|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 31 Deireadh Fómhair, 1957.Thursday, 31st October, 1957.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY DILLON in the chair. Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Mr. P. S. MacGuill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 46—NATIONAL GALLERY.Mr. T. McGreevy called and examined.388. Chairman.—There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor General. On Subhead B.—Purchase and Repair of Pictures (Grant-in-Aid)—what have we acquired in the course of this year?— We have acquired a good deal. There are two small Venetian Panels which Mr. Berenson thought were before A.D. 1400, a portrait of Richard Lalor Sheil, “Abraham and Melchisedech” by Jacob De Wet, who was around Rembrandt’s time, a plaster cast of the bust of Denny Lane. The most important thing we acquired was a picture of “The Scourging at the Pillar” by Jerome Bosch who was entirely unrepresented in the Gallery. Less than a year after getting a picture by his pupil Jan Mandijn we got the Bosch picture at about one tenth of the price the Bosch would be in the international market. On the international market it could have gone to £40,000 and we got it for £2,500. Those are the chief purchases. 389. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer, the figure for the sales of reproductions seems disappointing. There had been an increase for two or three years but there appears to have been a falling off. Has that continued or has the position improved since?—That does seem disappointing but there was a tremendous rush at the beginning, especially for our best known pictures, which has fallen off. There is another thing, however. As long as we have only the premises and staff we have, it will be like that because, unlike any other important Gallery, we have no sales counter and no proper display. I have begged for a turnstile so that we could know how many people were coming in. We lose on attendances because the attendant has to go back into the Porter’s Lodge for these cards. People get tired waiting in a queue to get cards and say they will come back another day. I asked for a turnstile but nothing has been done. We have no adequate record of our attendance or adequate sales of our reproductions and we have not the premises or the staff to cope with our requirements. Deputy Sheldon.—It would appear that, permission having been given originally for these reproductions to be printed, unless provision is made for the selling of them, the original decision to allow them to be reproduced was wrong. It is not very logical. 390. Chairman.—Are you satisfied with the procedures for checking these receipts both from the cloakroom and the sales of reproductions?—I am not saying anything is ideal at the National Gallery but we are doing the best we can. Mr. Ó Cadhla will bear me out that we are making an effort, but the facilities for carrying out our work are not adequate. Chairman.—Have you had an opportunity, Mr. Ó Cadhla, of checking the procedures in regard to cloakroom receipts and sales of reproductions? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. We made some observations and some recommendations. I am not quite sure to what extent our suggestions have been accepted. 391. Chairman.—Could you tell us what recommendations were made? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In connection with the reproductions we recommended that a system of periodical check should be instituted and also that some additional help should be obtained from the Department of Education or elsewhere. Mr. McGreevy.—Those recommendations have been carried out. 392. Chairman.—Is there any stocktaking of these reproductions from time to time?—Yes, there has been one each year in the past two years. Have you any complete catalogue of the contents of the Gallery and of the pictures on loan?—There is the catalogue of 1928 revised in 1932, which is far from complete. Actually I was with the Minister quite recently on a deputation and I pointed out that I doubted whether a full inventory had been made in 50 years and whether now it would be possible with the premises at our disposal because we are choc-a-bloc. You think there is no full inventory of the pictures in the Gallery?—We can trace pretty well everything from registers, old catalogues, and so on, but there is no complete catalogue I could put on the table in front of you now. I published a catalogue of the Italian pictures within the past year. I have prepared a summarised catalogue, that is to say, every picture is listed with the artist’s name, dates, the school he belonged to, and so forth. That is as nearly complete as I can make it without turning the stores upside down to see whether there is something behind the more accessible stocks. All our pictures should be easily accessible in stores. You cannot do it in a lot of Galleries but at the London Gallery you can ask to see any picture in store. There is adequate lighting and there are screens. We have screens but we have lots of pictures stacked against the wall as well and in every corner. 393. Have you a complete record of the pictures lent by you?—I have. I have recently listed the Dáil Éireann pictures and the pictures at Áras an Uachtaráin. Those are about the only ones that are out more or less indefinitely. The others go backward and forward to Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, England and Scotland, but they come back in due time because we may only lend outside where the local authority accepts responsibility. You have a complete record of any pictures that are lent to other Galleries? —Yes. 394. Deputy Sheldon.—Could it be arranged to have a change of pictures in Leinster House, not to have the same ones permanently here?—I am not convinced we are in order in lending you any pictures but, in fact, we took over the pictures here, cleaned them and got proper mounts for some of them before those delegates to the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference came over. I protested when they were coming back that there was practically not an Irish picture amongst them and that it was a very poor show for an Irish Parliament. Practically all the pictures were English and one French. The only Irish ones were two Connemara pictures by Bartholomew Watkins. It should be a matter of pride for an Irish Parliament to have Irish pictures. I spoke to the Captain of the Guard about the possibility of doing something but I would have to get permission from my Board and the Board is always a little nervous as to whether we are within our rights. We count you practically as part of the National Gallery premises. That is the fiction by which we lend you pictures. 395. Chairman.—Do I understand from you that you are not entirely satisfied in your own mind that we have a complete inventory of all the pictures in the Gallery?—Prepared and ready for presentation, that is correct, but we could trace pretty well everything that has ever come to the Gallery if we had the staff, the time and the space. We have not got such an inventory at present, through lack of staff and facilities for compiling it. 396. Deputy Lynch.—Could you give us an idea of the amount of space you would need to have your pictures stored properly so that you would be in a position to do what they do in England, bring down pictures when required? Is there a possibility of such space being made available?