|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 11 Iúil, 1957.Thursday, 11th July, 1957.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY DILLON in the chair. Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Mr. P. S. Mac Guill and Mr. J. F. Maclnerney (Department of Finance) called and examined.VOTE 58—EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.Mr. S. Murphy called and examined.53. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead C.2 just for the purpose of the record, the question has been asked here before, but because of recent developments it might be interesting to know the total amount paid to the Irish News Agency by way of repayable advances?—The total sum is £318,500 up to the 31st March this year. 54. Have any of the advances been repaid?—No. Deputy Booth.—Is it anticipated they will be repaid?—I am afraid not. VOTE 59—INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.Mr. S. Murphy further examined.55. Deputy Booth. — On subhead B.2 the note says: “Travelling undertaken was less than anticipated and some of the anticipated expenditure was borne on another Vote.” What Vote comes in there?—Industry and Commerce. How does Industry and Commerce come in?—It was delegates’ expenses for travelling to O.E.E.C. They came from Industry and Commerce and they bore the expenses. 56. Chairman.—So that if a delegation consists in part of officers of the Department of External Affairs and in part of the Department of Industry and Commerce?—Or any other Department interested. Each Department would bear the travelling expenses of its own officers?— Not necessarily. Apparently, only the Department of Industry and Commerce have done so. 57. Chairman.—Can you help us there, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Why is there that differentiation? Is it just custom? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Generally speaking, each Department bears the expenses of its own officers. 58. Chairman. — Do you happen to know, Mr. Murphy, whether if officers of the Department of Agriculture go to O.E.E.C. their travelling expenses are borne on the Agriculture Vote?—No, apparently they are borne on our Vote. Agriculture recovers from us, which comes to the same thing. Industry and Commerce do not?—No. 59. Deputy Booth. — Who rules on that? Chairman.—This is a rather unusual thing and I think Deputy Booth would be obliged if at your convenience you would look into that and let us have a note as to why certain Departments recoup you and others do not. There may have been some Finance ruling or something of that kind?—I am sorry I am not in a position to reply on that question. We will certainly write to the Committee and give them what information we have.* VOTE 60—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE.Mr. P. J. Keady called and examined.60. Deputy Jones.—On subhead A. the note says: “Saving mainly due to vacancies remaining unfilled for various periods and to retrenchments.” What would be the retrenchments and the vacancies remaining unfilled for various periods?—Firstly, we did not fill or delayed the filling of vacancies during the year. That accounted for a saving of £26,000. Secondly, we suppressed 14 posts. That accounted for a saving of £17,200. Deputy Booth. — Were they senior posts?—They were junior posts. 61. Deputy Haughey.—How were the Department able to do that? Was it as a result of mechanisation? — Mainly reorganisation of the work, spreading out the work and, to some extent, mechanisation. 62. Chairman.—On subhead I. in connection with the issue of blind pension medical certificates, is the delay in examining applicants for blind pensions reduced now?—Yes, it has been considerably reduced because formerly the claim went to the old age pensions committee, but we now arrange that the claimant is examined by the local ophthalmic surgeon and that all the information is before the committee when the claim comes up. Previously, the committee was without any medical evidence whatever. 63. Deputy Booth.—On subhead N. I notice that the note refers to two cases of loss and says they “involved no charge on public funds.” In one case the default was £91 and in the other £106. The agents were prosecuted and dismissed. Would I be correct in assuming that the amounts were recovered?—In both cases the amounts were recovered. VOTE 61—SOCIAL INSURANCE.Mr. P. J. Keady further examined.64. Chairman.—Paragraph 98 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead A.—Payment to the Social Insurance Fund under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. 98. Payments from the Vote to the Social Insurance Fund under this subhead in the year under review amounted to £2,454,000. As indicated in paragraph 106 of the previous report payments under Section 39 (9) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, are subject to adjustment when audited accounts of the Fund are available. Accounts of the Fund, which was established on 5th January, 1953, have not yet been submitted for audit.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That paragraph is for information. The accounts of the Fund for the initial period to the 31st March, 1953, have now been furnished to me and the audit is completed. Also, the accounts for the financial year 1953-54 are at present under examination. 65. Chairman.—What do you regard, Mr. Keady, as a reasonable delay between the end of the year and the submission of the accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General?—I think in the case of the Social Insurance Fund we should be able to have certified accounts within nine months after the closing of the year. These accounts appear to be for three years? — Quite so. This question has arisen at previous meetings of the Committee. I explained on the last occasion that the Department has been set up by the incorporation of parts of three other Departments and the amalgamation of three different Funds. A new system of accounting had to be adopted. We had to dispose first of several outstanding accounts in the old Fund before we could settle the form of account of the new Fund. That required the sanction of the Minister for Finance and the agreement of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which took a considerable time, and in fact was only reached in February of this year. We were immediately able to submit the first account. We have recently submitted the second account, and I hope to have the third and fourth accounts within a matter of months. Chairman.—I take it you will agree, Mr. Ó Cadhla, that nine months would be a reasonable time in which to submit accounts for any period? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I should say nine months. I appreciate that some difficulty in connection with the preparation of the initial accounts was inevitable. 66. Chairman. — Paragraph 99 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:— “Subhead B.—Investment Return. 99. Reference was made in previous reports to the investment of moneys standing to the credit of the Social Insurance Fund in the construction and equipment, under the provisions of Section 21 of the Social Welfare Act, 1950, as amended by Section 68 (5) (e) of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, of the premises known as Áras Mhic Dhiarmada. Agreement has not yet been reached regarding the rent payable by Córas Iompair Éireann for the portion of the premises occupied by the company. Meanwhile, a rent of £15,000 per annum has been adopted for the purpose of computing the amount of investment return payable to the Fund. This was assessed at £29,000 and was related to a total expenditure from the Fund to 31st March, 1956, of £1,294,251.” Chairman.