|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 13 Samhain, 1958.Thursday, 13th November, 1958.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY DILLON in the chair. Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) called and examined.VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called and examined.1. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead A., does the excess arise from the fact that a Parliamentary Secretary was done away with? Chairman.—In the Houses of the Oireachtas? Deputy Sheldon.—The post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Government was abolished and I presume then that for part of the year anyway there was no salary? Mr. Whitaker.—That saving appears on the Vote for the Department of the Taoiseach. I know, but the excess here looks as if a Deputy more than had been expected had turned up?—It has the obverse effect of producing a deficit on this subhead. Deputy Sheldon.—The fact is that the amount is less than half a Deputy’s annual allowance. Surely the abolition of the post of Parliamentary Secretary to the Government would have come early in the financial year so that one would have expected a greater excess really. Chairman.—You forget that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government turned up again, I think, in the Seanad. Mr. Whitaker.—In this subhead, of course, we deal only with the Members of the Dáil. A variation could be due to some Deputy turning up in a by-election and therefore appearing for only part of the year. Deputy Sheldon.—When you see a subhead estimated at £80,801 it looks very precise and any variation in the way of excess in this type of subhead looks odd? —If the Committee wishes to have a detailed explanation I will send in a note.* Chairman.—Perhaps that would be the best course. 2. Deputy Brennan.—Under subhead J., the note says the excess arose from the payment of retirement gratuities to certain members of the restaurant staff. I did not think any members of the restaurant staff had retired. Chairman.—I think, Mr. Whitaker, the Clerk to the Committee, who is also Clerk to the Joint Restaurant Committee, may be able to help us here, if you will accept his assistance. Mr. Whitaker.—With great pleasure. Clerk to the Committee.—Two members of the kitchen staff retired during the financial year in question. VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.3. Deputy Jones.—With regard to subhead A., the amount was less by £10,195. Under subhead E., the note says that the provision for additional assistance was not required. Was there something contemplated that did not actually happen? Subheads A. and E. seem to be in some degree related. Was the surplus under subhead E. due to some inquiry which had been in contemplation but not actually undertaken?—Taking subhead E. first, if I may, the saving there was due mainly to a reduction in the staff engaged on a costing inquiry, the National Farm Survey. During that year it was necessary to withdraw from the Central Statistics Office a number of Post Office clerks who had been on loan to the Central Statistics Office for the purpose of that inquiry and the Central Statistics Office was able to continue the inquiry on a somewhat restricted scale by squeezing extra help from its own staff. That accounts for £6,500 odd of the saving of £6,931 on subhead E. To go back now to subhead A., there is a note which explains in general terms how the saving arose. To be more specific, a substantial part of it was due to the suppression of posts of Deputy Director and Administrative Officer and to the existence of a vacancy for part of the year in a post of Statistician. This arose from the retirement of Dr. Geary from the directorship. We added to the saving by forbidding overtime during the year. That was part of a general economy drive in the Civil Service as a whole. Chairman.—Does that cover your inquiry? Deputy Jones.—Yes. 4. Deputy Sheldon.—With reference to one remark Mr. Whitaker made, about ceasing to use Post Office clerks, is it the normal practice to provide in the Estimate for them?—Yes. Would the normal practice not be, on transfer of staff from one Department to another, to put a note saying that so much was due to payment of staff from another Department?—The rule we have is that where the loan is for less than six months the lending Department continues to bear the expense. Where it is intended to be for longer than six months the borrowing Department has to bear it. In this case it was the Central Statistics Office which bore the charge for the salaries of the officers on loan to it. VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.5. Deputy Booth.—On subhead B., travelling expenses, is it not rather an unusual excess? It is stated to be due to journeys abroad not anticipated. Has it something to do with the Monetary Fund or the World Bank, or something of that nature?—There were a number of reasons for it in this year. One was that we had to make a journey to Washington for the World Bank and Monetary Fund meeting which involved us in some expense not recoverable from these institutions. Another reason is that because of the frequency of the meetings in relation to the Free Trade Area in Paris quite a number of journeys to Paris had to be made by an officer of our Department. Chairman.