Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1955 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1953 - 1954

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 6 Deireadh Fómhair, 1955.

Thursday, 6th October, 1955.

The Committee sat at 2 p.m.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. M. Breathnach and Mr. T. J. Malone (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

GENERAL REPORT.

Mr. O. J. Redmond called and examined.

1. Chairman.—We have before us for our consideration the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Appropriation Accounts for the year 1953/54. It might be well for me to remind members of the Committee that, while they are entitled to ask the Accounting Officer for information on any matter arising out of the examination of the Accounts, questions should be confined to these matters.

2. Paragraph 1 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Out-turn of the Year.

1. In accordance with the wishes of the Committee of Public Accounts the expenditure recorded in the Accounts presented in this volume is adjusted to the nearest pound. The figures in the Accounts as rendered to me are summarised on page xxxiii. The total amount to be surrendered as shown in the summary is £6,693,236 11s. 9d., arrived at as follows:—

In no case has the provision made by Dáil Éireann been exceeded, and no excess Vote is, therefore, necessary.”

Chairman.—I take it the adjustment of the figures in the Accounts to the nearest pound is satisfactory, Mr. Redmond, and will result in a saving?

Mr. Redmond.—I think it makes for convenience to omit the odd shillings and pence.

3. May we take it that the surrender is about average?—It is somewhat bigger than it was in the preceding year, i.e., 1952/53, but it is about average over the last eight years or so.

4. Paragraph 2 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Exchequer Extra Receipts.

2. Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts amounted to £861,448 5s. 7d.”

Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to that paragraph, I think it shows a considerable increase on the previous year?

Mr. Redmond.—It may, indeed, but the actual receipt is very much in line with the estimate which was £817,362.

5. Chairman.—Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General are for information and read:—

“Surrender of Balances on 1952-53 Votes.

3. The balances to be surrendered out of Votes for public services for 1952-53 amounted to £4,298,169 15s. 4d. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered.

Stock and Store Accounts.

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 31 March, 1954. 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.

6. Chairman. — With regard to subhead I—Inter-Parliamentary Activities— is the expenditure in relation to this Subhead audited?—This is a grant-in-aid. The Comptroller and Auditor General does, I believe, audit the Association’s expenditure.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is correct. There is an arrangement whereby we audit the account on request. I have a note to the effect that the accounts for 1954-55 are under examination.

7. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead J—Expenses of the Restaurant —could we have any information on it? I realise Mr. Redmond probably knows very little about this because it is tantamount to a grant-in-aid also. The previous sum granted was £500 and it would seem that the total amount of £2,000, now granted, was expended. Was all of it expended or was any balance carried to the next year?

As far as we were concerned, the expenses were paid on the certificate of the Ceann Comhairle.

8. In effect, there is no way the Committee can satisfy itself on this?— Formerly, the restaurant was operated by a caterer and there was an agreement between the Ceann Comhairle and the caterer for a contribution towards (1) catering expenses and (2) losses sustained in the running of the restaurant.

9. On that, I take it that that also applied in 1953-54? It was subsequent to that year that there was a change in management?—The restaurant is now being managed by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

10. Yes, but that did not apply in the year of account, I think. In a way, this subhead practically amounts to the Secret Service Vote?—The restaurant continued to be managed by a firm of caterers up to the end of February, 1954 —that is for practically the whole of the financial year.

11. Would you have any note as to how much of these grants went to the caterers and how much was expended by the Joint Committee?—£1,600 was paid to the caterers in 1953-54 in respect of operations over the year to 31st May, 1953, and the balance of £400 to the Joint Committee as an initial payment on their taking over. There was a final payment of £1,200 to the caterers in 1954-55 in respect of their operations during the nine months ended February, 1954, i.e., up to the termination of the agreement.

12. Chairman.—Is the expenditure audited?—The expenditure of the Joint Committee?

Yes. Is the expenditure under the subhead audited?—The caterers were required to present certified accounts to the Ceann Comhairle. I cannot say off hand what the arrangement is as between the Committee and the Ceann Comhairle now.

13. How is the contribution for catering expenses determined?—There was, as I have explained to the Committee, an agreement between the caterers and the Ceann Comhairle. It provided for certain contributions towards losses. The terms were varied from time to time usually on representations from the caterers that the contributions had become inadequate.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

14. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead D—Telegrams and Telephones— I notice that the note mentions that accounts proper to 1952-53 were not presented for payment until the year 1953-54. Could Mr. Redmond tell us what was the amount of such accounts?—£192.

15. Last year where the same subhead showed a saving of £62, we were not informed that there were still accounts pending, the only note being that “expenditure cannot be accurately estimated”. Apparently at the end of the previous year there was this sum still owing under the subhead but the Committee was not so informed?—While it is desirable that accounts be presented for payment in proper rotation, it sometimes happens for one reason or another that they are not so presented and the fact that they have not come along in good time is not noticed until their late arrival.

I appreciate that and this, of course, is a very minor case, but it still is, in a way, a bit disturbing to find that the Committee could be completely ignorant of the true position on any account, as, for instance, the Committee was with regard to this subhead on the previous year’s accounts?—For a subhead like this, the Estimate provision is assessed on the basis of the experience of previous years.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not querying that or the difficulty of close estimation. What I am querying is the fact that here was a subhead on the last account which showed a saving of £62 and in fact, that particular subhead at the end of the year owed £169?—It was a deferred payment, if you like, rather than a saving.

The Committee, on the face of it, was led to believe that there was a saving when, in fact, there was no saving on the subhead at all. That is the only point I wanted to make.

VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

16. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead D—Telegrams and Telephones— this is apparently another case in which there was a small excess of £42 in the previous year and a note in the accounts to the effect that it was a casual variation whereas in this year’s accounts we find that five quarterly accounts were paid during the year so that there was, in fact, an arrear under this subhead in the previous year?—Yes, one in arrear.