—Have you any further information to give us on the C.I.É. arrangement? — The negotiations have been extremely protracted. There has been a difference of opinion between our Department and C.I.É. as to the amount of the rent. We are not free agents in this matter. The rent must be agreed by the Minister for Finance, and it has been agreed at a sum of £15,000. Negotiations are still proceeding with C.I.É to get this sum paid. We hope to get it cleared up shortly. 67. Chairman. — Do you wish to add anything to your note, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Except that C.I.É. had already advanced, I think, £12,500 for the year 1954-55. They also sent in a cheque to the Accounting Officer’s Department for £13,000 in the subsequent year. I do not know whether that £13,000 cheque was accepted? — It was based on an assessment of rent arrived at by themselves. We submitted the matter to the Attorney General, who advised us to return the cheque—which we did. 68. Chairman.—I take it that C.I.É. entered into occupation of the premises without having completed any agreement?—That is true. 69. May we anticipate that some formal agreement will be finalised and signed in the course of this financial year?—Yes, there is what we regard as a final draft from our point of view, but it has still to be agreed with C.I.É. I do not anticipate much difficulty about it. Deputy Sheldon.—As long as they do not get a squatter’s right. Mr. Cunningham.—Or become statute barred. Chairman.—Perhaps that is as far as we can bring it this year. We can look forward to getting better particulars next year as to what the agreement may transpire to be. 70. Deputy Booth.—On subhead A. 1 just do not understand this and would be glad to have an explanation. The note says:— “The saving is primarily due to the fact that the excess of expenditure over income of the Fund in 1955-56 was less than estimated, and partly to an adjustment in respect of an overdraw from this subhead in 1954-55.” I am not sure what that means. Chairman.—I do not imagine that you would be unique in this embarrassment. Mr. Keady, can you kindly elucidate this mystery for Deputy Booth? — It is not feasible to draw from the Vote during the currency of a particular financial year the exact amount of the State grants applicable to that year, because the actual income and expenditure of the Fund for the year cannot be determined until a considerable time afterwards. Accordingly, the full amount provided under subhead A. is drawn in instalments during the year, unless towards the end of the year it becomes evident that the full amount will not be required, in which case the estimated surplus remains undrawn. The adjustment of the amount overdrawn or underdrawn during any particular year is effected through the Vote for the subsequent year. So, in this case we have had an adjustment. First of all, we did not require all we drew for the current year and we made an adjustment because we overdrew — £25,000, I think — for the previous year. Chairman.—Does that dispose of your query, Deputy? Deputy Booth.—Yes, as long as I do not have to do it myself. 71. Chairman.—I think, in fact, it is a floating account and if there is a surplus this year it goes to the relief of the Vote next year; and if there is a deficit this year it goes as an additional burden on the following year?—Quite so. VOTE 62—SOCIAL ASSISTANCE.Mr. P. J. Keady further examined.72. Deputy Brennan.—I notice there is a surplus under all headings. Deputy Haughey.—Not under K. and L. Deputy Brennan. — If you read the note, you find that subhead K. is money held in suspense and written off this year. There is actually a surplus. There is over-estimation, under every heading. Chairman.—If you wish to raise this in respect of the Vote generally, we can go through the subheads and then return to that point—unless you wish to raise it in respect of any special subhead. 73. Deputy Cunningham.—Subhead C. Deputy Brennan.—The amount under C. is the most important. Chairman.— Mr. Keady, there is £141,663 less than was granted expended in this year. Deputy Sheldon.—No one wants people put out of employment just to keep the subhead right. Chairman.—I think we will let Mr. Keady explain. Deputy Brennan.—I raised the question because, in view of the increasing number of unemployed during the period, it is remarkable that we have had over-estimation to that extent. Chairman.—I think the Deputy is slightly mistaken. We are taking the accounts for 1955-56. Mr. Keady, why was there less spent under the Vote than was anticipated?—Because the numbers in receipt of unemployment assistance in 1955-56 were less than we anticipated, having taken our stand in November of 1954 and basing our Estimate on the experience of that current year. Chairman.—Does that explain it? Deputy Brennan.—I am not attaching any significance, political or otherwise, to it. I was wondering whether, in view of the rising figures, it was due to economy measures. Chairman.—At this time, I gathered from Mr. Keady, the numbers of unemployed were declining and, therefore, he did not require as large a sum to provide for unemployment in 1955-56 as he required in 1954-55. 74. Deputy Cunningham.—I have had experience of a number of persons living on their fathers’ holdings or living on holdings belonging to some relative, say, a married man living on such a holding, that heretofore they were in receipt of unemployment assistance but latterly it was refused to those people. Did that account in any great measure for this particular saving?—No. We estimate it by dividing the year into three periods— one is the period covered by the Employment Period Order, another is the period from October up to Christmas, which is usually a rising period of unemployment, and the rest is from Christmas to March. Taking our stand on the experience of 1954 we apply, with observed trends, those figures into 1955-56. For instance, in the first period we estimated an average number of 20,000 people; but in the event there was only an average of 19,000 people—and so on in each period. There was no change in policy; it was merely that fewer people claimed. Chairman.—Does that cover it? Deputy Brennan.—That would be satisfactory, Mr. Chairman. 75. Deputy Sheldon.—I take it that at the time of the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate you provided for an anticipated saving on this subhead. There were anticipated savings of £148,000. I presume that was one of them?—Yes, Sir. We provided for a possible saving of £96,000 in respect of unemployment assistance. 76. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead D., may we assume that fewer married men died during the year, that the mortality was not so high. I hope that was true. Deputy Lynch.—Or maybe more widows died. Chairman.—Let us hope that it was the happy event that the ladies re-married. Let us always dwell upon the optimistic side. 77. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead E., I think the Bill is being introduced to correct this matter?—Yes, it has been introduced. 78. Deputy Cunningham.—On subhead F., School Meals (Gaeltacht), there will be an amendment resulting from the new definition of the Gaeltacht, will there not? Of course, that does not arise now. Chairman.—It does not arise, but I am sure Mr. Keady will help us, if you wish to know. Deputy Cunningham.