—Does that explain the matter, Deputy? Deputy Booth.—Yes. 6. Chairman.—On subhead G.—Appropriations in Aid—are the expenses of management of the Local Loans Fund borne on the Vote of the Minister for Local Government?—What happens is that the Local Loans Fund itself has to contribute to us from its own income whatever we assess to be the expenses of management. VOTE 11—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.7. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead D.— Appropriations in Aid—is item 2 a continuation of a process that began a year or two earlier of cutting down on the type of analysis that had been made?— We reduced the recovery which we insist upon from local authorities, having reviewed the matter a year or so ago. It is now down to £150 per annum and we do not think it is necessary just yet to review it again. VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 14—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAION.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.8. Chairman.—On this Vote there is a paragraph by the Comptroller and Auditor General on page xiv. Paragraph 27 reads as follows:— “Subhead I.—Commissions and Inquiries not Specifically Provided for 27. A secretary of a Committee of Inquiry was paid 500 guineas as honorarium for secretarial duties over a number of years and fee as consultant-assistant in the future drafting of proposed legislation. The original appointment was in an honorary capacity and specific provision was not included in the estimate for the payment of an honorarium. The Public Accounts Committee in paragraph 8 of their report dated February 1928, commented on a somewhat similar case and recommended that payments for what purports to be unpaid and voluntary work should be brought to the notice of the Dáil.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In deference to the wishes of the Committee, as expressed in their 1928 Report, I brought this matter to notice. But having regard to the fact that the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry extended over seven years, and to the amount of work involved, I certainly do not consider the amount of the honorarium unreasonable. 9. Chairman.—The amount of the honorarium is 500 guineas. What is the committee referred to and is it still in existence?—It is the Company Law Reform Committee which, as the Comptroller and Auditor General has said, sat for quite a long time and whose field of reference was very technical. The secretary of the committee was, in fact, an eminent barrister, experienced in company law, and it was considered that the writing of the report of the committee involved highly technical work of a professional kind for which he should be remunerated. Also, he acted, after the committee had reported, as assistant in the drafting of the consequent legislation. The honorarium paid was 500 guineas. Deputy Sheldon.—It accounted for almost all the expenditure of the committee, which was only £686?—Yes. I should add, Mr. Chairman, that we regret having overlooked the terms of the report of 30 years ago. It was a case of Homer nodding. We should have noted this in the Appropriation Account. Chairman.—How greatly blessed we are in having a second Homer in our Comptroller and Auditor General, who never forgets. If there is no other question on the paragraph, for which we are obliged to him, we can turn to the Vote itself. 10. Deputy Booth.—On subhead A.1, was not there a recommendation from us previously that we should have some general report on the work of the Irish Manuscripts Commission? Chairman.—I do not think we have got that far yet. When we get down there, we will deal with that. It was the Irish Place Names Commission, I think. With reference to the Civil Service (Compensation) Board, is this a relic of Article X of the Treaty?—Yes. It rarely has to meet now because most of the people involved have passed out of our ken. 11. With reference to subhead D., there is, apart from the Savings Committee, I think, Mr. Whitaker, a Savings Committee which has its own expenses, is there not?—I think this is the Savings Committee that you have in mind; there is only the one. Of which General Costelloe was at one time chairman?—Yes, and of which Mr. Laurie is chairman now. They apparently have not engaged in any very extensive advertising?—I should explain that the advertising expenses in connection with savings are borne mainly on the Post Office Savings Bank Account. The Committee is brought in to advise how best the money might be spent, but the money itself is allocated as part of the expenses of the Post Office Savings Bank. 12. On subhead H., has the Commission on Income Tax reported yet, Mr. Whitaker?—No, Sir. 13. On subhead I., has the Committee on the Accommodation Needs of Constituent Colleges of the National University of Ireland yet reported?—I know it has not yet finally reported. I think it has presented an interim report. But it is still in existence?—It is still in existence. It has reported on one of the colleges, University College, Dublin, but not on the other colleges coming within its purview. 14. Deputy Booth.