Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1957 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1955 - 1956

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 4 Iúil, 1957.

Thursday, 4th July, 1957.

The Committee sat at 11.45 a.m.

DEPUTY DILLON in the chair.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. P. S. Mac Guill and Mr. S. Ó Buachalla (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

1. Chairman.—Gentlemen, I propose with your approval, to follow the procedure of taking each Vote and calling the subheads one after another. Mr. Whitaker, the Secretary of the Department of Finance, has kindly come to assist us. In regard to the Votes on the Agenda for to-day, I do not think there are any notes by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. I have no comments to make on the Finance group of accounts.

Chairman.—As I go through the subheads, any Deputy may raise any question to Mr. Whitaker on which he wishes information. I may pass through the subheads more rapidly than suits your convenience. If I pass a subhead and you wish to go back on it, please do not hesitate to say so.

VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called and examined.

2. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead J, could Mr. Whitaker explain something about “other expenses” not being required? What exactly is the intention in dividing this?—The intention is to make provision for contingencies. This subhead covers the catering fee and any certified losses on the restaurant. In addition to what that loss was estimated to be, a further provision of £400 was made against contingencies. As you will see, it was not required in the particular year under review.

Deputy Sheldon.—I know I am in the wrong place. I should have raised it on the Estimate. I wonder what was in mind which could be a contingency in the Restaurant which would not be covered by catering losses.

Chairman.—Mr. Whitaker’s whole function is to tell us whether he permitted the expenditure of public money in conformity with the appropriations or not. As you rightly say, this matter may be properly raised on the Estimate next year.

Deputy Sheldon.—If such an item is there.

Chairman.—Yes, I think you will agree with me that at this stage of the procedure it is inappropriate.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

3. Chairman.—On subhead E—Special Statistical Inquiries—why is there such a large amount, £10,866, under “Less than Granted”? Had something been contemplated which was not pursued?— Yes. Provision was made for a full year of the National Farm Survey; but in fact the survey began only in January of 1955 and therefore only one quarter of the expenditure was incurred against a full year’s provision.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

4. Chairman.—Under subhead A.2, is that provision just put in in case you have some actuarial inquiry you want conducted, to allow you to employ an outside actuary?—Yes. On occasions we have to get advice in computing pension liabilities. We retained the provision for many years, although in most years it was not required. It was in the nature of a contingency provision.

5. What is your opinion of the propriety of having a subhead in the Vote for an actuary who does not exist?—If no provision were made and if the expenditure became necessary, there might be a complaint and it might be brought to the attention of the Committee.

Chairman.—Is it not a rather unusual departure to have provision for an actuary who is not there?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. It is the normal practice if it is anticipated that some expenditure may be necessary. There are many instances of a token provision of £10.

Chairman.—Yes, but not the provision of £250.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, a token.

6. Chairman.—Has this always been in the Vote?

Mr. Whitaker.—I may say that there is no current provision of this kind. It never meant that there was an actuary on the staff of the Department. It was provision for the payment of a fee to get actuarial assistance, if required.

Chairman.—In fact there is no provision being made at present?—There is no current provision.

VOTE 11—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

7. Deputy Sheldon.—On the Exchequer Extra Receipts, in regard to the recovery from the Road Fund of half of the salary of an officer engaged on analysis of road-making materials, this has been going on a long time, I think. I wonder could it be said that any particular officer does devote half his time year after year to an analysis of road-making materials? At the present time I understand that road-making materials do not vary very much, that there is a sort of established standard. I am wondering what precise activity did engage half his time for a year.

Chairman.—Manifestly, we cannot expect Mr. Whitaker to tell us “off the cuff” how that occurred or give a fair answer to that query; but I feel sure that, if you think it is a matter of substance, he will ask the State Laboratory to prepare a note for us?—I expect that matters of that kind are dealt with on a very long-term, notional basis. In a particular year one might very well find that not exactly one half of the time is required. It is a rough average, taken over the years.

8. I take it that the alternative would be a fee basis?—Yes, and it would be much more cumbersome to compute every year.

9. Deputy Sheldon.—One of the reasons I mentioned it is that I understod in my own county that where the suitability of stone for various types of road was concerned, the stone was sent to the University in Cork for testing. If that is so and if the county council is paying a fee to Cork University for testing stone—and if other counties are doing likewise—what is this fellow doing?—I am afraid I cannot answer that at the moment.