—Some areas, heretofore in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, do not receive the benefits of the School Meals (Gaeltacht) Acts. Now that the Gaeltacht is clearly defined since the passing of the Act last year, will there be a suitable amendment of the School Meals Regulations? Chairman.—Do you happen to know offhand, Mr. Keady, if there will be any change in the regulations relating to school meals for the Gaeltacht?—We had not proposed any. 79. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead G., I should like to know if there is any grant payable to the National Council for the Blind out of the Vote?—No, there is no grant to the National Council for the Blind. 80. Chairman.—Subhead H. refers to grants towards the Supply of Fuel for Necessitous Families. Are these grants confined to cities or are they given in all parts of the country?—They are given in sixteen cities and towns. 81. Are they made available in these cities and towns at the instance of the local authority?—The scheme is administered through the local authority. The fuel is supplied (i) to people in receipt of home assistance; (ii) to people in receipt of old age and widows’ pensions; (iii) to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance and (iv) to other persons on low income who are defined by the local authority itself. 82. Who takes the initiative in determining the towns and the cities in which the scheme will operate?—It was originally defined as the non-turf area—Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Dun Laoghaire, Balbriggan, Drogheda, and so on. Were certain other towns then added? —There have been no additions, so far as I know. 83. Are these areas defined in the Act? —There is no Act and no regulations. This scheme was set up originally by the Department of Local Government and Public Health at a time when there was a fuel shortage. The idea was to make fuel available in the non-turf areas to necessitous persons. 84. How exactly is the area determined in which people may avail of this scheme? Deputy Brennan.—Is it decided by the Minister? Mr. Keady.—It was originally decided by the Minister. When we took it over, these areas had already been defined in this scheme. Chairman.—Would it be open to the Minister, administratively, to add to or subtract from the areas?—I think so. The sanction of the Department of Finance would be necessary. 85. Subhead L. refers to Extra-Statutory Grants. What sort of case was covered by these three Finance sanctions in relation to the £600 paid under the subhead?—Take, for instance, old age pension payments and widows’ and orphans’ pensions payments. There is the prescribed period during which payment must be received — three months or six months. In other words, if the order is not cashed within that period it goes out of currency. However, the failure to cash is sometimes not due to any fault of the pensioner. It might be the fault of the postmaster who failed to cash it when presented with it and it remained in the pension book. It could also happen that the pension officer might raise a question about the validity of the whole pension. The pensioner would, in the meantime, refrain from drawing the orders in his book until the question had been decided. Then, if the matter were decided in his favour, the payments which had been due would have gone out of date and, with the sanction of the Department of Finance, we would pay them. 86. Deputy Brennan.—Subhead J. refers to Appropriations in Aid. I am curious to know how it was that more money was recovered by way of contributions from local bodies than was estimated. I thought the amount would be statutory and fixed. Chairman.—Has the Deputy looked at the note on page 207? Deputy Brennan.—Yes. I note that approximately £5,000 more was realised than was estimated for. Chairman.—Perhaps the Deputy would read the note in regard to No. 1 which says: “Surplus mainly due to the fact that certain instalments of contributions which were not expected to be received in 1955-56 came to hand before the close of that financial year.” Does that clarify it? Deputy Brennan.—Yes—except that I thought a fixed amount within a fixed time would be provided by local authorities. 87. Chairman.—Mr. Keady, can you add anything to the note on Appropriations in Aid, page 207, and then the supplementary note setting out the reasons for these circumstances?—In the case of the present accounts, the receipts brought to credit on the 31st March, 1956, include remittances from three local authorities totalling £8,000 which related to the year 1954-55. In addition, certain instalments came to hand which it was expected would not be received until after the end of the year. I think it would be true to say that, in a certain sense, this is somewhat of an average figure in which sometimes you get more than you expect within the year and that that would abate what you would get in the following year?—To some extent. Deputy Lynch.—The Department could estimate a figure and it would be based on last year. That money is laid off the local costs. We pay so much in the £ on our total valuation. It might happen that 15 new houses would be opened in an area. They would bring in more money because they would come on to the rates. 88. Deputy Brennan.—Then the contribution is based on the valuation of each local authority or urban council. Deputy Lynch.—In the county borough of Waterford, we pay so much in the £ on our total valuation for unemployment assistance. Mr. Keady.—It is 1/8 in the £ in the case of the four county boroughs and the borough of Dun Laoghaire and 9d. in the £ in the case of the other eleven urban districts. 89. Deputy Brennan.—The variation is due to an increase in the valuations. Chairman.—I think the Deputies are mistaken somewhat. These variations are due to human fallibility, are they not? We expect the town clerk or somebody to send something before the 31st March. Knowing the weakness of the town clerk, it does not get in until the 2nd April. Alternatively, we do not expect it until the 5th or the 6th April and it arrives on the 28th March and then there is great rejoicing. Is that not the case?—Yes. 90. Deputy Booth.—On page 206 there is a reference under Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer. I should like to know if the sale of equipment for the emergency cooked food centres has been finally disposed of. Chairman.—The sum realised is £74. Do you hope to recover anything more from that source?—That is finished. All the equipment has now been sold. Was all the equipment sold at the end of 1956 or will this matter crop up again in the Appropriation Accounts, 1956-57? Is there a possibility that you may receive a little hansel that will come to hand in 1957?—No. The witness withdrew. VOTE 10—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.Risteard ó hEigeartuigh called and examined.91. Chairman.—There are five paragraphs in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to this Vote, paragraphs 23 to 27 inclusive. They are as follows:— “23. Provision was made under subhead F. (Urban Employment Schemes) and subhead G. (Rural Employment Schemes) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on road and amenity schemes, etc., to provide employment. The grants, amounting in all to £199,265, were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The accounts of the expenditure on the schemes are examined by Local Government auditors whose certificates are available to me. 24. The expenditure charged to subhead H. (Minor Employment Schemes) and subhead I. (Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers), amounting to £220,000, relates to schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office. In certain counties these schemes were carried out by the county engineers acting as agents for the Office. 