—There are gardens attached to the houses at 88 and 89 Merrion Square. Chairman.—The question does arise of additional space to enable you to carry out your work?—It is most urgent to make a proper inventory. Twenty five years ago we were promised an extension of space which was necessary at the time. 397. Deputy Brennan.—Have you a guide book or catalogue for visitors to the Gallery?—As I said earlier we have a complete summary catalogue almost ready and if I had only one month I could make it available. Chairman.—I think what Deputy Brennan’s question means is: is there a guide which a visitor can purchase which would direct him to where each picture is actually on exhibition?—No, but there is one ready for the printer subject to one final revision. It is actually ready. I have the whole list under the 26 letters of the alphabet. 398. Deputy Lynch.—If Crom Cruach came back and offered you your wish, what space would you wish for or where? —You have presented me with a question which would take a little time to reflect on but I could make do with what we have provided we got in addition the space adjoining the Gallery on the north side. We would be doing fairly nicely. We have pictures on exhibition on the ground floor with side lighting as also in the hall. But that is a poor show. All the pictures should have overhead lighting. We have two floors and we hang in double lines. Ordinary people do not notice that we have one above another, but Gallery Directors coming in say we must be pretty badly off for space. In some rooms I put a single line on one side to show that I know that is the way it should be done but on the other side I have pictures one above another. In the National Gallery in Washington they have the size of the picture, the length of the picture and half its own length again before you come to the next one, but Washington has five acres, for the same number of pictures as we have in one quarter of an acre. We have no Andy Mellons?—I should not be surprised if we had. 399. Would you be in favour of loaning pictures that are here in the stores and for which you have not room, to Galleries down the country which would be able to put up the appropriate lighting and spacing, subject to your sanction, say?— If you only ask me as Director of the Gallery I have to answer that I am subject to decisions of my Board. If you ask me as a man I could not be more with you. Chairman.—I do not think we should ask Mr. McGreevy such a question?—I would like any Deputy to come and I could show him the position. 400. Deputy Lynch.—If it were not possible to have the stores extended into the north side of the Gallery—?—And the exhibition rooms as well? Would it do if the Department got you a suitable store within a reasonable distance?—Would staff be provided to look after them? Of course?—That is a poser. I hope Mr. McGreevy understands that this is no carping criticism. I think more attention should be paid to our National Gallery. If you got a store a mile away, a proper store and staff, would that be of assistance to you in preparing an up-to-date inventory?—Technically we should first have to ask the Board’s authority to remove the pictures from the Gallery premises. After that, the question of an inventory would depend on the provision of adequate staff—taking them from Merrion Square should mean getting extra staff. Say the Board agreed and the Minister said he would provide the money and staff would that help to improve the position? —I suppose it would. 401. Chairman.—In regard to the Grant-in-Aid Account, the figures show you had a balance forward of £2,558. Are we to assume that pictures were not available for acquisition—that is, pictures of a desirable character, in view of the fact that the total available money was not expended in the year?—We always try to save. If we had not got the chance of buying the Bosch that remainder would be considerably more. There is a small still life by Gauguin which was purchased in Paris some weeks ago for 104,000 guineas. We used to have £3,000 a year. We were reduced last year to £1,000 but this year it is up to £2,000. That is nothing if we wanted a major masterpiece, unless we get things like a Bosch at a price which is a tenth of the international market price. We try to save and we buy only to fill gaps. If there is a picture going of a type which is adequately represented in the Gallery already we would rather hold on and get something of a type which is inadequately represented. That is why the amount spent varies. That was a rather big year when we spent over £4,000 because our allowance was only £3,000. We had saved a bit and consequently we were able to buy the Bosch and some others as well. Chairman.—Have you any comment on this Vote, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, Mr. Chairman. The witness withdrew. VOTE 38—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.Mr. J. Garvin called and examined.402. Chairman.—There is a paragraph by the Comptroller and Auditor General as follows:— “Subhead I.1.—Contributions towards Housing Loan Charges of Local Authorities. 51. Contributions towards loan charges under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1952 amounted to £1,244,780. Non-statutory contributions in recoupment of additional charges arising from increases in the rates of interest on certain loans advanced from the Local Loans Fund for subsidy housing schemes amounted to £209,883.” Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph is simply informative. The non-statutory contributions referred to apply only to certain loans issued from the Local Loans Fund before the 1st May, 1953. 403. Chairman.—There is a further paragraph as follows:— “Subhead I.2.—Grants under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1952, and under the Housing (Amendment) Acts 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952 and 1954. 52. Section 16 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, empowers the Minister for Local Government, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make to any person erecting or reconstructing a house a grant not exceeding certain limits laid down in the Act. It also provides that a grant shall not be paid under that section and under section 5 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932, in respect of a house. I observed that a grant of £45 paid in 1949 under section 5 of the Act of 1932 was refunded in 1955 and a grant of £275 was subsequently made in respect of the same house. In reply to my inquiry I was informed that it was considered that the refunding of the grant of £45 had removed the barrier to a grant under the 1948 Act. I have asked for the opinion of the Department’s legal adviser regarding the propriety of the grant of £275.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—This paragraph refers to a case in which a grant of £45 was paid to a builder in 1949 in respect of a particular house. The grant conformed with the terms of the 1932 Act. It was refunded in 1955 and a grant of £275 under section 16 of the 1948 Act was issued in lieu. This section prescribes that the Minister may not make grants under it and also a grant under the 1932 Act. The Accounting Officer holds the view that the refunding of the original grant removed the barrier to the later grant. Since there was a possibility of a return of other old grants and the issue of more generous new ones, we pressed the matter further. I asked the Accounting Officer if he would seek the opinion of his legal adviser as to whether the departmental procedure was legally in order, but I have not since heard from him. 404. Chairman.