Chairman.—Perhaps you would be good enough to make a note of that and send us the information at your convenience? —Yes.*

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

10. Deputy Brennan.—When the Commission goes down the country in connection with local authority appointments, are the entire expenses recoverable from the local authority. The Estimate seems to be very accurate. I cannot understand how it could be so accurately estimated?

Chairman.—Would the Deputy look at the note at the foot of the page? It consists entirely of receipts from county and county borough councils and harbour authorities (No. 39 of 1926 (sec. 12) and No. 9 of 1946 (sec. 38)).

Deputy Brennan.—Exactly, but I was asking if the entire cost of bringing the Commission down the country is borne by the local authority?

Mr. Whitaker.—I think it is.

Deputy Brennan.—Thank you.

VOTE 14—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAION.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

11. Chairman. — This is the Grant-in-Aid.

Deputy Haughey.—Why is there a different certificate here?

Chairman.—Is it possible that the Arts Council did not collect £1,111?

Mr. Whitaker.—It was not drawn from the Vote.

Chairman.—May I express the pious hope that that will not be taken as grounds for reducing the Vote on subsequent occasions?—I think that the Estimate for this is still £20,000.

VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

12. Chairman.—Is the Commission on Place Names producing anything?— Since 1955 it has been transferred to the Ordnance Survey Vote. It is still operating.

Have they produced any interim report or anything at all?—I do not know at the moment whether their work is such as to result in a report, or whether they supply information directly to the Ordnance Survey for mapping purposes.

I would be very grateful if you would let the Committee know whether they have produced any interim report to anybody?—Certainly.†

13. It is worth while adverting to the fact that since they were established they have expended £20,162. I do not think it would be any harm if it were intimated to them that our Committee is full of hope——

Deputy Carty.—That they will make a name for themselves.

Chairman.—Before leaving the Vote, I should like to say that I would not like anything I said to be taken as indicating that I wish to imply any lack of value in the Commission on Place Names. My anxiety is as to whether they are proceeding as fast as they ought to.

VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

14. Chairman.—Are there any questions?

Deputy Brennan.—Before passing from Vote 18, Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is not discreet to inquire into the method of payment. What check is there on payments? I understand that money is paid out indiscriminately to officers of the Garda Force, who in turn disburse it to whom they may. Is there any check as to whether or not it is paid at all?

Chairman. — What check is there on disbursements from this Vote?

Mr. Whitaker.—First of all, I hold the account. No payment can be made unless I sign the cheque, and I am not authorised to do so except on the requisition of two Ministers.

15. Deputy Brennan.—That is the original draft. I understand that from that point it goes to officers of the Garda Force.

Chairman.—From there on we may not pursue it.

Deputy Brennan. — I am not probing into where it eventually ends up. I understand it is paid out to officers of the Force, who in turn pay it to somebody. The very nature of the Vote demands that we cannot probe too far, but we are entitled to find out if there is any check to ascertain whether, in fact, they pay it at all.

Chairman.—Our function is to see that Mr. Whitaker is not making away with public funds and that he is disbursing them in accordance with the law and on the certificate of at least two Ministers. If he does that he has no further function. This is a matter which could properly be raised on the Estimate in the Dáil. Mr. Whitaker’s concern is to see that he complies with the law enacted by Dáil Éireann in the disbursement of public money.

Deputy Brennan.—I would not entirely agree with that statement. I think Mr. Whitaker would still have some responsibility as to the final allocation of that money.

Chairman. — While I fully appreciate the Deputy’s view, I would suggest that the proper procedure would be to follow the further course of the money, after it has been issued on the certificate of two Ministers, in Dáil Éireann.

Deputy Brennan.—Perhaps, I have selected an unsuitable Vote to pursue that type of argument.

16. Deputy Haughey. — Is this the normal certificate attached to it by the Comptroller and Auditor General? The grammar intrigues me not a little.

Chairman.—The form of certificate is slightly different.

Deputy Haughey.—It is an adequate certificate?

Chairman.—Yes.

VOTE 19—EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT AND THE JURIES ACT.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 20—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called

No question.

VOTE 21—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

17. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to fees for copies of judgment, could Mr. Whitaker tell us how this arose? It is rather unusual.

Chairman.—How do you get £22 under the heading Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer?

Mr. Whitaker.—I am afraid I have not got that information to hand, but I could supply it.