25. The scheme for which provision was made under subhead J. (Rural Improvements Scheme) was also administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office either directly or through the agency of county engineers. The works carried out included the improvement and construction of accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs, small drainage works, the erection or reconstruction of small bridges, etc. Only works which are estimated to cost not less than £40 are approved and the grants made vary from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. of their cost. The gross expenditure amounted to £197,000 and contributions by beneficiaries, which are appropriated in aid of the Vote, totalled £36,699. 26. As shown in the account, the Vote provisions under subheads F., H., I. and J. were fully utilised and were supplemented by moneys made available from the National Development Fund (see page 28). 27. The amount charged to subhead K. (Miscellaneous Schemes) comprises mainly the cost of improvement works on small fishery harbours and piers carried out by the Office of Public Works on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office.” I understand that they are purely for information purposes. Is there anything which you would like to add to these notes, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, they are all for information. 92. Chairman.—Then let us turn to the subheads of the Vote itself. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead E.—Repayments to other Departments for Services rendered—what types of services are rendered by Departments? —There are three Departments concerned—the Board of Works, the Stationery Office and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The Board of Works do the usual services of looking after our buildings—that is, our head office at 30 Earlsfort Terrace and the offices in Galway, Tralee, Castlebar and the other centres in the country. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs provide the usual services and the Stationery Office provide us with all our stationery. Actually, the excess arose in the Office of Public Works section. 93. I assumed it was something like that. However, most other Departments do not repay those Departments for work done. They just note it in the accounts as being done. Why is it different in this case?—That was to an extent a relic of the earlier days of our Office when a global sum was voted by the Dáil, without different subheads, for the relief of unemployment. Deputies will recall that the figure was simply down for approximately £1,250,000 without any details of any description. The Department of Finance then come into the picture. I think the Minister for Finance decided that, in that global sum of £1,250,000, would be included all the expenditure on the various services. Consequently, we paid out of the £1,250,000 towards the various services and it has continued on that basis since. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—It has been treated as if it were a Fund. It is really the continuation of the old Emergency Employment Fund. 94. Deputy Haughey.—Would it not be an economy if this were not so? A considerable amount of accounting and services must be involved in this procedure. Chairman. — Would it result in any economies if this procedure were not followed?—That is a very difficult question to answer because it would probably work out this way. I doubt if it would result in an economy. You would have to anticipate what the Minister for Finance would do when considering my Estimates. I think the position as far as my Vote is concerned would be that the Minister would make up his mind in regard to the amount of money to be allocated and that I would have to do the best I could with it. Deputy Sheldon.—It might even add to the expenses of printing in the Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes. There is no table showing the expenditure whereas on other Votes there is?—We do not actually make payments; it is really a book-keeping transaction. Whether the fact that it is shown as a book-keeping transaction here or in a note below should not seriously make a great difference. 95. Chairman.—Would I over-simplify the matter by saying that the essential difference is that you book-keep ex post facto and the others book-keep in anticipation?—That would be about right. Your book-keeping is precisely accurate and all the others estimate what they hope to pay. Sometimes they pay more and sometimes they pay less but, in your case you are asked questions here as to why it was less or as to why it was more? —That more or less summarises the position. 96. Deputy Haughey.—I am not quite clear why in all the other Votes there is just a note at the bottom of the page to the effect that services of other Departments were involved to the amount of so much. What is the exact difference between this business of providing here specifically in the Vote and merely making a note at the bottom of the page? The Accounting Officer says he does not actually pay it and there is no transfer of cash?—In effect we pay it because there is a transfer from my account to the others. Deputy Haughey.—A transfer?—There is a payment, it is a different method. Deputy Haughey. — Surely there is a clerical service in the making of those payments which is not involved in other Departments? 97. Deputy Sheldon.—I consider that it should be brought into line with other Departments. It is not a matter for Mr. O’Hegarty, but perhaps Mr. Kiely would go into the matter? Chairman. — I think we must confine ourselves to eliciting information. When we come to drafting our report we can make such recommendations as we see fit. 98. Deputy Haughey.—I am trying to establish that by virtue of this being put in this fashion there is extra clerical work in the Department. Perhaps the Accounting Officer would say if that is so?—I am not familiar with the procedure in other Departments, but the difference in the extra work is nominal because I anticipate other Departments have to do the same check to secure that they get these services. As far as the Board of Works is concerned we have no actual means of checking the cost of their services to us and we simply pay the account which they present us with, after making certain that they do not charge us for something they did not give us. 99. Chairman. — In fact, Mr. O’Hegarty, this procedure relieves you of the necessity of complicated Estimates in advance, does it not? Other Departments must assess, as best they can, what they are likely to require from the Board of Works, or the Stationery Office, and they enter that in their Estimate? Sometimes they realise it and sometimes they do not? I think Mr. O’Hegarty gets, in one sense, a global sum which he divides amongst the various subheads. You estimated at the beginning of the year that you would require £5,400 for services for other Departments and in fact you spent £6,091?—Those Estimates, particularly the Estimates for the Board of Works, are largely made up by the Board of Works. We tell them what we want and they have to do the estimating of what that will cost. The actual figure that the Board of Works estimated for in 1955-56 was £2,200, and our expenditure came to £2,696 10s. 9d., you might say £2,700. The question Deputy Haughey puts is that if you followed the procedure of other Departments would that involve less administrative work in your office than if you followed the procedure that you have been following? I do not think that is a question we can expect you to answer off the cuff?