—Can you help us, Mr. Garvin? Mr. Garvin. — The original grant of £45 was paid in 1949 and, of course, the 1948 Act under which a much more generous grant could be made was already in operation. There must have been a mistake on the part of the applicant as to his legal right. The house then came into the occupation of purchasers who made application for a grant under the 1948 Act. Following investigation it was established that the house was erected for these people—two ladies—under a contract entered into prior to the commencement of building and that the grant would be properly payable to the applicants but for the fact that a grant of £45 had been made to the builder under the previous Act. Section 16 of the 1948 Act provides that the Minister shall not make a grant under that section and under previous legislation. It was held, therefore, that if the grant of £45 were refunded the barrier to a grant under the 1948 Act would be removed. The refund was made in January, 1955, and £275 was paid in April, 1955, to the occupiers. Following the request of the Comptroller and Auditor General that the views of our Legal Adviser should be obtained, he was consulted and advised that if the £45 had not been paid these people would have been entitled to a grant under the 1948 Act. He says he regards this as a case in which the £45 was claimed and paid in mistake of the rights of the parties and that to rectify this mistake the Minister was in his opinion entitled to accept the refund of the £45 and to make the appropriate grant under the 1948 Act. 405. Deputy Brennan.—The first grant was in respect of owner occupation and the second in respect of letting? — The first was made to the builder under the 1932 Act and the owner occupation grant was the second one, as the 1948 Act provided for grants to owner occupiers and not to builders. Deputy Carty.—I thought that prior to 1952 no builder could get a grant in respect of a house?—Subsequent to 1948. 406. Deputy Brennan.—Could you tell us when the work commenced?—1949. 407. Deputy Sheldon. — Would Mr. Garvin have any idea from the Department’s files if there are in fact any others in a similar position but where no claim has actually been made? — I am not aware. I could not become aware unless questions were raised on individual cases and they were examined individually. This is asking an opinion which, I suppose, is not quite fair, but the passage of time up to now would clearly mean that it is now less likely that any other claim will arise?—There can be very few such cases, if any. Chairman.—Is there any further comment you wish to make, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No, Mr. Chairman. 408. Mr. Garvin. — I conveyed the Legal Adviser’s opinion to the Comptroller and Auditor General but I think it was sent to him only recently. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I am quite satisfied. 409. Chairman.—Paragraph 53 of the Report is as follows:— “Subhead I.4.—Grants to Local Authorities under the Housing (Amendment) Acts, 1948, 1949 and 1950. 53. Provision is made under this subhead for grants under Section 27 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, to housing authorities providing houses reserved for occupation by persons of a particular class. As stated in a note to the subhead, the provision was not required as it was found possible by the principal housing authority concerned to accommodate the applicants for tenancies of reserved houses, newly-married couples, in other dwellings. £25,250 was paid to the same housing authority from the Vote for the year 1954-55 (subhead I.5) in respect of houses to be reserved for newly-married couples. Of this sum, £13,250 was for houses which were not required for that purpose as alternative accommodation became available and I am informed that steps are being taken to recover this amount.” Have you any comment, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I am informed that the sum of £13,250 referred to in the second part of the paragraph as not required was recovered by deduction from current year grants and will be surrendered to the Exchequer. Chairman. — Does that dispose of the matter? Mr. Ó Cadhla. — That disposes of the matter to my satisfaction. 410. Chairman. — Paragraph 54 of the Report is as follows:— “Subhead L. — Grants to Local Authorities for the Provision of Sanitary Services Works. 54. Grants to local authorities towards the cost of sanitary services works were provided in the Vote for Employment and Emergency Schemes up to 31 March, 1951, after which date provision equivalent to the amount of unissued balances of allocated grants was made in the Vote for Local Government. Department of Finance sanction was obtained in 1949 for the payment to a local authority of a grant of £25,036 being 40 per cent. of the cost, estimated at £62,590, of a sewerage scheme, subject to the condition that if the cost of the work proved less than estimated the grant would be correspondingly reduced. The total cost of the scheme was £60,500 and a grant of £24,200 was accordingly issued, £23,500 being paid in prior years and £700 in the year under review. Contributions amounting to £6,000 had been received by the local authority from parties benefiting by the scheme. As it appeared from the Department of Finance sanction that the State contribution should have been related to the net cost of the work, I have asked that covering sanction be obtained for payment of grants in excess of 40 per cent. of £54,000.” Is there anything you care to add to that note, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The all-in cost of this drainage scheme was £60,500 but certain interested parties contributed £6,000, thereby reducing the cost to £54,500. We took the view that the 40 per cent. State grant should be based on the latter figure rather than the all-in cost. The Accounting Officer took the opposite view and, when we pressed the matter further, the Minister for Finance agreed to accept his point of view and so the matter ends unless the Committee may have any observations to make. 411. Chairman.—Can you help us, Mr. Garvin, in this matter? It is a question as to whether the gross sum or the net sum should be the one on which the grant is to be based. Is not that the net question? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is the net question. Mr. Garvin.—It is very seldom that the question of a private contribution to the cost of a capital scheme of this nature would arise and the facts in this case are, therefore, exceptional, but there is no doubt that sanitary authorities do, in fact, receive contributions of various kinds at one time or another but usually subsequent to the installation of the scheme towards some portion of the cost, and it has never been the practice of the Department of Local Government to take such contributions into account. In fact, they could not take them into account in the first instance because they would not be aware of them when considering the capital cost and the amount of the grant that should be made thereto but, in any event, if the Committee considers the matter closed on the issue of sanction by the Minister for Finance, such a question is not likely to arise again as the grant system as a basis of contribution to sanitary service schemes has now been discontinued and the present system is by way of subsidy on loan charges. 