Chairman.—Perhaps you might let us have a note on that.*

18. Deputy Carty. — With regard to subhead E.—Defence of Public Servants —I notice that the grant was £500 and the expenditure £2,558. How is that accounted for?—It is intended to provide for costs arising out of actions taken against public officials for things done by them in the execution of their duty. Normally, the expenses arise in defending members of the Garda Síochána in actions taken against them for alleged excess of their duties. In this particular year there was an allegation of a fishery official exceeding his duties and the expenses arise because of that particular action.

Deputy Brennan.—I can see it is difficult to estimate.

Deputy Carty.—It is conjectural.

19. Deputy Sheldon.—Is there any connection between that subhead and Part I of the Appropriations in Aid? Would it happen in the event of a successful action under subhead E. that there would be receipts under Part I of the Appropriations in Aid?—There might be. I should not like to say offhand. That would scarcely be the only explanation.

Deputy Haughey.—It looks as if we had £2,000 costs.

Deputy Brennan.—We estimated to recover £2,600. There cannot be any relation; since we did not estimate any expenditure under that heading, we can hardly estimate an Appropriation in Aid.

20. Deputy Sheldon.—Was it partially connected with it?—I have a note on it. The receipts consist of costs and fees recovered by the Chief State Solicitor, the Finance Solicitor and the Local State Solicitors. State Solicitors, however, when acting for Government Departments in Civil Bill proceedings, are allowed to retain personally any costs recovered after payment of their outlay in connection with the proceedings. It is difficult to estimate closely the receipts under this subhead as they depend entirely on the number and magnitude of the cases in which the State is successful. It does not relate solely or even at all to subhead E. of the Vote.

VOTE 22—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

21. Chairman.—Why was there £450 less than was granted in connection with University College, Dublin?

Deputy Carty.—It must have been a mistake on the part of the University.

Deputy Brennan.—It is possibly issued on a capitation basis.

Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Ó Cadhla would have some information?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—There was a vacancy on the staff of the College in the School of Modern Irish and Literature and while that vacancy remained unfilled a deduction was made from the gross grant.

22. Deputy Sheldon.—Generally, in regard to these grants, there are statutory amounts paid and then there are additional grants. All these are not Grants-in-Aid, I take it, because the word Grant-in-Aid is used?—In the case of a good many of the statutory grants the amounts are fixed by the statute. For all practical purposes, it amounts to a Grant-in-Aid. In the case of nonstatutory grants, the provision made on the expenditure depends on certified accounts.

23. Chairman.—This relatively small sum looks a little odd. I was not aware that these grants were ever abated. I thought they were handed over in globo to the University. Perhaps Mr. Whitaker would let us know how the £450 turned up.

24. Deputy Booth. — In the Estimate under subhead B. four items are set out, viz., Annual Grant for General Purposes, Additional Grant for General Purposes, Grant for Department of Modern Irish Language and Literature and Grant Towards Cost of Extension Lectures. Would that be where it comes in? Perhaps the extension lectures were not delivered?

Chairman.—If Mr. Whitaker has not the information with him he is always ready to send a note and come back to discuss the note with us.*

Deputy Haughey.—Particularly in view of the paramount position which the University occupies.

Chairman.—If there is anything in the note we can always ask him to come back and help us.

VOTE 23—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

25. Deputy Haughey.—With regard to subhead D., what is the Irish Plate?—It is a race run at the Curragh every year in October or November.

Deputy Carty.—The Accounting Officer has no advance information on it?

26. Chairman.—I think I am right in saying that it was originally the King Edward VII Plate. When the Crown ceased to function here, the Government thought it right to substitute a Government endowment for what was originally a Royal gift.

27. Deputy Jones.—On subhead E.— The Derrynane Trust, Limited (Grant-in-Aid)—what condition was not fulfilled?

Chairman.—Have we any information in regard to the Derrynane Trust? Why was the money not issued to the Trust?— Generally, the position about this Trust is that the Government offered to give £4 for every £1 collected from the public for the preservation of Derrynane, subject to a maximum of £5,000 and subject also to the work being done on the restoration of the building. Actually, the work had not made any great progress in the particular year under review and no payments were made, but, in fact, payments have been made in Votes of subsequent years though not as yet up to the maximum amount of £5,000.

Chairman. — Does that clarify the matter, Deputy Jones?

Deputy Jones.—Yes.

VOTE 65—OIFIG NA GAELTACHTA AGUS NA gCEANTAR gCÚNG.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

28. Chairman.—Perhaps you could tell us, Mr. Whitaker, why you are the Accounting Officer for this? Is it annexed to the Taoiseach’s Department?—At this point of time it was under the control of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it is true to say that the Department of the Taoiseach has no Accounting Officer of its own and the Accounting Officer for matters relating to that Department is the Accounting Officer for the Department of Finance?—That is so. It is a matter of administrative convenience.