17. Deputy Dockrell.—Is there any way we could be informed of arrears such as this?

Deputy Sheldon.—I take it that eventually they come to light in subsequent years.

Mr. Redmond.—These are rather trifling items of expenditure and the point is whether it would be worth while having to keep records year by year as to whether particular accounts have come in or not.

Deputy Sheldon.—As far as I am concerned I agree with Mr. Redmond on that so long as the same thing does not happen where it is a major matter. That was the only reason I raised the point.

Deputy Dockrell.—If it is allowed to pass in a minor matter, it will eventually creep up and become a major matter.

Mr. Redmond.—I hope that would not happen.

18. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the note concerning the National Farm Survey on subhead F—Special Statistical Enquiries—I should like to know if that survey has started. My recollection is that it was to start last year, which, of course, would not affect this account?— The National Farm Survey began in January, 1955 and it is, I understand, well under way.

19. Chairman.—With regard to the Passenger Card Inquiry, what is this and how is it conducted?—I am afraid I do not have the details just now, but, if the Committee would like a note, I can make it available. Would that be satisfactory?*

Chairman.—Yes.

20. With regard to subhead H— Appropriations-in-Aid—what are these receipts? It is noted that they are considerably greater than estimated?—These receipts are mainly in respect of charges made by the Central Statistics Office for statistical information supplied to members of the public.

21. Deputy Sheldon.—Apparently we are getting very statistically-minded?— Here again the estimate would be on the basis of long-term experience. Apparently, however, there is an upward trend.

Deputy Sheldon.—Was there not an election in 1954? Maybe the Parties were getting statistics out.

22. Chairman.—With regard to extra receipts payable to the Exchequer, would you give us some information in regard to refund of salaries of loaned Officers?—Two officers were concerned. One was given special leave with pay for a period with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation on the condition that salary was refunded; the other was loaned to the World Health Organisation.

Deputy Sheldon.—I did not know we recognised that body at all.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

23. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—I see that the Department of Finance started an economy at home anyway. The saving this year is apparently reflected in the present year’s Estimate. Could Mr. Redmond say whether the good example set by his Department is being followed up by others?—Yes, in so far as it is possible for the Department of Finance to bring that about.

24. On subhead A.A.—Actuary—how long is it since an Actuary was employed? —A good many years, I think. The provision, if you like, is of a token character.

That was the point I wanted to make. I think if it is very infrequent the Department might make the token estimate even smaller. I am sure that if anything happened Mr. Redmond would easily find it possible to get the Contingency Fund to cover it. Year after year £250 is voted and is not needed?— We never know. It was likely to be needed more frequently in the past.

25. With regard to subhead D.—Telegrams and Telephones—it is very unusual to find a saving on telegrams and telephones. Was there any particular reason for this?—Again, that provision is built up on the basis of experience. The grant for 1952-53 was £2,200. We pulled it down a bit for 1953-54, but apparently not sufficiently.

There is actually a drop of nearly 50 per cent. in the expenditure as compared with the previous year?—It is probably bound up with staff saving. Fewer people are using the telephone.

26. Chairman.—With regard to the Paymaster General’s Office, have we, in fact, a Paymaster General at all?—That is a question that has been asked before and I do not know that there is any easy answer. The Minister for Finance as head of the Pay Office is really the Paymaster General. The question turns on the adaptation of certain pre-1922 legislation.

27. Deputy Sheldon.—It seems to be a very stable office. The grant and the expenditure are very close?—They vary very little.

VOTE 11—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

28. Chairman.—With regard to remuneration of banks for the management of Government Stocks inscribed in their books, how is the remuneration of the banks determined?—There is a standing arrangement with the banks dating back as far as the year 1892.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

29. Chairman.—With regard to extra receipts payable to the Exchequer, what fee is covered?—You mean in the item of £762?

Yes.—There are fees for testing instruments under the Dairy Produce Acts which account for £300 odd. Then there are fees under the Coroner’s Act, 1927, in respect of post mortems and analyses of organs where an inquest is held. Also included are £90 odd from the Department of Local Government for the testing of instruments for the Combined Purchasing Section and a sum of £48 for miscellaneous analyses, e.g., water samples for Bórd na Móna.

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

30. Chairman.—In connection with item (1) of the Appropriations-in-Aid, what services are rendered to county and county borough councils and harbour authorities?—Services rendered by the Local Appointments Commission in selecting persons for certain appointments under these bodies.

VOTE 14—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAION.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

31. Chairman.—With regard to the grant under Section 5 of the Arts Act, 1951, how is the expenditure accounted for?—The accounts of the Council are presented annually to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit and report.

32. Liam Ó Cadhla.—The accounts for 1954-55 are under examination.

33. Mr. Redmond.—The Auditors report and the accounts are later presented to the Dáil and Seanad. The Annual Report of the Council is also presented to each House of the Oireachtas pursuant to Section 7 of the Arts Act, 1951. It is this Act also which requires that the Council submit its accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and that an Abstract of the Accounts be submitted, together with the report, to the Government and copies thereof be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

34. Deputy H. P. Dockrell.—With regard to the Explanation of the Cause of Variation between Expenditure and Grant, was it proposed to purchase premises in this connection and is that why this saving is apparent?—Substantially yes. The £20,000 included a provision for certain charges arising out of the proposed acquisition of certain premises. Later, it turned out that the cost of the premises would be too great—much greater than had been anticipated. Approval for the higher figure was not forthcoming and the proposal fell through.

VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

35. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the heading of Civil Service (Compensation) Board, I wonder if Mr. Redmond could tell us what the total expenditure to date has been?—This is the Board that considers claims for compensation on retirement or discharge in respect of officers transferred to the new Irish Government in 1922. Most of the claims were disposed of long ago. This is a token provision.