412. Deputy Carty.—What I should like to know is how was this £6,000 received from parties benefiting from the scheme? Chairman.—Could you give us any particulars with regard to that, Mr. Garvin? Mr. Garvin. — I think the local authority must have used its bargaining power with certain industrial undertakings prior to the adoption of the scheme so as to persuade them to make these contributions, owing to the magnitude of the capital cost. We regarded that as a matter between the local authority and the undertakings in question and we accepted the gross capital cost as the proper basis on which to make the grant. 413. Chairman. — Is there any other question? Deputy Booth. — It does seem rather odd to me as a financial arrangement, I must say, because it is adding to their financial receipts; they are getting money back from other parties and we are treating that money as not having been received at all. It is an absolute net profit so far as the local authority is concerned. Chairman.—Without wishing to interrupt you, Deputy, I think that would be a proper line of discussion when we came to consider our draft Report, but at this stage we are primarily concerned to elicit information to enlighten us for our subsequent discussion on the Report. I will ask the Clerk to the Committee to make a note of this so that we may discuss it when considering our Report. Mr. Garvin.—For the assistance of the Committee, may I point out, before the matter is dropped, that a local authority can never make a profit on any of these schemes. The scheme cost £60,500 and the grant was £24,200. 414. Deputy Haughey.—Is not it quite a common practice for a local authority to spend money on water works, sewerage and so on and then recoup a considerable portion of the cost from private developers and other persons?—Yes, I understand that is the practice and we never interfere. 415. Deputy Sheldon.—For the record, am I right in thinking that Mr. Garvin’s point is that it always was customary to have regard to the gross cost?—Yes. It is only in this particular case, where the contribution was relatively high—?— In this particular case it came to the notice of the Comptroller and Auditor General. They are bound to have receipts subsequently, receipts which they are perfectly entitled to obtain, such as, if they do the work of house connections with a scheme they recover from the householders the cost of the connections. It would be very difficult to question the merits. I submit that the merits are all on the side of the local authority. They are entitled to get anything they can. 416. Deputy Carty. — The local authority got 40 per cent. of the £60,000?— It cost £60,500 and they got a grant of £24,200. 417. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Report is as follows:— “Motor Tax Account. 55. A test examination of the Motor Tax Account was carried out with satisfactory results. The certificates and reports of the Local Government auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of local authorities were scrutinised, in so far as they were available, but in five cases this audit had not been completed at the date of my test examination. The gross proceeds of motor vehicle, etc., duties in 1955-56 amounted to £5,099,361 compared with £4,788,396 in the previous year. They include fines amounting to £34,478 collected by the Department of Justice, £5,881 in respect of fees received under the Road Traffic Act (Parts VI and VII) (Fees) Regulations, 1937, and £65,790 received from Government Departments in respect of State-owned vehicles. A statement of the gross and net receipts of the Motor Tax Account and of the payments into the Exchequer appears on pages 6 and 7 of the Finance Accounts, 1955-56.” I observe in that note, Mr. Ó Cadhla, that you mention that in five cases the audit referred to by the Local Government auditors had not been completed at the date of your test examination. Have they since reached you? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I understand the position is now satisfactory; the audit has been completed in these cases. Chairman.—Apart from that, I think the note is purely informative? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes—informative. 418. Chairman.—Was there any undue delay here, Mr. Garvin? Mr. Garvin.—No. We regard the year in which the accounts are to be audited as inevitably the year subsequent to the period in which the expenditure has been incurred. 419. Deputy Sheldon. — In regard to subhead C, I wonder could Mr. Garvin give us some idea of the size of the annual transactions of the Local Authorities Combined Purchasing Section? Mr. Garvin.—It is very considerable and is growing from year to year. It runs into millions. 420. Deputy Sheldon. — Are there set rules laid down for the section as to how they receive and how they determine on tenders and samples? — Very elaborate and rigid rules and subject to the supervision of the Local Supplies Advisory Committee whose members, I must say, are very conscientious. They are very experienced men who have been on the Committee down through the years. The matter is most punctiliously dealt with and anything that is raised on their part is brought to my notice and, if necessary, to the notice of the Minister. In other words, you have an expert on any commodity that is likely to come into the list?—We have, yes,—in addition to the Committee. 421. Chairman. — With regard to subhead G, the difference of £2 between the grant and the expenditure excites my curiosity, Mr. Garvin. How was it that you knew the charge under the Irish Land Act, 1909, Section 11, would be £24,638?—It suggests very close estimating, all right. It is a very old provision and we know to almost the smallest fraction what the disbursement is likely to be. 422. Deputy Haughey. — What is the actual disbursement, Mr. Garvin?— These are provisions for assisting repayment of old loans advanced before the Treaty to housing authorities by the Land Commission of that time. 423. Chairman.—And subhead H? Mr. Garvin.—That is much the same thing. 424. Chairman. — With regard to subhead I.4, I am rather surprised to notice that the Dublin Corporation were in a position to accommodate all the married couples in alternative accommodation because I see every year, Mr. Garvin, a ceremony conducted at the Mansion House at which there is a ballot by which a selected number of married couples who seek housing accommodation are chosen. How is that, if, in fact, the Corporation were able to accommodate all the married couples in alternative accommodation? Deputy Haughey. — In accommodation which has been released by persons who were transferred to other houses. Mr. Garvin.—I think it may have been rather inaccurate to say that it was found possible to accommodate all the applicants. What was meant to be conveyed was that it was found possible to accommodate all those drawn in the lottery who agreed to accept tenancies. Chairman.—There is a distinction, Mr. Garvin. Mr. Garvin.