—I observe in the Note on page 37 and also on page 38 there is reference to the Metric System and Decimal Coinage Committee and a sum of £25 in respect of remuneration of staff lent, without repayment. Without being rude, may I ask is that committee actually doing anything or is it in existence or what is it doing?—The position is that it is in existence but has not yet furnished a report. I made inquiries about it before coming to the Committee and I gather that it has met very infrequently in the last few years. Would it be within our province to ask for information? There has been expenditure so far of £2,048. The Committee was appointed in the year 1952/53. I know that in the telephone directory there is a special telephone number for the Decimal Coinage Committee and it might be of interest to know that a friend of mine, out of sheer lunacy, rang the number and asked to speak to the secretary, which caused an enormous amount of confusion at the other end because nobody could think what secretary he was looking for and after a long pause he was informed that the secretary was out. It seems that the committee is technically in existence but I wonder is it doing anything and, if not, could we have some information as to why? Chairman.—Perhaps, Mr. Whitaker, you would let us have a note at your convenience as to what we have received to date in respect of the outlay of £2,048? —I think I can answer that right away, Sir. This outlay represents the apportionment to the Committee of part of the cost of an officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce. During the period when the Committee was actively investigating its terms of reference, that is, 1953/54 and 1954/55, roughly 60 per cent. of the salary of this officer was attributed to the work of the Committee. That put a sum of £944 against the Committee in 1953/54 and £800 in 1954/55. Since then the amount attributed to it in respect of this officer’s work has been very small. That would suggest that the Committee was active in the period 1953/54 and 1954/55 and has not been very active since. 15. Would you think that when a committee becomes virtually dormant in this way some steps might be taken either to wind it up or require it to take urgent steps to complete its duty?—I have noted the matter as a result of these inquiries, Sir. Deputy Carty.—If you wound it up you might get it going again. Chairman.—Then, perhaps, in due course, you will let us know the ultimate destiny of that Committee—Very good, Sir.* Deputy Booth.—Mr. Whitaker appears to be ahead of us, as usual. Deputy Carty.—It is a recurring decimal. 16. Chairman.—Before we turn to the next Vote, Mr. Whitaker, I would like to turn back for a moment to these Commissions and Special Inquiries. Is there a periodic review of what these Commissions are doing, with a view to determining whether they should be continued or asked to wind up?—The Departments mainly interested in these Committees and Commissions do take an interest in what is going on, but I should not like to say that there is a systematic review. VOTE 16—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 18—SECRET SERVICE.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 19—EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTORAL ACT AND THE JURIES ACT.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 20—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 21—LAW CHARGES.Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.No question. VOTE 23—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.17. Chairman—On subhead C., what exactly is the function of the Cultural Institutions (Grants-in-Aid)?—It covers the grants to three Institutions. One is the Royal Irish Academy, the second is the Royal Irish Academy of Music and the third is the Zoological Society. 18. On subhead E., what is the position in regard to the Derrynane Trust?—The position is that the sum of £1,939, which you see granted, was the balance of the maximum State aid of £5,000 which was agreed upon to help in restoring Derrynane Abbey. The fact that it was not fully paid, that there is £304 left, was due to there not being certificates at the end of 1957-58 covering the completion of the work. You remember that the arrangement was that the State would put up £4 for every £1 put up from private sources, subject to a maximum of £5,000, and subject also to the State being satisfied that the work was well done. As I say, this was the final State contribution towards the £5,000. VOTE 66—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.19. Chairman.—The details are on page 216. Mr. Whitaker.—It might be of interest to the Committee to know that one of the items which, up to this, has appeared pretty regularly in the Contingency Fund Account, namely, Stamp Duty remitted on Deeds for Public Departments, has been made a statutory relief under the 1958 Finance Act and will appear no more as a charge against the Contingency Fund. Chairman.—That is the sum of £526. That is an item which we can salute and bid goodbye to. GENERAL REPORT.Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.20. Chairman.—That disposes of the Votes in respect of which Mr. Whitaker is here and we shall now turn to the eight general paragraphs commencing on page iii of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Paragraph 1 reads as follows:— “1. With the co-operation of the Accounting Officers, who submitted their appropriation accounts to me by 1 June, 1958, I have been enabled to present my report to Dáil Éireann much earlier than in previous years.” Deputy Sheldon.