When do you expect you will be able to cut it out altogether?—When the last transferred officer ceases to serve.

36. Chairman.—Under the subhead “Irish Manuscripts Commission”, I should like to point out that the Commission was appointed in 1928. Is its work nearing completion and have there been any publications?—This is a continuing body upon whose activities I do not think it would be possible to set a period at this stage.

37. In connection with Place Names, I should like to ask what progress was made in regard to that work?—I am afraid I have not details in regard to the current activities of the Commission. I shall let you have a note.*

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

38. Chairman.—On subhead D— Agency Payments in respect of Compensation Allowances—I should like to remark that if these sums are recoverable, why do not receipts under subhead M— Appropriations-in-Aid—agree with the expenditure figure?—The expenditure figure is for the financial year ending on 31st March and the figure for receipts is for the twelve months to the end of the preceding calendar year. Two different periods are concerned.

39. Under subhead K—Pensions, Gratuities, etc., to Members of the Garda Síochána, etc.—I note that the Garda pensions form the largest single item although the force is a relatively new one. How is that?—The Vote provision covers members of the former Dublin Metropolitan Police which was amalgamated with the Garda Síochána in 1925. Also, a relatively large number retired during the year, having qualified by length of service for maximum pension.

40. With regard to the item in Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer viz. “Pension liability in respect of officers on loan, etc.”, how are these pension liabilities calculated?—On a percentage basis— a percentage on the salaries.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

41. Deputy Sheldon.—In connection with the note on subhead A—Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc.— could Mr. Redmond tell us how it happened that some properties were not included in the valuation lists?—When the Estimate was being prepared it was thought that these premises would be occupied before the commencement of the new financial year. They were not so occupied and early in 1953 the Valuation Office decided not to include them in the valuation lists until the following year.

42. If I may say so, the note is rather misleading, because it says that “some properties occupied in connection with Social Insurance were not included in the valuation lists”. That looks as if someone was “done” if they were, in fact, occupied according to the note?—They were occupied later.

Would Mr. Redmond agree that the note is a bit misleading, that it looks as if they were occupied in the year of account?—They were, but the decision to exclude them from the valuation lists was taken in January or February, 1953.

43. Chairman.—On subhead C— Appropriations-in-Aid—how do these repayments arise?—These are for premises occupied by British services. We act as agents and pay the rates in the first instance and are subsequently recouped by the British Government.

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.

44. Chairman.—What is the nature of the expenses, Mr. Redmond? What proportion is paid out of voted moneys?— The expenses incurred in preparing the register of electors, the particular register here concerned being the thirty-first which came into force on 15th April, 1953. The proportion of expenses recouped to local authorities varies from a quarter to one half, according to the particular service rendered by their officials.

VOTE 20—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

45. Chairman.—Paragraph 20 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead D.—Additional Grant under the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts, 1946 and 1953.

20. As indicated in a footnote to the estimate payments on account were made from this subhead in anticipation of the enactment of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Bill, 1953. This Bill became law on 23 December, 1953, and extended the application of the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Act, 1946, to the year 1953-54 and the two following financial years. Payments amounting to £1,262,056 had been made prior to the date of enactment.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph simply records that the position was regularised by the passing of the Act.

Mr. Redmond.—The Dáil was informed on the face of the Estimate itself of the making of payments in anticipation of enactment of the new legislation. In the absence of such payments, the issues on foot of the grant in the early part of the year would have been less than usual and this would have upset the finances of the local authorities.

46. Chairman.—On subhead D—Additional Grant under the Rates on Agricultural Land (Relief) Acts, 1946 and 1953— what is the alteration in the basis of distribution referred to in the note of explanation? — Previously there were three elements in the Grant — the primary allowance, the employment allowance and the supplementary allowance. The effect of the 1953 legislation was to abolish the supplementary allowance and to increase the employment allowance.

VOTE 21—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

47. Deputy Sheldon.—I see that the Chief State Solicitor’s business seems to have reverted to normal from the very high figure of the previous year?—As I explained last year, the costs in the Foyle and Bann case came in unexpectedly towards the end of 1952-53.

VOTE 22—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

48. Chairman.—Paragraph 21 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Subhead B.—University College, Dublin.

21. A grant of £200,000 provided by supplementary estimate was paid from this subhead to the authorities of University College, Dublin, towards the cost of certain properties at Stillorgan, Co. Dublin, which had been acquired as a suitable site for the erection at a later stage of buildings for college purposes.”

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This is just for information.

49. Deputy Bartley.—Is it proposed to go ahead with this project?

Mr. Redmond.—When this matter came before the Dáil in December, 1953, the Acting Minister for Finance said that the Dáil was in no way being committed to any scheme of building at Stillorgan or elsewhere. But, he added, the Government did not wish consideration of where building might take place to be prejudiced by their failing to come to the relief of the College authorities who had spent substantially £200,000 on the acquisition of the Stillorgan properties.

50. Chairman.—On subhead B—University College, Dublin—and subhead C— University College, Cork—what are the savings?—The saving under subhead B was in respect of one particular item for which £3,000 was included in the grant of £259,024. There was a similar surrender last year and earlier years. A certain staffing scheme was originally contemplated but it was never fully implemented.

VOTE 23—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

51. Chairman.—On subhead D—Cultural Institutions (Grants-in-Aid) — is there any overlapping between the work done by the Royal Irish Academy and the Irish Manuscripts Commission?—I do not think so. As regards the note in which reference is made to the absence of one of the professors on special leave the Committee may like to know that this professor has since severed his connection with the Academy and the provision in later Estimates has been diminished accordingly.

52. On subhead I — Compensation for Death or Personal Injuries — does this cover only one case?—Two cases; they are a carry-over from the 1919-1923 period. There is also a small amount for the contingency of some uncashed orders of previous years coming along for payment. The total provision was much bigger in earlier years and had a separate Vote.