—Of course there is, but the number of newly-weds to be accommodated under this scheme—200—has been determined as a matter of policy by the Dublin Corporation and they are not prepared to go any further than that because their housing effort can be more advantageous in other directions and, therefore, they are satisfied if that number of houses for newly-weds are available to accommodate the new applicants in that way, and no more. 425. Chairman.—Even to the point of turning back a grant of £25,000? Deputy Haughey. — Newly-married couples have families and move out and the houses then become available for new newly-married couples?—They are not at a financial loss in turning down the grant. In fact, they gain because they are subsidised to a higher extent by getting two-thirds of the £1,500 capital cost in subsidy of loan charges rather than the £250 per house given for newly-weds. 426. On subhead M, in future grants will not be made for this sort of thing? You will be subsidising loan charges?— That is correct. 427. How does that work out exactly?— We fix a percentage proportion of the cost to be met by the State in respect of waterworks or sewerage schemes and that proportion of actual disbursements in respect of loan charges every year is met by the State and refunded to the local authority. The local authority borrows the full amount from the Local Loans Fund and repays the annual charge and that particular proportion of the annual charge is paid back to the local authority. Deputy Carty.—In other words, it cuts out the whole capital expenditure?—Yes. 428. Deputy Haughey.—It makes bookkeeping easier, too?—It does. Of course, it could be simplified further, if the local authority did not have to pay back the full loan charge. But that is a statutory responsibility under the Local Loans Fund Act. 429. Chairman.—On subhead P, is that one of the things you have in mind to do some day, but so far you have never got round to doing it?—The token sum of £5 in the account now under review is not characteristic of the provision made for the service in previous years. We did spend a certain amount of money in preliminary work on the revision and codification of Local Government law. The two men who were engaged on that work died about the time of this Estimate. They did a considerable amount of work and what they did has now been referred to the Parliamentary Draftsman’s Office for completion. And will it, do you think, some day emerge?—I expect it will. 430. Deputy Haughey. — On the Appropriations in Aid, in relation to fees paid by local authorities for auditing their accounts, do you make a profit?— We never get the full cost, and we never expect to, because some of the work is done in the interests of the State itself. But in so far as it is regarded as agency work for the local authorities themselves, we try to recover the full cost. The witness withdrew. VOTE 47—LANDS.Mr. T. O’Brien called and examined.431. Chairman. — There is no note by the Comptroller and Auditor General so we can turn to the Vote itself on page 135. Deputy Sheldon.—On page 140, under Extra Remuneration, there is a note that a solicitor and an assistant solicitor received £200 and £100 respectively for the performance of additional duties. The solicitor has something over £2,000 a year. What type of additional duties did he perform which rendered it necessary to pay him some additional remuneration?—About two or three years ago there was a decision in the Supreme Court that at future public hearings of objections and petitions to acquisition and resumption before the Commissioners, the Land Commission would have to present their case in support of the proceedings. The practice had been for the Commissioners to hear only the objector’s case and decide on that, with the Land Commission case undisclosed. The Supreme Court held that to be against the principles of ordinary justice and so the Land Commission must now come in and present their case. Instead of retaining counsel, we asked the solicitor and assistant solicitor to represent us. That was a type of duty over and above what was envisaged for them and they therefore got this extra remuneration for so representing us. 432. Will that be a continuing function? — It has continued now for two years. Would you not consider then, if it is a continuing function, that a revision of salary scale would be a better way?—We sought a revision of salary scale but the Department of Finance thought it would be better to do it in this form in case it might not continue for more than a few years. This, of course, would not affect pension rights?—It would not. 433. Deputy Haughey.—May I ask why learned counsel are not employed?—We find it cheaper not to. Do you find it as effective? — Yes. Solicitors are quite entitled to plead before the Land Commission Court. VOTE 48—FORESTRY.Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.434. Chairman.—On this Vote there is a paragraph by the Comptroller and Auditor General on subhead C. It is as follows:— “Subhead C.2.—Forest Development and Maintenance, etc. 61. Following the winding up of Min Fhéir, Teoranta, approximately 1,500 acres of bog-land in the Bangor Erris area which had been acquired by the company were taken over by the Department of Lands in September, 1955. Experimental work is being carried out to test the possibility of utilising the land for afforestation purposes, and approximately 200 acres were prepared and planted during the year under review (see also paragraphs 31 and 80).” Is there anything you wish to add, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla. — The note is for information. 435. Chairman.—There is a paragraph then on subhead H:— “Subhead H.—Appropriations in Aid. 62. In the course of examination of the records at one of the principal saw-mills it was noted that local sales of timber, which are usually for cash, were in some cases made on a credit basis. It was not possible to check these sales owing to the inadequacy of the local records. As the amounts involved were appreciable, I have inquired as to the authority for granting credit and the method of accounting for sales.” Mr. Ó Cadhla. — I received from the Accounting Officer a satisfactory reply to my inquiry. It appears that the credit sales to which I refer were small in relation to the turnover and have since been discontinued, and there have been no bad debts. 436. Deputy Haughey. — There is a reference here to the inadequacy of the local records. Were records of the sales kept adequately somewhere else? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. That was the point. The records of credit sales were inadequate. Mr. O’Brien.—My information is that the sales were recorded by means of duplicate invoice books. One copy was forwarded to the purchaser with a request for payment and the other copy was retained as a record of the transaction. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—All sales, both credit and cash, were recorded in an invoice book. That was the only record. The credit sales, on further investigation, were found to be very few. I think the practice was of long standing. Mr. O’Brien.—That is so. Before we took over the Cong Estate from the Guinness family there had been a tradition under which they supplied on a credit basis in the district and we continued that practice in order not to upset the local people too much. We supplied only reliable and trustworthy persons. 437. Chairman.—Has the practice now been discontinued?—It has, I am sorry to say. We did not run into any bad debts at all. 438. Deputy Haughey.