—I would not like to answer it off the cuff. Deputy Haughey.—In addition there may be other expenses like bank charges. Chairman.—Perhaps you would furnish us with a note about this, Mr. O’Hegarty?—I shall.* 100. Deputy Lynch.—On subhead H.— Minor Employment Schemes — I would like to know how these sums are allotted? — Minor Employment Schemes are allotted to twelve counties—Cavan, Clare, what we call Cork West (which is the peninsula of Adrigole), Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Roscommon, Limerick, Longford, Mayo and Sligo. The geographical area involved is really the western sea-coast and was formerly known as the congested districts. In fact, Minor Employment Schemes are only authorised in areas where there are comparatively large numbers of unemployment assistance recipients, or dole men as they are called. If you take Galway and take a line north and south through the city of Galway practically every electoral area west of this line has a large number of unemployment assistance recipients. We authorise grants in relation to the number of the recipients in the different areas. For instance, if you take Crumpaun, which is one of the Electoral Division areas, it has between 300 and 400 unemployment assistance recipients. In an area nearer Galway, Furbough, there are only probably between 20 and 30. We divide the total amount of money between the twelve counties, in proportion to the gross, and we distribute the money according to the unemployment assistance recipients in each area. The Electoral Division was decided on because the area is small enough to permit a person in it to walk to the site of the work. 101. Deputy Cunningham.—Is the information as to the number of unemployed in the various Electoral Divisions submitted by the local Employment Exchange?—A special census is taken in the third week of January in regard to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in every division, by the Department of Social Welfare. They do it specially for us. They arrange a special census of the persons who are in receipt of unemployment assistance on the Saturday of the third week in January. We selected that period because that is normally the period when the highest numbers are on the register. In addition to the persons actually receiving dole payment in that week we also do the count of the 5,000 or 6,000 men whom we employ during that week. We can easily do that from our own records. Say that Crumpaun might have 320 drawing the dole that week. There might be 40 men employed by us in the same week so that the number we would put down for Crumpaun Electoral Division would be 360. We have that census annually for all the Electoral Divisions in the country. 102. Deputy Lynch. — What I would like to know is: if an electoral area in some of the areas which are not so fortunate in getting these Votes had a large number of unemployed, would they get special consideration?—They would. 103. Deputy Brennan. — In regard to subhead L.—Appropriations in Aid—has the £24,000 odd to be surrendered? Would it not have been possible to use it for the relief of unemployment? Chairman.—Could you have used the £24,464, the total surplus to be surrendered, under one of these subheads in the relief of unemployment during the year or was it not realised in time?—The answer is that I have to be careful not to exceed my Vote. After all, there is not very much difference between £711,147 and the gross total £722,800. Take the urban employment schemes where there is £140,000, plus the National Development Fund total of £257,806. There are 55 sub-agents whom I have to watch in connection with the urban authorities and there are four county borough areas. That is only one subhead alone. There are thousands of schemes in the rural areas. When you divide the £24,464 over the whole area, if I had exceeded the sanctioned amounts by £5 or £10 here or there I would instead of looking for a Supplementary Estimate be in trouble because I spent more than I had, i.e., an excess Vote. The witness withdrew. VOTE 56—DEFENCE.Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon called and examined.104. Chairman.—There are four notes on page xxx. Paragraph 94 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Subhead K.—Provisions and Allowances in lieu. 94. Statements have been furnished to me showing the cost of production of bread at the Curragh bakery, and of meat at the Dublin and Curragh abattoirs. The unit costs are as follows:—
The average price of cattle purchased for the Dublin and Curragh areas was £78 13s. and £74 19s. 8d. per head, respectively, as compared with £73 4s. 1d. and £72 7s. 4d. in the previous year, while the average production of beef per head was 710 lbs. and 671 lbs., respectively, as compared with 688 lbs. and 672 lbs.” Have you any observations to make on that paragraph, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have no further observation to make on it. 105. Chairman.—If there is no further question on that paragraph, let us turn to paragraph 95 which is as follows:— “Subhead O.—General Stores. 95. A contract placed for the supply of three Mk. 55 Vampire Trainer aircraft, equipment and manuals, at a cost of £146,828, provided for an advance payment of 25 per cent., for delivery of the aircraft within six months from the date the advance was made, and for payment of the balance on acceptance of the aircraft. The advance payment, £36,707, was made in January, 1956, and is included in the charge to this subhead. Delivery of the aircraft was taken in July, 1956, and the balance of the expenditure relating to the transaction has been charged to the Vote for 1956-57.” Have you any observation to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, I have no further comment to make on it. 106. Chairman.—If there is no question on that note, let us turn to paragraph 96 of the Report:— “Subhead S.—Barrack Maintenance and New Works. 96. Reference was made in paragraph 97 of the report on the accounts for 1953-54 to a scheme for the erection of 88 houses for married soldiers on a site owned by the Department adjacent to a military barracks in Dublin. The erection of the houses, which was carried out by direct labour under the supervision of the Corps of Engineers, was completed in the year under review. Each dwelling has a floor area of 800 square feet, and the cost, exclusive of the cost of supervision and overheads, amounted to £131,119, viz:—
Linoleum and curtains were provided for the houses at a cost of £3,113, making the total expenditure on the scheme £134,232.” Have you any observation to make on that, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I understand that the houses are of the three-bedroom type and conform generally to the standards adopted by local authorities as approved by the Department of Local Government for houses erected under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. I have no information regarding the comparative costs. 107. Chairman. — Have you any idea, General, of the relative cost of erecting these houses as compared with the average cost incurred by the local authorities to erect similar houses?—That question was not put to us. When the houses were opened I remember the City Manager said that the cost of their erection was considerably cheaper than the cost at which they could build them. The Corps of Engineers built them by direct labour. Deputy Haughey. — How much were they per house? Chairman. — The cost worked out at about £1,500 per house?—Yes. Deputy Haughey. — The Corporation erect their dwellings at about £1,100. Deputy Lynch.—It works out at something like the rate for house building in the local authority of which I am a member. It is something less than £2 per square foot. 108. Chairman.—Might we ask you to inquire from the Department of Local Government whether they have any information regarding the comparative cost? Would you let us have a note on that?—Certainly.* 109. If there is no other question on that paragraph, let us turn to paragraph 97 which reads:— “Statement of Losses. 97. Losses written off during the year are detailed in a statement appended to the account. The total is made up of:—