—May I suggest we ought to congratulate the Accounting Officers and the Comptroller and Auditor General on the substance of this paragraph which does make the work of this Committee much easier, seeing that things are very much up to date. Chairman.—I expect it would be in order for the Accounting Officers and the Comptroller and Auditor General to pass a vote of thanks to this Committee for disposing so expeditiously of the Appropriation Accounts submitted. Mr. Whitaker.—I would have much pleasure in joining in such a vote. 21. Chairman.—From that moment of mutual admiration we can turn to the more mundane affairs of paragraph 2. It reads as follows:— “Outturn of the Year (Adjusted to the nearest £) 2. The audited accounts are summarised on page xli. The amount to be surrendered as shown in the summary is £3,612,869 arrived at as follows:—
This represents 3·1 per cent. of the supply grants, approximately the same as in the previous year. The principal savings were:—
In no case has the provision made by Dáil Éireann been exceeded and no excess vote is, therefore, necessary.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Though the total savings are approximately the same as last year the principal savings occurred on different Votes with the one exception of Forestry. 22. Chairman.—How does it arise that there was a saving of £185,555 on the Forestry Vote? Mr. Whitaker.—The saving arose mainly on a subhead which deals with forestry development and maintenance, and it resulted largely from the introduction of new methods. Chairman.—I suppose it would be more appropriate to reserve questions relating to these savings for the Accounting Officers when they appear before us. 23. Chairman.—Paragraph 3 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is in the following terms:— “Exchequer Extra Receipts 3. Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer as recorded in the appropriation accounts amounted to £684,477.” This paragraph is for information, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—The Minister for Finance has accepted the suggestion of the Committee, contained in paragraph 4 of its report, dated 13th June, 1957, regarding the method of accounting for these receipts, and has issued instructions to Accounting Officers to revise their Estimates for 1959-60 accordingly. Mr. Whitaker.—That is to bring to account as Appropriations in Aid odds and ends which were hitherto coming in as extra Exchequer receipts. 24. Chairman.—Paragraph 4 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is also for information. It reads:— “Surrender of Balances on 1956-57 Votes 4. The balances due to be surrendered out of Votes for the public services for 1956-57 amounted to £3,326,969. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered.” 25. Chairman.—We now turn to paragraph 5 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report relating to stock and store accounts. It says:— “Stock and Store Accounts 5. The stock and store accounts of the Departments have been examined. The results are satisfactory, with some exceptions which are referred to in paragraphs relating to the Votes of the Departments concerned.” On this paragraph, the last sentence suggests that detailed examination ought to be reserved for the Accounting Officers concerned. 26. Chairman.—We now turn to paragraph 6 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This reads:— “Foreign Exchange Account 6. The Foreign Exchange Account established under the provisions of Section 49 of the Finance Act, 1941, has been examined for the year ended 31 March, 1958. I certify that, in my opinion, the operations and transactions coming within the purview of such examination have been conducted and effected in accordance with the statutory provisions.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I understand that this account has now been wound up. In accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act—the Finance Act, 1941, Section 49—a final statement of the receipts and payments from the Central Fund will be submitted to the Oireachtas in due course. Chairman.—And the account is now wound up? Mr. Whitaker.—The account is now wound up and the balance remaining in it suitably applied. The advance from the Exchequer has been fully repaid but, as a result of devaluation, there was a surplus in the account which, in accordance with statutory authority, we have placed to the credit of the Saving Certificates Reserve Fund. 27. Chairman.—Will the details of that transaction be communicated to the Oireachtas and, if so, in what form?—In the form of a winding-up account which will be audited in due course. Will it be laid on the Table of the House or will it be communicated to this Committee?—I have not got the reference to the statutory obligations by me but, even if there were no obligation, there would certainly be no objection to laying it on the Table of the House. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I think it has to be presented to each House of the Oireachtas. Chairman.—When is it probable that that presentation will be made? Mr. Whitaker.