VOTE 66—OIFIG NA GAELTACHTA AGUS NA gCEANTAR gCÚNG.

Mr. O. J. Redmond called.

No question.

VOTE 68—LOCAL LOANS FUND.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

53. Chairman.—What is the nature of this recoupment?—It arises out of a provision in the Local Loans Fund Act, 1935, which says that no part of the principal of or interest on any local loan may be written off except by express direction under a statute passed after that Act. In other words, the prior authority of the Oireachtas has to be obtained. The 1935 Act further provides that where any part of the principal of a local loan is written off, the amount has to be made good to the Local Loans Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. The Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act, 1953, authorised certain writes-off of principal aggregating £2,837 16s. 6d. This Vote enabled the necessary recoupment to be made to the Fund.

VOTE 69—INCREASES IN REMUNERATION.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

54. Chairman.—There is a summary at the bottom of the page. I presume the amounts shown in the summary are in addition to the amounts recorded in the various Votes?—They are. This Vote arises out of the McKenna arbitration award which was submitted somewhere towards the end of 1952. The Budget statement of 1953 indicated that payment of the award would be made as from the 1st April of that year and a Supplementary Estimate for £2.4 million was presented to the Dáil accordingly. The details on the face of the account show the expenditure under two headings, distributed first among the various Services, and secondly among the various classes affected. The impact of these remuneration increases was, of course, reflected in the salary subheads of the Votes the next year.

VOTE 70—NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

55. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor General as follows:—

“Vote 70—National Development Fund.

109. The sum of £5,000,000 provided in this Vote was paid into the National Development Fund established by Section 2 of the National Development Fund Act, 1954 (No. 7 of 1954). Section 4 of the Act empowers the Minister for Finance to apply the Fund for the purpose of financing projects which, in his opinion, are projects of development of a public character and are in the national interest. Issues from the Fund in the year ended 31 March, 1954, totalled £1,173,000. Of this amount, £823,000 was issued to the Department of Local Government, £790,000 being for transfer to the Road Fund and £33,000 for road works in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, and £350,000 was issued to the Special Employment Schemes Office to supplement the amounts provided under certain subheads of the Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes. The Minister for Finance directed that accounts showing the expenditure out of sums issued from the Fund should be prepared by the Departments sponsoring the several projects and submitted for audit with the Appropriation Accounts. These accounts appear as appendices to the accounts of the relevant Votes.”

56. Deputy Sheldon.—On the general position there, what happens the £5,000,000 when it is paid into the fund? What use is made of the money as apart from its use by transfer to a Department? For instance, does the balance lie there or does it earn interest?—That is covered by the provision made in Section 6 of the National Development Fund Act, 1954, which reads:—

“Moneys of the Fund which are not required immediately for application in accordance with Section 4 of this Act may be invested by the Minister from time to time, as he thinks fit, in any manner in which moneys of the Post Office Savings Bank may be invested, and any such investment may be realised at any time.”

This week, we presented to the Dáil and Seanad the first Account of the Fund— to 31st March, 1954—showing the payment out of the Exchequer to the Fund, the full £5 million, and the payments out of the Fund; the latter include, of course, the items mentioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Practically the whole of the balance at the end of the year was invested in Ways and Means Advances to the Exchequer.

57. Deputy Bartley.—There was a sum allocated from the Fund for Tourist Roads in the Gaeltacht. How is it that is not mentioned in the note?—It might be that the allocation the Deputy has in mind was not made until a later year.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I think it was in a subsequent year.

58. Mr. Redmond.—The account recently presented does not include allocations as such. Actual payments only are recorded and some considerable time may elapse before any payment falls to be made on foot of an allocation.

Deputy Bartley.—The allocation is only an indication?—Yes, an indication of the intention to make a grant out of the Fund.

VOTE 71—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. O. J. Redmond further examined.

59. Chairman.—In regard to the stamp duty remitted or refunded on deeds, etc., for representatives of external Governments referred to in the Contingency Fund Deposit Account do we remit or refund in the case of representatives of all external Governments or is it only in cases in which our representatives abroad are granted reciprocal treatment?—On a reciprocal basis only. As in the case of the earlier Vote for Rates on Government Property—where there is provision for meeting part of the rate demand in respect of premises occupied by diplomatic representatives here—it is all done on the basis of reciprocity.

60. Deputy Sheldon.—On the account shown, I notice that the advances outstanding are given now at a very much higher sum. Normally it was £10 or £14; this time it is £4,527. I presume it relates to the advances repayable from the Secondary Teachers’ Pension Fund?—It is mainly the advances made to the Secondary Teachers’ Pension Fund.

61. The advance from the Secondary Teachers’ Pension Fund is of an unusual type?—It is somewhat unusual, but there is a precedent back in 1929-30. The amount has since been made good to the Contingency Fund, the Secondary Teachers’ Superannuation Scheme having been suitably amended to enable the Pension Fund to bear the charge. As it was known that the carrying through of this amendment would take some little time and it was decided to advance the money out of the Contingency Fund so as to avoid delay in making payment to the pensioners concerned.

62. Deputy Sheldon.—There is one point I would like to make and it looks like policy, but it is purely financial policy and has nothing to do with political policy. I do not know what the Committee thinks, but I would be inclined to think that the capital of the Fund at £20,000 is very small considering the value of money at present. I do not know Mr. Redmond’s view. Nowadays £20,000 for contingencies looks very small.

Chairman.—It seems to be a ridiculous sum?—In practice we have not found it inadequate.

Deputy Sheldon.—It was in one year on a famous occasion when the Department of Industry and Commerce got into trouble.

63. Chairman.—How did it work out in connection with the flooding last year? —No advances were made out of the Contingency Fund. There were Supplementary Estimates for Agriculture and Local Government.

