, got the money allowed and allocated. I was told to go ahead, and that there was no necessity to get the Stationery Office interested because we would only be delayed, and so on. So I went ahead and did the best I could with Browne & Nolans, Helys and a firm called, I think, Irish Printers; there were three different firms. They all supplied cards and, as a matter of fact, I think it was my own ignorance of finance that was responsible because I put down the date—26th June, I think it was—when the payment was made, instead of leaving the date, and then the Comptroller and Auditor General noticed this. In fact, I understand I was not doing anything unusual at all. The money was paid. It was allocated for the year ending March 31st. The deliveries began coming in and payment was made; and if I had not, like an innocent, put down the date nothing more would have been heard about it. 113. Had the firms been pressing for payment? I am wondering why you should have paid them before the end of the year?—I did not pay them before but after the end of the year. It was the fact that I put down the date when I did pay them that caused the trouble. They were only paid afterwards. That is the trouble, is it not? They were paid, but outside that financial year. 114. How did you come to charge it to your Vote if you had not paid?— Because the contract was there. If I had given a cheque dated 31st March and just let the deliveries come as they would, it would have been all right. Not being experienced in financial dealings, I just honestly said when the date was— when the payment was actually made. There is a technical hitch, for which I explained, I think to an official from the Audit Office, I have regrets—but no apologies. I do not set up to be a financier. 115. Very well. We may consider it at another date?—I did explain it to the Secretary of the Department of Education that I did in good faith what I believed was the reasonable and right thing to do because the printers kept me waiting. 116. You would not think of asking the Department of Education to take over the accounting?—Nothing would please me more; or the Department of Finance. But I think it is the only thing that has happened in my four years at the Gallery, and it was just that I did not pretend to know the rules. Deputy Desmond.—Is it not quite clear that Mr. McGreevy acted as an ordinary businessman would? He entered when he paid and I think it is all the red tape here that is the real cause of the nonsense. Chairman.—At the moment we are only taking evidence. We can go into that later. 117. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Have you, in fact, bought any pictures for that year, or does most of the sum shown here go in repairs?—Repairs actually were not very big. They were £193 11s. On purchases we spent £3,889. It was the year we got The Holy Family by Fra Bartolommeo, which the authority, Knapp, considered to be the most beautiful picture Fra Bartolommeo ever painted; it was not the biggest but it is the best. He stood over it in an article in Panthéon in 1931. It was in a private collection in Ireland and it was very important. Then we got a portrait of Madame Markievicz by her husband; two drawings by John Butler Yeats; pictures by Guido Réni and Teniers; Parmigianino and Luini; and a small religious picture from Belfast by an artist named Thompson, a painter of the early 19th century-a little picture of Our Lord in the House of Martha and Mary. We paid from £3,000 to £10 for individual pictures that year. We only paid £10 for the little Irish picture. 118. Deputy Bartley.—Why does he remark that because it was Irish we only paid £10 for it?—That was not the sequence of my thoughts. It was a small picture in a rather delapidated condition and I bought it without even waiting for the Board because Irish religious pictures are rare and there are not a great many of them. Irishness had nothing to do with its low price. That was not my idea. I am ready to pay good money for Irish pictures. The witness withdrew. VOTE 36—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.Mr. D. Coffey called.No question. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. * See Appendix IV. * See Appendix V. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