—I am still a little bit puzzled. The Comptroller and Auditor General says it was not possible to check these sums owing to the inadequacy of the local record. Were they subsequently checked? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No advice was sent to head office of these credit sales until the cash was collected. They were converted into cash sales. Deputy Booth.—So that in actual fact the records were there, but they were not in head office? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. There was just one record. That was the little duplicate invoice. 439. Chairman.—In fact, there were no bad debts and the practice has been discontinued? Mr. O’Brien.—That is right. 440. Chairman.—Am I right in thinking that this practice obtained only in respect of the Cong forest?—That is so. It did not obtain in any other State forest?—No. 441. Chairman.—There is a paragraph from the Comptroller and Auditor General on page xxi:— “Plant and Machinery. 63. Machinery purchased in 1951 for a new sawmill was not installed until 1954 when the premises were completed. It was then discovered that certain parts of an electric motor-starter were missing and it was replaced by a complete new unit at an additional cost of £60. I am in communication with the Accounting Officer on the matter.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I am informed that the machine, together with others, was stored in Portumna from 1951 to January, 1954, when it was transferred to the newly erected sawmill at Cong. It was later discovered that the starter was not complete. The machine had been delivered in a dismantled condition in crates. While every reasonable effort was made to ensure all parts of the machine were supplied in full, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, because of the type of starting gear in question and because of the number of complicated parts of the machine, with which it was supplied, to verify that the entire stock was in fact supplied. In any case, the E.S.B. engineers condemned the particular type of starter and one suitable to them had to be obtained from the Belgian firm which supplied the machine. In the circumstances, the Department of Finance has approved of the write-off of the estimated loss of £20, and there was an additional expense of £15 on carriage. 442. Chairman.—Do you wish to comment on that? Mr. O’Brien.—No, except to say that the reason for the long delay in the installation arose from a tendency to stockpile in anticipation of expected rises in prices, especially of machinery, at the time of the Korean War. 443. Was there any reason why the firm supplying the machine would not provide a proper starter when it transpired that the starter was in fact defective as originally supplied?—The supplying firm held that the starter was the standard form of starter supplied not alone here but in all other countries on the Continent. It was condemned by the E.S.B. as dangerous and they refused to connect the machine. We had no alternative but to get a starter which the E.S.B. would accept. They were the competent technical authority on whom we were relying. 444. Chairman.—Paragraph 64 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “64. It was also noted that three of the eleven woodworking machines installed at this sawmill had not been put into service. The cost of these three machines was approximately £900. I have inquired as to the circumstances in which they were purchased and whether they are adequately safeguarded against deterioration.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The Accounting Officer has informed me that the Department’s Sawmills at Dundrum and Cong were erected and equipped to handle the conversion and seasoning of native timber so as to demonstrate to the timber trade and timber users how native timber, properly seasoned, could be handled and worked and made as attractive as the imported article. They are modern mills equipped with modern machinery. At a local audit carried out at Cong in June of last year it was noticed that three machines purchased in 1951 and installed in 1954 were not being used. The Accounting Officer has informed me that two of the three are now in use but that the horizontal boring machine which cost £172 10 0 is not in use. This is a drill working in a horizontal position, capable of boring holes up to one inch in diameter. It was anticipated that the E.S.B.’s rural electrification scheme would call for large quantities of bored cross-arms and that Cong Mill would meet the Board’s western requirements. For various reasons the Forestry Division has ceased to supply cross-arms to the E.S.B. None was manufactured at Cong. I have no information with regard to the further use of the machine, whether it is contemplated transferring it elsewhere, but I am informed that the other machines are used to meet departmental requirements. Again I have no information as to the extent to which they are used to meet commercial orders. 445. Chairman.—Can you give us any information about any of these three machines? Mr. O’Brien.—The horizontal boring machine was purchased for the purpose of boring cross-arms for the E.S.B. We did anticipate that we would be able to supply them but it transpired that there was a falling off in rural electrification. As well as that, the E.S.B. were very exacting in their standards; they wanted a very high standard of oak, first quality, of which we had very little in stock. We did in fact, manufacture cross-arms for the E.S.B. not from Cong but from Dundrum sawmills. I have been thinking since that the proper thing to do with this machine, seeing that we now have no special use for it, is to sell it. What about the other two?—The other two machines are ordinary mortising and tenoning machines which would be required in any joinery shop. The public usually look for timber in the form of scantlings or in plank form so the machines are not much used for commercial orders, but they are decidedly useful for Departmental requirements in the form of portable forest shelters, tool boxes, and things like that. We do like to encourage trade in the form of sashes, windows, doors, and so on, for which mortising and tenoning machines would be required. We hope to encourage orders in that direction. 446. On subhead C.1.—Acquisition of Land (Grant-in-Aid)—this grant-in-aid is allowed to accumulate?—It is. The surplus is not surrenderable at the end of the year. What is the surplus?—£78,000. 447. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead E.1. —Forestry Education—the saving here is explained in the Note which says that Shelton Abbey Forestry School was not available, but in the Estimate I notice that additional expenditure that was expected by the transfer of the school to Shelton Abbey was £2,000 in that year. It is a little difficult to see how a saving of £4,000 would be explained by an estimated expenditure of £2,000?—I think we failed in that year to get in trainees as early as we anticipated. Even after Kinnity?—Yes. 448. Chairman.—What is the subhead without a letter—Losses?—It is the ordinary losses subhead. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to the losses, how did it get to the point that there were legal costs as mentioned in the fourth note? Mr. O’Brien.