64. Deputy Sheldon.—Does that mean no payments were made until after those Supplementary Estimates were passed by the House?—Assistance was provided out of the Lord Mayor’s fund and by the Red Cross and kindred organisations whose function it is to operate in such circumstances. Their raison d’etre is to fill the gap in such an emergency.

I appreciate that but what I am referring to is that there were no payments from State funds?—Some, at any rate, of the expenditure incurred by these bodies was subsequently recouped from the Vote concerned.

That would indicate that the Lord Mayor’s fund and Red Cross funds were used as a contingency fund by the State? —I would not agree.

Chairman.—Not exactly.

Mr. Redmond.—The money was collected ad hoc for the purpose of immediate assistance.

Chairman. — And the voluntary funds built up had been better than expected.

Deputy Sheldon.—Yes, I can see that, but my point is that the State admitted some liability by introducing Supplementary Estimates for this purpose but it had not apparently funds at its own disposal to give any immediate remedy and it depended entirely on the goodwill of individuals to get these unfortunate people out of an awkward situation. That is one of the reasons why I think that in modern circumstances £20,000 is a very small capital?

Mr. Redmond. — I would not like to commit myself that no payment at all was made until after the Supplementary Estimates were taken; once the token Estimates were passed by the Dáil the Departments concerned were provided with funds.

65. Deputy Bartley.—Do I take it that funds can be used out of this Contingency Fund to meet emergencies such as that to which Deputy Sheldon referred?— The purpose of the Fund is to meet urgent or unforeseen expenditure not covered by ordinary Votes and for which it is impracticable to seek the immediate approval of the Dáil.

What I would like to know is what is the difference from the accounting point of view between an excess payment on a Vote and the application of moneys out of this Fund? — Where an excess on a Vote presents itself while the Dáil is sitting the Department concerned has to seek the authority of the Dáil by way of Supplementary Estimate.

That would be covering a payment that was already made?—About to be made. Should the Dáil not be sitting at the time and there is nothing novel about the payment, the Contingency Fund can be called upon and the advance is made good to the Fund at the earliest opportunity by way of Supplementary Estimate for the Service concerned. No payment remains a final charge on the Contingency Fund. It is topped up to the £20,000 mark every year.

I take it there is no such contingency if the Dáil is immediately available to meet the position that has arisen?—That is so. You will find in earlier Accounts of the Fund that advances were made in anticipation of a Vote of the Oireachtas and were subsequently repaid to the Fund when the Vote was taken. That is apart from what I might call the hardy annuals, such as the triplets’ bounty, the centenarians’ bounty, stamp duty on deeds, etc., for public Departments, and so on. It is more convenient to use the Contingency Fund for stamp duty payments than to make separate provision in several Departmental Votes.

I just wanted to get some clear idea as to what the meaning of the word “contingency” was. It does not necessarily mean that there is a disaster from fire, flood or storm?—No.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. R. P. Rice called and examined.

66. Chairman. — Paragraph 6 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:—

“Subhead Q.—Losses by Default, Fraud and Accident.

6. Reference was made in paragraph 8 of the last report to the embezzlement of income-tax receipts by an officer of the Department who was prosecuted and dismissed. The charge to this subhead includes a sum of £1,729 being the amount required to make good the loss of revenue.”

This case was discussed very fully before the Committee last year. I presume you have taken steps to prevent the recurrence of a similar case?

Mr. Rice.—We have.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The intention of the paragraph is to record that the loss was made good to Revenue from voted moneys.

67. Deputy Sheldon.—Could Mr. Rice say if this was the total loss?—It is the total loss ascertained. We do not anticipate that it will be greater but something may emerge at a later date.

68. Chairman.—Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:—

“Revenue Account.

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

8. The net yield of revenue for the years 1952/53 and 1953/54 is shown in the following statement under its main heads:—

£83,443,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £2,078,293 outstanding as compared with £2,528,930 at the end of the previous financial year.”

69. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to paragraph 8, I think that this is the first time a paragraph of this type has appeared. Could Mr. Kiely tell us if he has any particular views about this?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I thought it well to give a little additional information to the Committee regarding the main heads of Revenue and the variation in the receipts between year and year. The last sentence of the paragraph records a fall in the balance held by Revenue. About £450,000 in excess of the actual revenue was paid into the Exchequer. I think the Minister in his Budget statement said that he would draw on this floating balance to the extent of £500,000. Section 10 of the Exchequer and Audit Department Act of 1866 provides for payment into the Exchequer of the gross revenues at such times and under such regulations as the Treasury may from time to time prescribe.

70. Deputy Bartley.— Who is the Treasury now?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.— The Department of Finance.

Deputy Sheldon. — Theoretically the Minister for Finance is under the control of the Dáil.

71. Deputy Bartley.—That is not exclusively theoretical. For information, I would like to know how it is that, in the paying of money into the Exchequer, there is a money balance?

Deputy Sheldon.—It is the regulation the Minister makes.

Deputy Bartley.—That only pinpoints my misunderstanding or failure to understand the position. If moneys must be paid in, how does any balance arise?

Deputy Sheldon. — Perhaps Mr. Rice could tell us what is the particular advantage—I presume there must be one—in having a balance not paid in to the Exchequer?—It is a matter of working arrangements. It is not possible to pay in everything that you collect in the day. For example, in Customs we give an account of everything we collect but there may be collections on hands in provincial banks in say, Galway, from income-tax collected throughout the country. We could give an idea of what is collected but we would not be in a position to pay everything into the Exchequer on a particular day so we always have a kind of floating balance.

Deputy Bartley.—That explains it.