The corresponding figures for losses in the previous year were £79 and £9,367. The deficiency of £2,816 noted at item 5 of the Statement of Losses includes £1,579, representing the assessed value of clothing and equipment unrecovered from members of An Fórsa Cosanta Aitiúil who became non-effective in the years 1953 and 1954 or were discharged in the years 1954 and 1955.” Have you anything to add to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have nothing to add. 110. Chairman. — Since there is no further question on that paragraph, let us turn to the Vote itself on page 184. Deputy Booth.—There is a note which says: “Expenditure includes a sum of £8 paid to a contractor in respect of a clerical error made when tendering.” There is a somewhat similar explanation in regard to another subhead. I am not quite clear on the matter. Whose clerical error was it? Chairman.—May I direct the Deputy’s attention to the fact that there is Finance sanction (S.9/13/39) for that. Deputy Booth.—Does that mean that the almighty—— Chairman.—It means that it has probably been pretty closely investigated. Deputy Haughey.—Surely that is not the end of it? If that were so, we could abolish the Committee. Would it be proper to ask whose clerical error it was? Chairman.—Yes. General MacMahon.—The contractor’s staff made a clerical error. Deputy Booth.—The contractor’s staff? So we are paying £8 too little. There seems to be a number of these things on this Vote. 111. Chairman. — I directed the Deputy’s attention to the fact that there is Finance sanction in order to reassure the Deputy that the Department of Finance is unlikely to lean in favour of a contractor. All of us are human and if there was a clerical error and the Department of Finance, after investigation, certifies it is a clerical error and not a material alteration, it is usually pretty good evidence that it is purely a slip?— The tender was still lower than the next lowest tender. Chairman. — I do not want Deputies for a moment to imagine that my occupation involves any suggestion that they are not free to pursue any inquiry here as far as they can do so. That is why General MacMahon has come here. Deputy Booth.—It is not a matter of alteration in the tender figures. Chairman.—I take it that we can presume it was an inadvertent error in the typing of the contract rather than any material alteration?—Definitely, sir. Deputy Haughey.—The Estimate was passed on the basis of a certain tender figure which subsequently transpired to be incorrect. Chairman.—And which came under the general heading of E. and O.E. Deputy Haughey.—Whatever that may mean. Chairman. — Errors and Omissions Excepted. Deputy Haughey.—Whatever that may mean. 112. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead E.—Pay of Officers of Medical Corps, etc.—why was it necessary to incur increased expenditure for the services of civilian medical practitioners? Why was there a slight increase in strength? I think the numbers have been static on the medical side?—It is due to very difficult operations where our Medical Director is satisfied that an outside specialist is required. That occurs sometimes very rarely and sometimes frequently. 113. Chairman.—Certainly, that covers the first part of the note, General. The second part of the note says that it is due to a slight increase in strength and if we look at note B., which deals with the marriage allowance, we see the average strength was below that — the average strength in the Army. There is an increase in the number of medical officers and there is a reduced number in the ranks? — The position is that medical officers were below strength the previous year and were brought up to strength. In other words, an additional Army man was appointed. Deputy Sheldon.—It is related to the deduction which you made in the Estimate. In fact, you were not able to deduct as much from the gross estimate? —That is correct. 114. Deputy Haughey.—With regard to subhead M.—Clothing and Equipment— I suppose it is not our function to inquire into the note? Chairman.—Yes. Deputy Haughey.—There is a very substantial deduction in the amount of the Estimate?—I should like to explain that the Post Office purchase our uniforms and uniform cloth and the makers of the cloth were not able to deliver it in time. It was something outside our control. The makers of the cloth were not in a position to deliver?—To the Post Office. 115. Deputy Brennan. — Was all the cloth supplied of Irish manufacture?— Yes. 116. Deputy Haughey.—I merely want to confirm that the reason was that the suppliers were unable to deliver?—That is correct. Does this include F.C.A. uniforms also?—Yes. And other items of clothing?—That is correct. Is the reduction due entirely to uniform clothing? The note seems to infer that that is so?—It was the suppliers of the cloth who were to blame and not the tailor. 117. Deputy Haughey.—Is it in order for me to ask if any action has been taken about this non-delivery of the cloth? Chairman.—Did the failure to supply the cloth inspire you to take any action against the contractor, or was the non-delivery something for which they were blameless? — That happens quite frequently. We are not in touch with the makers at all. As I have explained, that is the function of the Post Office. We made representations to the Post Office and they took the matter up with the manufacturer. But the Post Office pointed out, too, that this is a very common occurrence. It has happened previously, unfortunately. The manufacturers will not guarantee that they will deliver on a particular date. You may order material for, say, the financial year and place the order early in the year, and you may not get some of it until late in the year or early in the following year. Deputy Haughey.—I had the experience at the other end of the scale of looking for F.C.A. uniforms and not being able to get them. Deputy Jones.—Like Deputy Haughey, I also had experience at the other end in connection with the shortage of F.C.A. uniforms. The explanation seems to be that the Post Office people let the contractor off rather lightly on this issue? 118. Deputy Sheldon. — Are F.C.A. uniforms included in this? Deputy Haughey.—They are. Deputy Sheldon. — They do not appear to be in the Estimate: Uniform Clothing for N.C.O.s and Privates of the Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force (First Line). Chairman. — Would this include cloth used in the manufacture of F.C.A. uniforms?—No. This is the Regular Army uniforms we are discussing at the moment. The other comes in down further. So that, in so far as this cloth was concerned, it related only to Regular Army uniforms?