—The burning was on a Saturday, the half day. The Department’s men were engaged in burning scrub. They asserted that the fire had been extinguished by the time they quit at one o’clock. Later in the evening the fence of adjoining land was burned and an independent eye-witness said that the forest fire had been the cause of that burning although the distance was about 220 yards away. We were inclined to rely on the evidence of our own men that our burning was not responsible. The adjoining farmer got a solicitor to write and produced the evidence by an independent eye-witness. The independent eye-witness was a county councillor. Chairman.—In view of all these circumstances you felt that settlement of the claim was advisable?—Yes. VOTE 49—GAELTACHT SERVICES.Mr. T. O’Brien further examined.449. Chairman.—Paragraph 65 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “Stores. 65. I have asked for information regarding certain discrepancies disclosed on a stocktaking as at 31 March 1956 of yarn and knitwear at the Dublin depot and the system of store control in operation.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Investigation of the discrepancies referred to did not disclose anything serious and appeared to be due in great part to mispostings of similar materials or designs. Certain aspects of the store control system are still under review by my officers. 450. Chairman.—Paragraph 66 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads: “66. I have also asked to be furnished with the results of the stocktaking as at 31 March 1956 of raw materials and finished goods located at various centres.” Have you received the results, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In certain cases the stocks of raw material carried are fairly considerable. For example the stock of wool held at Kilcar was valued at over £62,000 and materials for toys at Elly Bay, Crolly and Spiddal at over £58,000. Among finished goods the tweed held at Dublin and Kilcar was valued at over £98,000 and toys at Elly Bay and Crolly at over £34,000. From the information furnished to me it would appear that the discrepancies disclosed on stocktaking at various centres were relatively insignificant but the results of stocktaking at certain other centres have not yet been made available—tweed at Dublin, lace and embroidery at three centres, knitwear at Tourmakeady. 451. Chairman.—The stocktaking in respect of the 31st March, 1956, had not been received? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. Mr. O’Brien.—I have a copy of the Auditor’s query and the reply and as far as I can see all the information sought in respect of each centre was supplied. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Tweed at Dublin? Mr. O’Brien.—Yes, tweed at Dublin and Kilcar. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—There has been some misunderstanding. Mr. O’Brien.—It was in the form of finished goods? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. 452. Chairman.—It must be clear either the results of the stocktaking at the 31st March, 1956, in respect of (1) raw materials and (2) finished goods have been delivered to the Comptroller and Auditor General or they have not?—They have. The audit query asked for raw materials and finished goods located at various centres, the Comptroller and Auditor General specifying different materials, wool at Kilcar, linen at Bruckless and Cliffoney, materials for toys at Elly Bay, Crolly and Spiddal. Replies were furnished to all three. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes, we got figures for all three but what I wanted was not the value of stocks but information regarding the investigation of the discrepancies? Mr. O’Brien.—There was a supplementary audit query asking for particulars of discrepancies revealed in the stocktaking to which a reply issued and in the case of linen at Bruckless and Cliffoney— Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Which did not include, as far as I can see, the stocks of tweed at Dublin. Mr. O’Brien.—If there is any information that the Comptroller and Auditor General requires I shall certainly supply it.* Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I think this is a matter which can be settled between the Accounting Officer and myself. 453. Chairman.—The note says that you have asked to be furnished with the result in regard to yarn and knitwear and also with regard to raw materials and finished goods. What I would like to know would be whether the result of the stocktaking has been indicated to your office, Mr. Ó Cadhla in respect of that year. Do we know what the stocks are as of the 31st March, 1956? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—We know what the stocks are. I have not adequate information regarding the discrepancies disclosed at the stocktakings. 454. Chairman.—Are there discrepancies? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I would say that so far as they were brought to light they were insignificant. Deputy Booth.—There are bound to be discrepancies. One can never get one hundred per cent. stock reconciliation. Deputy Haughey.—The result of the stocktaking could mean one of two things. It could mean the actual figures of the stock or it could mean the discrepancies where shown up as a result of having taken the stock. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The actual physical stock compared with the book stock will invariably show discrepancies, little surpluses and deficiencies. In some cases they may be relatively serious and investigation is necessary. 455. Deputy Haughey. — You say you were furnished with the actual stocktaking figures. Are you not then in a position to say whether there are discrepancies or surplus? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—All the discrepancies are disclosed in the statements furnished. 456. Chairman.—May I take it that the result of the physical stocktaking as of the 31st March in respect of (1) raw materials and (2) finished goods has now reached the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Office? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. 457. Chairman.—And it is now a matter of reconciling this physical stocktaking with the books, which contain the additions and subtractions of raw materials and finished goods? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—That is done by the Department. Chairman.—You are satisfied that such discrepancies as have emerged in respect of 31st March, 1956, are relatively insignificant? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—As far as I have seen. They were much less than 5 per cent.; one to two per cent. in the majority of cases. Chairman.—If anything should transpire the attention of the Committee will be drawn to it? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. 458. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead A. could Mr. O’Brien say what type of technical posts were vacant?—On the tweed side there were posts of yarn master, assistant dyer-finisher and tweed supervisor; and on the knitwear side, production manager, factory manager and knitwear instructress. Chairman.—Have they since been filled?—Some have and some have not. We have for years been looking for a production manager and failed to get one. We did succeed once or twice by going outside the country to get a factory manager for Tourmakeady, an Englishman and later a Scotsman, but they stayed only a few weeks. In any case, we are discussing legislation in Dáil Éireann at present designed radically to alter the administration of this concern. I think, Mr. O’Brien, this is the last year you will be Accounting Officer for it?