Deputy Sheldon.—Would it be right to say that it would be convenient to hold a certain amount anyway? There may be sums in dispute, the amount of tax payable might be in dispute and as long as it is still in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners they can deal with it more easily than if it had been paid into the Exchequer? — Yes, there are certain deposits for income-tax, customs duties, etc. A man may dispute a Customs entry, he may lodge a certain amount, and we do not know whether there is any duty payable at all, until it is explored. Other things render it impossible to pay in everything as it is collected. The balance at the end of the year has been described as “till money”.

Does the amount of the balance remain roughly the same? — In that particular year — perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor General will correct me—he mentioned that in the Budget the Minister said that he would try to get £500,000 more out of the Fund than he would normally get.

72. Chairman.—In regard to paragraph 8, the largest head of the revenue is Customs. What does that mostly consist of?—Tobacco, almost £23 million; petrol, almost £7 million; spirits, almost £1½ million; wine, £½ million. That accounts for £32 million out of the total. There are many heads, such as clothing, etc., and protective duties, making up the balance.

73. What is the biggest item under the head of Excise?—It is beer, £8.3 million roughly; spirits yielded £5.7 million. Then there is entertainments duty at £1.3 million. Do you want the others?

Deputy Bartley.—Is there any element of Excise covering tobacco? — About £7,000.

Chairman.—Home grown?—Yes.

Deputy Sheldon.—A painful subject.

74. Chairman. — Paragraph 9 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:—

“Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties.

9. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £11,929 and £1,192, respectively, were made during the year.”

What is the nature of these repayments? —In the case of Customs, there are what are called diplomatic cases, cases where foreign diplomats and staffs here get things duty free. That is the whole total, £11,929 under Customs. For Excise the figure is £954. That is the bulk of it.

75. The note by the Comptroller and Auditor General continues:—

“Remissions and Amounts Irrecoverable.

10. 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 31 March, 1954. I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results. The total amount, £6,984, remitted or passed as irrecoverable was made up as follows:—

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

76. You refer in paragraph 10 to cases involving losses of £50 and upwards. Are remissions of amounts under £50 very considerable? You made no reference to those?—It is between £4,000 and £5,000 in total for that particular year. Small cases, income-tax and so on, accounted for £4,600. The balance of £100 odd, was Death Duty.

77. Mr. Ó Cadhla. — The note of the remissions is confined to cases of £50 and upwards, under an old Treasury regulation.

Mr. Rice.—Yes, I think Deputy Sheldon suggested last year we should increase the amount. He thought £50 was fixed at such an old date that we should increase it.

Deputy Sheldon.—I did not name an amount, but Mr. Rice satisfied me that all amounts, whatever they may be, were subject to the review of the Comptroller and Auditor General, so it did not really matter what sum was fixed.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. We see all the cases.

78. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead G— Machinery and Repairs in the Stamping Branch, Dies, Plates, etc. — there is a point I will raise now which also concerns the heading “Appropriations-in-Aid.” I take it that the reason for the change in the headings in “Appropriations-in-Aid,” which deal with the repayment of sums spent under subhead G, is the new legislation enacted. For instance, there is no charge to the Social Welfare Fund for the printing of widows’ and orphans’ pension paying orders. That item used to occur under “Appropriations-in-Aid”?— Yes, we recovered £750 in respect of the contributory pension orders. As regards the non-contributory ones, we do not charge them anything. It was £1,130.

How does it happen that it is not noted in the Appropriations-in-Aid? The previous year there was a note that £1,575 was estimated and £1,205 was realised for the printing of widows’ and orphans’ pension orders?—Yes, I am informed that the change flows from the Social Welfare Act, 1952.

That is what I thought from the note, but I wanted to be sure?—That is so.

79. Chairman.—With regard to subhead C—Removal Expenses—how does the saving arise on officers assigned to headquarters for longer periods?—I think it is just incidental for that year, although I find it was down again in the following year. Removal expenses are heavy. In past years, a man might be removed in the ordinary course of seniority, or something of the kind, whereas now, unless it is essential, we try to restrict removals. That is particularly so in this year, when we are trying to save expenses.

80. Subhead E deals with Remuneration, etc., to Collectors and Assessors of Taxes, etc. Could this not be included with subhead A, which deals with Salaries, Wages and Allowances, etc.?— Perhaps I do not know the correct answer but I imagine that subhead A relates to permanent staff. The people covered by subhead E are not really permanent officials. It covers several heads. I take it that, at one time, you could not put the remuneration of collectors of taxes— the temporary people—under subhead A. They are not employees but are, instead, in the nature of contractors.

81. Deputy Bartley.—What about assessors?—The Bank of Ireland, the Representative Church Body, Irish Lights Office and the Port and Docks Board: the total paid would be in the region of £600.

I should like to deal with the function which they carry out for the Revenue Commissioners. Do I take it that these bodies, that have been referred to, assess what the taxable income is in respect of their employees and that that assessment is accepted by the Revenue Commissioners?—It is in the control of the Revenue Commissioners, but the outside assessors have information as to the amount of remuneration, and so forth, and they issue the returns; but the checking of the assessments, as such, is done by our own officials.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 36—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. D. Coffey called and examined.

82. Chairman.—Have you a large collection of records and State papers?—We have a very large and increasing collection of records. We get increments every year from the courts which have now become quite a considerable collection. We also have a considerable collection of substitutes for destroyed documents—a testamentary collection—but it is only a fraction of what was lost.

83. Are they available for inspection by the public?—Yes, either by solicitors on payment of a fee or by members of the public who are interested in genealogical or historical work who are allowed to see the older documents.

84. Where are they kept?—In the Treasury of the Public Record Office in the Four Courts. There is also the State Paper Office in Dublin Castle, but that is under the Department of the Taoiseach and nobody is allowed to see those papers except with permission.

85. I notice that the provision for purchases is very small. May we take it that you do not acquire much year by year?—Occasionally large purchases are made. The Department of Finance have always been very helpful, when they were convinced that an acquisition was valuable, in enabling us to purchase. On the whole, purchasing is done more by the National Library than by us.