—That is correct. The same contractor supplies both. Very often it is the same material. Those we are discussing now are Regular Army uniforms. I would like to explain that, if the Post Office are too rigid with these people, they pay for it. They will increase their tenders if there is not a little bit of give and take. That is the explanation the Post Office gives when we ask could they not take any action against them: they say it will not pay in the long run. There must be give and take. 119. Deputy Haughey.—It seems extraordinary. Deputy Sheldon.—A nice comment on our industrial programme. Deputy Lynch.— We would scream to high Heaven if the Post Office took the bit in their mouth and said: “We will buy this cloth elsewhere.” There would be an immediate outcry if they went elsewhere. Deputy Haughey.—Still, it must be a profitable business for somebody and a substantial amount of business for somebody. Deputy Lynch.—It is a wonderful contract to have. General MacMahon. — They give the material cheaper because they manufacture it at a slack time. Chairman.—I think it is to be borne in mind, is it not, that if the cloth were not delivered until 10th April, this note would have to appear?—That is correct. It does not necessarily mean that there was any dramatic delay in the delivery of the cloth?—That is correct. Chairman.—If there is no further question on that subhead, we will pass on then. 120. Deputy Booth.—Under subhead P., the expenditure includes £6 paid to a contractor in respect of goods received in an unserviceable condition. Could we have some explanation as to why the contractor was paid for goods received in an unserviceable condition?—I am afraid I have not got the particulars of that here. I will send a note about it.* 121. Deputy Sheldon.—Under subhead P.1 there is a note that vehicles, stores and equipment were not purchased to the extent proposed. Was that a matter of policy?—It was a matter of policy. 122. Deputy Sheldon.—Under subhead Q. we have this matter of stores ordered, but not delivered, amounting to a sum of £6,420. This occurs on several subheads. Were those stores in addition to the deduction made in the Estimate of £15,000 in respect of stores ordered but not delivered during the financial year?— In addition, yes. And the same would apply on the other subheads?—That is correct. 123. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead R., Mr. Chairman, I wonder what happened in this fuel oil business. The provision in this particular year was much higher than in the year before. Apparently whatever was anticipated did not happen. The previous Estimate was £500 and then in this particular year the Estimate was £1,831. It sounds very precise but, in fact, there was a saving of £1,200 so that the Estimate appears to have been roughly back to the original position. For what would this fuel oil be used? Chairman.—Where do you use fuel oil in the Army?—We use it in connection with heating. It is used mostly in heating plants. 124. Deputy Sheldon.—May I take it then you had anticipated putting in more of these in some places and did not in fact do so?—I do not think it was quite that. It looks as if you rather had anticipated an increase of £1,300 in the amount you spent and, in fact, you did not spend that amount at all?—It is a very difficult figure to estimate correctly. For instance, the F.C.A., may be allowed to come up in the winter time and, if they do, then more light and more fuel are used. That is something one cannot estimate accurately. I appreciate that. Fuel oils are separated in the Estimate from fuel, light and water. It looked as if some change in the use of fuel oil was anticipated and, from the accounts now, it would look as if that change did not in fact take place. I am just wondering what the change was?—It is quite possible, but it is only a guess, that we anticipated that the price would go up and it did not go up. Fuel oil is used in connection with heating and cooking. If you want the exact reason we will find out for you and send you a note. Chairman.—Perhaps you would be kind enough to give us a note on that.* You will observe that it relates actually to the provision in the original Estimate where subhead R.2 was increased from £500 to £1,831, of which sum £1,241 was not spent. If no queries arise on the next subheads we shall pass on then to subhead X.3. 125. Did the Irish Red Cross Society not want their grant?—Certain refugees were due to come to this country, but they have not yet arrived. They will be coming, I think, next year. They are White Russians. Provision was made for their reception, but delays occurred. 126. Deputy Haughey.—May I go back to subhead U.—Compensation. Is it in order to inquire what particular cases were involved? Chairman.—What are the particular cases in respect of subhead U.?—These are mostly compensation in the case of motor accidents. Deputy Haughey.—You could not give us any further particulars? Chairman.—Oh, yes. If the Deputy would like a schedule of each of the payments made, General MacMahon will have it prepared for him? Gen. MacMahon. — Certainly, Mr. Chairman.** 127. Deputy Booth.—With reference to (2) of the Appropriations in Aid, the sale of surplus land was estimated to realise £25,000 but the sale of land was not effected. Was it subsequently effected or had that been abandoned? Chairman.—If you look at item (2) in the Appropriations in Aid, there was an estimated £25,000 in respect of the sale of surplus land. Gen. MacMahon.—It has been since transferred to the Land Commission. The Land Commission took it over. Chairman. — And you will, in due course, show an Appropriation in Aid in your Vote in respect of that transfer?— We will, yes, in next year’s Vote. 128. Do you recall what land this was? —In acquiring lands for runways at Baldonnel, it was necessary to take a whole farm. We could not acquire it otherwise. We then had to dispose of any land that was surplus. We proposed to sell it but the Land Commission took it over. They said they would like to have it and we arranged to let them have it. 129. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer, is this not a continuing sum, this commission that is collected on insurance premiums? I am wondering why it is treated as an Exchequer Extra Receipt rather than an Appropriation in Aid. Chairman.—Can you help us, Mr. Ó Cadhla? This is a highly technical accounting question. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I cannot see any reason why it should not be treated as an Appropriation in Aid. Chairman.—Do you recall, General MacMahon, why it was not treated as an Appropriation in Aid?—No, it has been so treated since the start of the scheme. Perhaps your accountant would have a word with the Comptroller and Auditor General to see if this procedure should be revised?—Is there any purpose in revising it? None that I know of but then I do not profess to have Mr. Ó Cadhla’s expertise. No harm can be done if your accountant has a word with the Comptroller and Auditor General?—Definitely not and if Mr. Ó Cadhla wants it altered, we will alter it. Chairman. — Will that meet the question, Deputy Sheldon? Deputy Sheldon.—Certainly. 130. Deputy Haughey. — Why is not this commission given back to the officers concerned? It would appear to be rather mean. Chairman.—Deputy Haughey inquires why do you not give this commission on these insurance premiums to the officers concerned. Gen. MacMahon.—Because we have to employ staff to collect this money and pay it to the insurance company. Naturally, we have to recover the cost of that. In my opinion, it is a reasonable thing to do but, in any case, we have no option. It is a direction from the Department of Finance. They would not agree to the arrangement unless that commission was paid. 130a. Deputy Sheldon. — Is it Department of Defence staff who handle this?