—That is so. Actually it has left the Department of Lands and has gone to the Department of the Gaeltacht. 459. Deputy Sheldon.—I see that one of the toy factory managers was an established paper keeper?—Yes, he had a particular aptitude for the toy business and is making a success of it. Chairman.—The infinite resource of the Irish Civil Service to find a round peg for a round hole. 460. Deputy Brennan.—Under subhead B., Travelling Expenses, to whom in the main are they payable?—Almost entirely to technical officers. In connection with rural industries and marine products?—Yes—and housing inspectors. Would you say this is mainly for travel as between Dublin and the rural centres? —Yes, and between the different centres. Chairman.—There would be some for Gaeltacht housing inspectors travelling through the Gaeltacht?—Yes. There is some foreign travel also as we attend fairs at Frankfurt and Leipzig, the usual international trade fairs. 461. Deputy Brennan. — On subhead D.1., there is a saving due to lack of technical staff. Did that hold up production as well?—It did slightly. In regard to the saving of £3,900 on the toy industry, the fashion was changing from the old type toy, the wood-flour-starch-resin doll being superseded by the cellulose acetate doll and we had to alter the production plant but the new machinery was not delivered until the following year. 462. On subhead D.4., are we using Mona Jet heating systems in all our rural centres now?—We have not been using it so far but we propose to investigate the possibilities and have been in touch with Bord na Móna. Deputy Brennan.—It has proved to be a most economic system and it is used in most institutions now except Gaeltarra Éireann. Chairman. — I understand from Mr. O’Brien that it is under discussion with Bord na Móna. 463. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead D.8., have we agencies in most countries to ascertain the bona fides of customers, as well as for selling?—Yes, we have the usual trade protection associations such as Dun and Bradstreet and they keep us informed of the credit rating of customers. Are there not Gaeltarra Éireann agents for the purpose of selling the product?— Yes. Would they not undertake such inquiries also?—We prefer to rely on the agencies who make it their exclusive business. Deputy Haughey.—Anyway, the selling agent would have to go to such an agent. 464. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead E. there is no note about that £808 of a saving. Deputy Sheldon.—It is less than 5 per cent. Chairman.—Can you tell us the source of that saving?—I have the precise expenditure here. The expenditure on sea rods was £13,096; on seaweed £2,383 and on carrageen £12,408. That was the total expenditure on those items. 465. Deputy Brennan.—There is a loss, of course, on marine products?—There is but that is explainable. The receipts were £20,231 and the outlay was £27,942. Our receipts actually that year were £10,161 on sea rods; £2,721 on seaweed; and £7,349 on carrageen. In addition there was an increase of £9,000 in the debts due to us from our customers—all of which has since been collected. Deputy Brennan.—Very good. 466. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead H., have you worked out exactly what happened as compared with what was forecast? It is a bit shattering to find that the gross receipts were down by £51,347 on the estimate. The commission naturally was down by £5,156 but the wages were actually £11,462 up so that in fact having done £51,000 worth less business the Department had to meet an extra wages bill of £11,000?—These are just the actual receipts within the year. Apart from that, at the end of the year there was about £121,000 due to us from our customers. 467. Could Mr. O’Brien say in making the estimate did he not allow for some money not coming in before the end of the year?—There is a sum of £55,000 down at the end of page 145 as Exchequer Extra Receipts. Generally this Vote is dependent on receipts—about half of it— and there is always a danger that receipts may be slow in coming in. There are four stages—(1) purchase of materials, (2) manufacture, (3) sales and (4) receipts. The receipts come in long after the outlay on materials. This £55,000 is a device to give us a certain reserve in case receipts do not come in in time to be applied as appropriations-in-aid. If they do come in they go as Exchequer Extra Receipts. I appreciate that but the point is that it was estimated that the net receipts would be £338,000?—Less £55,000. I understand now. You take that £55,000 off there?—Yes. Chairman.—Which makes the estimating pretty accurate. Mr. O’Brien.—It was in deference to a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee that we took it from there and put it at the end of the subhead. Deputy Sheldon.—No comment. Chairman.—That was a very tactful description of your procedure, Mr. O’Brien. 468. Deputy Sheldon.—On the question of agents’ commission, which appears to have been estimated at 6 per cent. and in fact was less, 5½ per cent., on the figure here, I take it that that of course would also be affected by the money that had not yet come in?—It would, yes. You do not pay the agent’s commission until you get the rest?—No, in effect. We pay on completion of sales but in cases of bad debts or returns we recover from subsequent commission payments. 469. Chairman.—How many agents share that commission of £30,000, Mr. O’Brien?—Twelve. You have not any vacancies, have you? —No, sir. We have six home agents and six foreign agents. Incidentally, the foreign agents get a good deal more for their sales than the home agents. 470. How much do the six foreign agents get?—For example, on tweed sold in Ireland to the value of £124,987, the commission was £3,885; on tweed sold in Germany to the value of £44,904, the commission was £5,888. 471. Deputy J. Brennan.—The rate at home would be about 2½ per cent.?—That is right. 472. Chairman.—Are the foreign agents Germans and Frenchmen?—Germans. For example the total amount in Germany went to one particular man, named Hufnagl who got £5,888 but he has some sub-agents that he has to pay. Also he has to pay rent of stores and run his own car and pay typists and all the rest. Deputy Haughey.—And the more commission he gets means the more he is selling?—That is right. Deputy T. Lynch.—And he is in a competitive market?—Yes. Deputy Haughey.—The fact that he is getting so much does not terrify me. In fact I am delighted. It shows he is doing his job. Mr. O’Brien.—That is right. Deputy T. Lynch.—It would terrify me if he had a monopoly at home. It is all right to give it to that German who has to go out and sell it against tweeds from all parts of the world that may be sold in Germany but the people who are selling the products of the Gaeltacht Industries here in Ireland are selling them in a protected market. Deputy Haughey.—I do not agree. Deputy Sheldon.—Are there not independent firms selling tweed in this country? Deputy Haughey.—The competition is not as against tweed but as against other textiles. The witness withdrew. VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.Mr. E. F. Suttle called.No question. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