What kind of documents do you acquire?—All the records of the Courts: they are the principal thing. Then, in the case of ancient documents, we might get copies of old proceedings, and so forth. The originals, of course, in most cases perished in the destruction of the Records Office.

86. A few years ago we had under discussion here the acquisition of the Ormonde Archives by the National Library. It would be interesting to know if they were acquired?—I understand they were. Of course, that would be for Doctor Hayes to answer.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 46—NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. T. McGreevy called and examined.

87. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, I think this is the first time that sales of reproductions have been noted. It did not just come up to your expectations?— We did not get them until Christmas.

I was about to ask you if it was due to the time factor. Have the sales been satisfactory?—I would say so. They tend to increase. I think we sell between £6 and £7 worth a month. Some of the cards cost only 2d. It means quite a good sale. The coloured cards are 5d. and the sepia are 2d.

88. Deputy Mrs. Crowley.—Were many new pictures bought in this year or does that grant mostly cover the repair of pictures?—We got one or two very good acquisitions that year. We got a Mass of St. Gregory which Friedlander, the great authority on the Flemish Primitives, links up with Justus of Ghent. Friedlander worked only on a photograph. I have not taken his attribution as final, but I hope it will be confirmed. Certainly the picture is a unique acquisition to our collection of Flemish Primitives. We also got two drawings which Mr. Berenson thinks very important. They used to belong to the Orpen family: I think they belonged to William Orpen himself. They are Raphaelesque, if not actually by Raphael himself. Mr. Berenson said he thought the smaller one might be a copy by Ingres, one of the greatest of all French draughtsmen, and that would be more unique still. They are major acquisitions for that year and very important from the point of view of our lecturers.

89. Chairman.—You have a very valuable collection under your control. Do you check up on your pictures very frequently or do you carry out a general stocktaking against the catalogue?— Actually, our catalogue is very much out of date. Like most of the Galleries of the world, we are behind in the matter of cataloguing. I am working, in all the spare time I have and with the small staff I have, on the cataloguing. I was thinking of publishing in sections, perhaps, so as to give the public something of what they need. As for checking up, I think that, please Goodness, everything is under proper supervision. We know where everything that has to be kept in store is, the condition in which it is, and so forth.

90. Is there any link, other than the series of lectures, between the Arts Council and the National Gallery?—I am a foundation member of the Arts Council: I think I am the only link. Officially, there is no definite link. The Arts Council comes under the Taoiseach’s Department; we are under the Department of Education.

91. How is the series of lectures started under the Arts Council progressing?—In the Gallery?

Yes?—They are under the Gallery itself. It was the Department of Education that got the money and they are part of the Education Estimate.

I took it that there was some collusion between the Arts Council and the National Gallery on that matter?—No. It was Mr. Moylan who first got the grant. The Arts Council was founded four years ago this December, in 1951. So it would be about the same time the lectures began. But there was no actual association of the two things at all.

92. Deputy O’Hara.—Do I take it that your staff is inadequate?—The Dean of Education at the Metropolitan, New York, said to me that if our Gallery was to count in the cultural life of the country as it should, I would want a staff of ten extra. Until last year there was a Director and Registrar. That was the same staff as was there in 1864 when the Gallery opened with 106 pictures. Now we have several thousand, but we had the same staff until I was given a typist in the summer of last year, after four years’ agitation on my part and a good deal of agitation on the part of my predecessors as well. I think it is not for any lack of goodwill on the part of the Department of Education. But I suppose I must not say any more.

93. Chairman.—Do you loan any pictures?—Oh, yes. Our Fra Angelico has been in Florence—first in the Vatican and then in Florence this year. There has been an exhibition commemorating the 500th anniversary of the death of Fra Angelico and the Pope lent the vestibule of the Chapel of the Niccolini where Fra Angelico was painting when he died. They collected 62 pictures and ours was one of them. They had this exhibition, first in the Vatican and then they took the whole thing up to his own convent of San Marco in Florence, where I saw it three weeks ago. That exhibition closed last Saturday. We have a Van Dyck on loan at Genoa and a Madonna and Child, by Adrian Ysenbrandt, at a big exhibition of Flemish Primitives at Schaffhausen in Switzerland. We are always in demand. The scholars of Europe know a great deal about our Gallery.

94. Deputy Bartley.—Have there been any requests from art societies or other cultural bodies here in Ireland for pictures on loan?—We have loaned to the Tostal exhibitions every year at several places—Limerick, Navan, Arklow and other places—and then from the Chester Beatty Gift to the Nation which is housed at the National Gallery there are loans at nine different centres (including Army headquarters), which was suggested by Mr. Chester Beatty, as he was then, when we first got the Gift. He gave us nearly 100 pictures, with the suggestion that some should be loaned to the different provincial centres.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 25—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.

Mr. J. N. McGrath called and examined.

95. Chairman.—With regard to subhead D—Appropriations-in-Aid—I notice that the amount received from local authorities in respect of the cost of annual revision of valuations was exactly the same as estimated?—Yes. It is a fixed amount.

What is covered by this annual revision?—Revision of all rateable valuations as requested by the local authorities.

How is the proportion of cost fixed for each county?—It was fixed under the Valuation (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1874, and fixed on the basis of the cost of the revision in certain years, in the 1860s.

96. Would you be able to give us a general idea of how you go about valuing a property—what are the factors which are taken into account and has the property valuation any relation to market value? —Yes; it has a direct relation to market value, but instead of valuing directly on market value we value it on market value translated into an annual rent which really is the same thing. If a house is worth £1,000, we convert that into an annual rent which is the net annual value. It is the statutory valuation and the two things are directly related— capital value and annual value.