VOTE 67—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 68—REMUNERATION.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

29. Chairman.—What is the explanation of the form of this Vote and these payments made by various Departments who are entitled to be recouped by the Exchequer?—Did you mention a particular part of the Vote, Mr. Chairman?

No, usually expenditure for the services of a Department is incorporated in the Vote itself? — Yes, but this was a global provision to cover the general pay award made in the course of that year. Instead of introducing a great number of Supplementary Estimates on individual Votes, a general Vote provision was taken.

30. So that is an exceptional Estimate? —It has appeared before when there was a pay increase.

It is not an annual one?—No.

VOTE 69—NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

31. Chairman. — The Comptroller and Auditor General has a note relating to this Vote. It is paragraph 101 on page xxxii, which states:—

“101. Pursuant to Section 3 of the National Development Fund Act, 1954, a sum of £3,000,000 provided in this Vote was paid into the Fund established by Section 2 of the Act. Including £8,000,000 paid in previous years, the total payments into the Fund to 31 March, 1956, amounted to £11,000,000. Issues in the year under review totalled £1,175,600, viz.:—

Including £2,984,352 issued in previous years, the total issues to 31 March, 1956, amounted to £4,159,952, leaving a balance in the Fund at that date of £6,840,048.

The various projects financed from these issues, and the expenditure incurred, are indicated in the statements appended to the accounts of the relevant Votes.”

Is there anything further you wish to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have nothing to add. That is really for the information of the members of the Committee.

Chairman.—Does anybody wish to raise any question?

32. Deputy Brennan.—Would it not be useful if a note were put on the section stating that the Comptroller and Auditor General had a note about the Vote and giving directions about where to find it——

Chairman.—It is at the top—“See also Report of Comptroller and Auditor General.”

Deputy Brennan. — To add the page and paragraph where it can be found would be simple after that. When we study the section concerned prior to meeting we have to go groping around——

Deputy Sheldon.—May I point out that the information is given on the agenda of this meeting.

Chairman. — But it is open to the Deputy to inquire. You will find on the agenda a reference to the number of the note, Deputy.

Deputy Brennan. — These things are usually well signposted.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. R. P. Rice called and examined.

33. Chairman.—There are six paragraphs on this by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which say:—

“Revenue Account.

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

9. The net yield of revenue for the years 1954-55 and 1955-56, under its main heads, is shown in the following statement:—

£89,180,000 (including £54,000 in respect of Special Import Levy) was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £2,131,250 outstanding as compared with £2,110,787 at the end of the previous financial year.

In accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Fund Act, 1956, the sum of £54,000 Special Import Levy was issued out of the Exchequer to the Capital Fund established under that section.

10. The departmental regulations in the Estate Duty Branch provide for a regular review of all open cases, i.e., cases in which additional duties assessed had not been paid or where accounts relating to the distribution of property passing at death had not been furnished. It was observed in the course of audit that a large number of cases opened between 1952 and 1954 had not been reviewed and having regard to the possibility of loss of revenue I inquired as to the present position. I have been informed that revised staffing requirements for this branch are under consideration.

11. I have been furnished with the following statement of outstanding tax assessments:—

Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties.

12. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £10,838 and £1,578, respectively, were made during the year compared with £10,510 and £1,111 in the previous year.

Remissions and Amounts Irrecoverable.

13. 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, 1956. I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results. The total amount, £9,144, remitted or passed as irrecoverable is made up as follows:—

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

I am informed that the amounts shown under the head of income tax include a considerable number of protective assessments and cases under appeal in which final liability had not been determined.

Are there any of these notes in respect of which you wish to add anything?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—With regard to paragraph 10 it was not practicable to carry out every three months the review of cases which had not been closed and this work got considerably into arrears. I do not know what decision has been reached regarding staffing arrangements.

34. Chairman. — Perhaps you can add to this, Mr. Rice?—We have been reviewing the staff in the Estate Duty Office since March. We anticipate the investigation will end in September and we hope we will be able to organise this particular branch so that without additional staff these cases will come under more frequent review.

Doubtless you will let the Comptroller and Auditor General know the result of your review?—Yes, we will do that.

35. Deputy Haughey. — In regard to paragraph 8 which says the examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with generally satisfactory results, are we to take it that in some instances there results were not satisfactory?