— Yes. We collect it from the officers’ pay and forward it to the insurance concerns and the Department of Finance lay down a charge for that work. Deputy Sheldon.—If the Department of Defence is at the expense, that makes it more clear that they ought to get it in an Appropriation in Aid rather than an Exchequer Extra Receipt. 131. Chairman.—Let us follow each hare as it starts. Deputy Haughey wants it clarified as to why the officers do not get this commission back. The accounting officer says that there is a charge on the Department in collecting this money for the convenience of the officers concerned. Deputy Haughey. — At whose request was this collection of insurance premiums from the officers first undertaken?—The officers’. We were not anxious to do it at all. The officers asked to have this done. They found that it is done in the case of civil servants and they wanted similar facilities and got the facilities. 132. Does the deduction of commission apply in the case of the other civil servants?—Oh, yes, but it does not come under our Vote. I do not see it in any of the other subheads. I mean, do the other Departments hold on to the commission as you do?—I am sorry. There is no commission in the case of civil servants, I gather. This scheme was put forward by the Army itself. It was favourably considered in the Department and we asked the Department of Finance for sanction and they sanctioned it on condition that this commission be charged. 133. Deputy Booth.—Is that commission payable by the insurance company or by the officers—presumably by the insurance company? Chairman.—Although I know General MacMahon is not the accounting officer for the Garda Síochána, there would appear to be a similar scheme for the Garda Síochána with similar commission collected, amounting in that case to £698. Deputy Haughey.—As long as the officers are aware that the Department is getting this commission, I suppose there is nothing to be said. Gen. Mac Mahon.—As far as the officers are concerned, it is absolutely voluntary and was introduced at their request. Deputy Haughey. — I appreciate that, but they are aware of the fact that this commission is payable to the Department?—Before the scheme was put into operation they were aware of it. 134. Chairman.—And in respect of the second element of this query, Deputy Sheldon, the General has arranged that his accountant will discuss the matter with the Comptroller and Auditor General as to whether this ought to be an Appropriation in Aid or an Extra Exchequer Receipt. 135. Deputy Booth. — With regard to the note about extra remuneration, on page 191, two Army officers received allowances of £224 each for performing the duties of Aides-de-Camp to the President, and so on. Are those personal allowances payable to the officers concerned or is there a deduction from their ordinary pay? Chairman. — Are these allowances in addition to their ordinary pay?— Additional, Mr. Chairman. 136. Deputy Booth.—How do they come in under this Vote? Is that just a matter of information? Chairman.—In the case of all civil servants or public servants receiving remuneration in addition to that ordinarily provided under the Vote, there is a note appended to that Vote setting out the amount of the extra remuneration. Deputy Booth.—But it is not included in the Vote at all. 137. Chairman.—Is this supplementary payment charged to your Vote or to the President’s Establishment?—In the case of the A.D.Cs. to the President, to the President’s Establishment; in the case of the A.D.C. to the Taoiseach, the Department of the Taoiseach. Chairman.—You will find, Deputy Booth, provision in the Vote for the President’s Establishment for these two officers and, as the General says, in the Vote for the Department of the Taoiseach for the A.D.C. to the Taoiseach. 138. Chairman. — I should like to ask General MacMahon one question which really applies to the Army. I had a case recently in which a fellow wanted to join the Army but had not the money to pay his fare and he was told that if he would pay his fare it would be refunded to him if he was accepted?—That is correct. But there is no means of getting him a warrant?—No. You can see the difficulty, Mr. Chairman, that would be involved there. A man might like to get a trip to Dublin and might be completely ineligible and if he got a warrant and came to Dublin we might hear no more about it. Therefore, we have to arrange for repayment of his expenses when he is accepted. Chairman.—That explains it. VOTE 57—ARMY PENSIONS.Lieutenant-General P. MacMahon further examined.139. Deputy Lynch.—With regard to subhead I., when a pension has been granted, I take it there can be no further review of that pension, that it must always be paid until the man dies?—In the case of a military service pension? Yes?—Under existing legislation, that is correct. 140. Even if it became known that he had not the kind of service he was supposed to have had?—If the Minister had proof of that, he could have the case reopened. He has had cases reopened. Allegations were made that pensions were wrongfully granted and various Ministers attempted to get evidence to that effect but were not able to get it. People who make loose statements like that, when asked to give proof, refuse to give proof. It has happened hundreds of times. 141. Deputy Lynch.—In the case I have in mind, it was not a matter of a loose statement. Evidently, something was loose when the pension was granted. I have no actual record of this man’s service. People who are not even political supporters of mine have come to me. These men, beyond all doubt, had great service. I remember it being said when I was a boy in regard to two of them that they had a season ticket to Mountjoy, they were arrested by the Black and Tans so often. I have the greatest respect for these two men. One went inside his counter and the other to his work bench and still remained Volunteers. It was they who made the complaint to me. I wanted to ask that question for their benefit. They can take whatever action they like, I am sure. I would like to emphasise, Mr. Chairman, that my statement was not loosely made. Gen. MacMahon.—Have you reported the particular case yet to us, Deputy? Deputy Lynch.—I have not reported the case. It was they who asked me. I will not report cases until I know for certain. Why should I report cases when I was not in the movement and did not know? I have got many complaints like this from various people but when I got a complaint from two men of the standing of these two, I said I did not think anything could be done and they asked me to make inquiries and that is what I am doing. Chairman. — If written proof is presented to the Minister that fraud was employed to secure a pension, in such a case the case can be reopened and reviewed?—It would be. But the proof must be of a substantial character?—That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Lynch.—That is the information I want. 142. Deputy Brennan.—With regard to subhead K., under what circumstances are expenses payable to applicants for attendance? I did not think applicants were allowed any expenses?—In the case of disability pensions the expenses are paid. In the case of a military service pension applicants have to come at their own expense. In disability cases, I do not think the expenses are paid in all cases?—If a man is called up to St. Bricin’s Hospital to be medically examined, he gets a warrant for his journey up and his journey back and he is maintained while in St. Bricin’s —always. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