97. Deputy Bartley.—What did you say the relationship is between the annual value and the capital value?—For instance, if a builder builds a house, it costs so much, and he takes his profit on his cost. That will give you the capital value. That can be quite easily converted into an annual rent by taking a percentage of the capital value—it is generally about 5 per cent.; builders take a lot more than that but 5 per cent. would be a reasonable figure—which will give the annual value which is the statutory valuation under the Acts.

In the fixing of the poor law valuation, are these two terms, from the point of view of your office, interchangeable terms —poor law valuation and annual value? —We now use the term “rateable value” instead of “poor law valuation”. They are the same thing actually—they are the net annual value.

98. You will not always have information as to what the builder’s costs plus his profit have been?—No.

Then how do you proceed in the absence of that?—We estimate it.

I think that brings us back to your question, Mr. Chairman. I think a great many people are interested in it because we hear a lot of questions asked about how these valuations are fixed. Would it be correct to say, as is often alleged, that the later a valuation takes place, without any change in other circumstances except that of the time of the making of the valuation, there is a steady increase in the figure fixed by the Valuation Office?—Strictly, that is not correct, but we cannot ignore the changes in value which occur through the lapse of time, because we are bound to value on an estimated annual value at the time we make a valuation. We do not, however, do that for the reason that if we did, all valuations would be too high. What we also try to do at the same time is to get one valuation relative to another and the result is that we never can take the full actual value of a place for rating purposes. It could not possibly be done. I will not tell you the basis, but we do not adopt anything like the full value, but we use the full value as the basis for arriving at the rateable value.

99. It is not true to say that two houses each of them in the same locality, having cost the same amount of money to build and having the same accommodation and one of which was built a year before the other have two different valuations arrived at on a fixed method of calculation of the Valuation Office?—There should not be a difference—there could not be.

There should not be?—And there is not —not with the lapse of only one year; but I do not say that if there was a lapse of seven, eight or ten years, there would not be a difference in the later one, due to the fact that values were increasing every day or had been up to a short time ago, a fact which we cannot ignore under the statute.

100. It is very difficult to understand the statute in the matter?—The statute says you must assess on the net annual value. That is changing all the time and we cannot ignore that.

Do you say it is changing because the value of money changes?—The value of money is changing, yes.

Is that the basis of your change?—Yes; you might say so. There are other reasons too—a district could change in value from year to year.

101. How can that be squared with the fact that properties of equal value from the point of view of location and accommodation will have a lower valuation than properties of later construction?—Unless there is a lapse of some years—at least five or six years—there would be no difference.

But even after the lapse of ten years can it be justified?—It might possibly be, because we are forced to increase valuations in relation to the difference in values. Otherwise, valuations would be much too low and goodness knows what would happen to the rates. We must try to get some relation between actual values and rateable values.

You try to make what is a reasonable annual value in all your current valuations? Does that suggest that there are other properties in the locality not adequately valued?—It certainly does, especially in old districts but not in new districts.

Deputy Sheldon.—I am the only one in favour of revaluation.

Mr. McGrath.—We cannot obviate that, you know, without a revaluation.

Deputy Sheldon.—And nobody wants that.

102. Deputy O’Hara.—On the question of revaluation, suppose you fix a certain value on a house for rating purposes and the owner of that property disputes it, what is his remedy?—In the first place, he has an appeal directly to the Commissioner. That is only a matter of writing to the county council or the corporation. Then the matter is referred to a different valuer altogether from the first valuer. It is referred to me for decision. If the person is not satisfied, he has the right of appeal directly to the court within a certain period.

In the ordinary open court?—Yes.

Would you agree with the practice of hearing these cases openly in the open court?—I might tell you that we would rather have it some other way.

By accident, I was speaking to a neighbour of mine last night and he referred to a matter in which he figured against you people. He told me he had to go up and give evidence. His house was damaged. He gave other facts in support of his case. Actually, what he was doing was pointing out the defects. He pointed out that if at a later date he offered that house for sale the evidence he gave would certainly militate against him in regard to the price?—If we reduced the valuation? Is that what you mean?

Deputy Bartley.—No, but his own evidence would militate against him?—If he disclosed that in open court?

Deputy O’Hara.—Yes. The point I am making is that I think these things should not be heard in open court.

Deputy Sheldon.—You want perjury made easy.

103. Deputy Bartley.—You have not been told whether the dampness is taken into account when fixing the valuation. Is the dampness taken into account?— Yes. If the man can prove his house is so damp that it affects the valuation, we will give a reduction in the valuation for that.

Even though the dampness is remediable?—If it is immediately remediable, I think we possibly would not, but if it was a permanent condition we would. Anything which will affect the actual permanent letting of a house we will take into consideration for valuation purposes.

VOTE 26—ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. N. McGrath further examined.

104. Deputy Sheldon.—Have the sales of maps settled down to a reasonably estimable figure? It seems to have settled round about £7,500?—The actual sale of maps, yes, I think so. Certain people require maps year by year. They do not vary very much. It is dropping slightly.

105. Chairman.—How is the survey work organised?—How is it done? The staff are recruited from the Survey Corps in the Army, some of whom are trained surveyors. They come into the Ordnance Survey Office and after some years are made permanent members of the Ordnance Survey. They are sent out to check the survey and tri-angulation work which is going on all the time. In general, they check the actual existing maps and rectify errors. They also do levelling.

I take it that there is constant revision of maps?—There is a constant revision by districts.

Do you get any help from other Departments?—In the survey work?

Yes?—No, except through some Army staff who are used by us.

106. I notice from your estimates that you presented maps to the value of £428 to the Department of State, U.S.A., out of a total of £599 to all other bodies. What was the reason for such a relatively large donation?—They demanded the maps and we gave them to them. They demanded six copies of every map and we gave them to them. They were probably for defence purposes, but I really do not know.

Chairman.—Thank you, Mr. McGrath.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix IV.

* See Appendix V.