Chairman.—I think that is a form of general certificate which is tantamount to saying that the Comptroller and Auditor General has no fault to find?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—My examination of the Revenue Accounts is carried out with a view to ensuring that adequate regulations have been framed to secure an effective check on the assessment and collection of revenue, and I satisfied myself that these duties have been duly carried out.

Chairman.—I think the Deputy may take it that this is the form in which the Comptroller and Auditor General conveys that he has no complaint.

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I should like to refer you to the observations in paragraph 10.

Chairman.—I think that clarifies the matter.

36. Deputy Haughey.—On subhead A., to what is this reduction due?

Chairman.—If you look at the note on page 12 you will see that the saving is due largely to vacancies remaining unfilled.

37. Deputy Haughey.—I presume then the Department is more efficient than it was?

Deputy Brennan. — Because vacancies remain unfilled?

Deputy Haughey.—If you are getting the same amount of work done with these vacancies unfilled, I presume there is an increase in efficiency?

Mr. Rice.—Presumably all the work is not being done.

38. Deputy Booth. — Does that mean that work is getting into arrears?

Deputy Sheldon.—It may be that somebody dies in the last month of the accounting year.

Deputy Haughey.—It would take a lot of that to give £58,000.

Chairman.—I think the point is that staff may be requested say in the month of October, but is not made available until the month of February. As the Estimate would be prepared on the basis of the staff being available, you would have four months’ pay in respect of these posts which has not been disbursed. It is one of the difficulties of Civil Service procedure that very often to get personnel cleared takes a long time. I remember trying to get an Assistant Librarian once for the Department of Agriculture and it took two and a half years by the time sanction was obtained and cleared.

39. Deputy Brennan.—Would there not be a saving also on new staff coming on at lower salaries?

Chairman.—That could happen, too.

40. Deputy Haughey.—I take it, it is not a permanent reduction?

Chairman.—No, it is part of the permanent war that goes on between Mr. Whitaker and every other Accounting Officer in the Service.

41. Deputy Booth. — On subhead D., who is the disburser of stamps?

Mr. Rice.—The Secretary of the Stock Exchange sells stamps in respect of transfers of Stock Exchange securities. He holds them for us.

42. Chairman.—And receives a poundage?—Yes.

Chairman.—If we look at the Note we find his poundage was greater than anticipated due to the sale of stamps being greater than expected.

43. Deputy Sheldon.—On the Appropriations in Aid, Miscellaneous Items, there is an amount of £1,001 for the recovery of salaries of officers on loan. Could Mr. Rice say to whom these officers were lent? Presumably it was not to another Department, because then there would be no such item?—I did not catch that.

Chairman.—If you look at page 13, Appropriations in Aid, Vote 7, there is an item under “Miscellaneous Items,” “Recovery of salaries of officers on loan.” The Deputy would like to know to whom the officers were loaned?—One, a clerical officer was loaned to the Civil Service General Council Staff and the other officer was loaned to Córas Tráchtála.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 37—CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS.

Mr. J. S. Martin called.

No question.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 17—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.

Mr. J. N. McGrath called and examined.

44. Deputy Booth.—On the Appropriations in Aid, where does that money come from?

Chairman.—It is set out further down, Receipts from the Social Insurance Fund, repayments in respect of premises occupied by British Departments and agency services performed by the Government of Ireland.

45. Deputy Booth.—There is a considerable variation in No. (2) there.

Chairman. — Can you tell us, Mr. McGrath, how we got £2,312 under subhead (2) of the Appropriations in Aid when we had only hoped to get £610?— Yes. These are repayments for premises occupied by British Departments and agency services performed for the British Government. We did not estimate for some of those repayments. In fact, we did not know about them. They were items in respect of the Post Office Savings Bank and from the Combined Purchasing Section of the Department of Local Government. We did not know that those repayments were due but they were in fact repaid. We had not estimated for them. It was our first year on this Vote.

Deputy Haughey.—As long as we got more than we expected, it is not too bad —particularly from “the base, bloody and brutal Saxon,” as the Chairman has often remarked.

Chairman.—For the record, you had better add that these words were jovially uttered—because in your own public life in ten years’ time these words may be dug up and read out to you.

VOTE 25—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.

Mr. J. N. McGrath called.

No question.

VOTE 26—ORDNANCE SURVEY.

Mr. J. N. McGrath further examined.

46. Deputy Haughey.—On subhead F. would you explain that? The note says that the excess was due to the purchase of an extra motor van for precise levelling work. Can you do that sort of thing without it being in the Estimate?

Chairman. — You can do it by two devices—Mr. Ó Cadhla will correct me if I am wrong — either by introducing a Supplementary Estimate or by exercising, with the authority of the Department of Finance, the doctrine of virement. If there is a surplus in another subhead, you can get the authority of the Department of Finance to transfer it. If there is not enough money in the Vote to make a saving somewhere else, the only way it can be done is by bringing in a Supplementary Estimate.

47. Deputy Haughey.—It seems a major question of policy to go off and buy a new van.

Chairman.—I do not think that would be generally regarded as a question of policy. Mr. McGrath would be regarded as having general power to purchase a van if he could pay for it?

Mr. McGrath. — We had to purchase the van.

The witness withdrew.

GENERAL REPORT.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

48. Chairman. — There are just seven general paragraphs, starting on page iii of the Appropriations Accounts. Are there any of these notes on which you wish to make additional observations, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I do not think so.

Chairman. — The paragraphs are as follows:—

“Outturn of the Year.

1. The audited accounts are summarised on page xxxv. The amount to be surrendered as shown in the summary is £4,853,677 9s. 1d., arrived at as follows:—

This represents 4.4 per cent. of the supply grants, as compared with 7.8 per cent. in the previous year. The principal savings were:—

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

Exchequer Extra Receipts.

2. Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts amounted to £1,027,168 11s. 3d.

Surrender of Balances on 1954-55 Votes.

3. The balances due to be surrendered out of Votes for the public services for 1954-55 amounted to £8,824,127 18s. 5d. 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, 1956. 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.

Disallowances on Appropriation Accounts, 1952-53.

6. The Committee of Public Accounts, in its report dated 30 March, 1955 (paragraphs 11 and 19), expressed the opinion that sums of £1,000 and £231 were not properly chargeable to the Votes for National Gallery and Science and Art for the year 1952-53 and recommended that they be disallowed. The Minister for Finance concurred in the recommendations of the Committee and provision for these sums was accordingly made in Supplementary Estimates presented and passed during the year under review.

Quit Rents, etc.

7. The revenues from quit and crown rents, etc., collected by the Quit Rent Office as from 1 April, 1923, were paid into a deposit account pending the enactment of legislation for the control and management of the properties. Meanwhile, owing to the diminishing annual revenue due to the redemption of rents under the Land Purchase Acts, it was decided to allocate the management of the properties to other Departments, quit and crown rents being transferred to the Land Commission, leasehold properties to the Office of Public Works and mines and foreshore rights to the Department of Industry and Commerce; but the revenues continued to be paid into the deposit account.

On the enactment of the State Property Act, 1954, all properties formerly administered by the Quit Rent Office became vested in the Minister for Finance, and the Act further directed that all moneys and securities standing to the credit of the deposit account should be transferred to the Savings Certificates Reserve Fund and that all future revenue should be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such manner as the Minister for Finance might direct. Cash and securities amounting to £695,000 were transferred from the deposit account to the credit of the Savings Certificates Reserve Fund in the year under review.”

49. Chairman. — On Note No. 5, are there any substantial balances retained in the Foreign Exchange Account? — The balance for some years past is of the order of 10,000,000 United States dollars. There is a small amount in Canadian dollars also, not amounting to more than about 500,000 dollars. I might add that this account is in the news in connection with the Bretton Woods Agreements and our proposed subscriptions to the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Reconstruction and Development. It will be the ultimate source from which these subscriptions will be drawn, by means of repayments to the Exchequer from this account, which will enable the Exchequer itself to pay the subscriptions to the Fund and Bank.

50. Chairman. — This sum abode for many years in the Chase National Bank in New York?—The National City Bank of New York, I think, had most of it.

51. Chairman. — It is another monument to the foresight and prudence of the Governor of the Central Bank. However, that is a long story.

Deputy Haughey. — Are those words jovially uttered?

Chairman. — They are not: they are spoken with the maximum of sincerity.

52. Chairman.—On Note No. 7, I cannot resist inquiring—because the Quit Rent Office used to be such a favourite subject of inquiry in the old days—does it still exist?—No, its functions have been dispersed among various other Departments.

It is gone? — It does not exist any longer.

Chairman.—There are no further questions. We are very much obliged to you.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix IV.

† See Appendix V.

* See Appendix VI.

* See Appendix VII.

* This covers Schedule E tax for Dublin General as from 1950-51. For earlier years the Schedule E tax for Dublin General is included in the figures in column (3).