—It depends on the completion of the audit and printing. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In the course of the coming year—by 31st March next. 28. Chairman.—We now come to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General relating to the National Development Fund. These paragraphs are in the following terms:— “National Development Fund (Winding up) Account 7. As indicated in paragraph 8 of the previous report the National Development Fund was wound up under the provisions of Section 7 of the National Development Fund Act, 1954, and a sum of £2,682,075 (including £31,406 in the hands of Agent Departments) was transferred on 31 March, 1957, to a National Development Fund (Winding up) Account for the discharge of the liabilities of the National Development Fund existing on that day. Issues to Agent Departments in the year amounted to £669,701, viz.:—
The statements appended to the accounts of the relevant Votes indicate the expenditure incurred on the various projects during the year under review. 8. The total expenditure on projects since the establishment of the Fund to 31 March, 1958, was as follows:—
Expenditure on projects carried out by local authorities is examined by Local Government auditors whose certificates are made available to me. In the case of grants issued to the Inland Fisheries Trust, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and An Óige, I have accepted their auditors’ certificates as evidence of the expenditure incurred therefrom. The balance in the Winding up Account at 31 March, 1958, was £1,995,645 (including £14,678 in the hands of agent Departments).” Mr. Ó Cadhla, have you any comments on those paragraphs? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. On paragraphs 7 and 8, which relate to the National Development Fund (Winding up) Account, the total expenditure from the Fund moneys to the 31st March, 1958, amounts to £5,800,000 and approximately £2,000,000 was held to meet the further liabilities of the Fund for projects already approved. Some of the projects referred to in paragraph 8 have been completed and in the other cases, for example, the Special Employment Schemes Office, where these moneys were used to supplement Vote provisions, no allocation was made after the winding up date, 31st March, 1957. 29. Chairman.—The balance in the Winding up Account on the 31st March, 1958, was £1,995,645, including £14,678 in the hands of Agent Departments. What becomes of that balance? Mr. Whitaker.—Pending its being required to meet actual outlay it is invested in Ways and Means Advances to the Exchequer. Is it anticipated that it will all be required ultimately to meet the outlay?— That was the expectation on the 31st March last but I could not answer for the future. 30. I thought that when the Fund has been wound up there would come a time when an account, similar to that envisaged in respect of the Foreign Exchange Account, will be laid on the Table of the House?—I should think that there probably will be a continuation of this form of presentation from year to year. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I do not think there will be any formal presentation but I shall include in my report, at the appropriate time, a complete statement. Chairman.—When the account is finally terminated? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—When the account is wound up. Chairman.—In the meantime, statements similar to those in paragraphs 7 and 8 will continue to be provided? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I shall continue to provide information. The witness withdrew. VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.Mr. R. P. Rice called and examined.31. Chairman.—Paragraph 9 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Revenue Account 9. A test examination of the Revenue Account has been carried out with satisfactory results.” I take it that that is just informative, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes. 32. Chairman.—Paragraph 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “10. The net yield of revenue for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58, under its main heads, is shown in the following statement:—
£96,970,000 (including £2,490,000 in respect of Special Import Levy) was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £2,327,452 outstanding as compared with £2,168,821 at the end of the previous financial year. In accordance with the provision of Section 4 of the Central Fund Act, 1956, the sum of £2,490,000 Special Import Levy was issued out of the Exchequer to the Capital Fund established under that section.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Consequent on Section 62 of the Finance Act, 1958, the special import levies will, as from 1st April, 1958, remain in the Exchequer and will not be issued to the Capital Fund. This Fund has been used for making advances for capital purposes to the E.S.B., Bord na Móna, and in payment for shares in Irish Shipping, Ltd., which were taken up by the Minister for Finance. I understand that the remaining income of the Fund, consisting of dividends and interest arising from the advances made from the Fund will continue to be used for the purpose for which the Fund was set up. 33. Chairman.—It is intended to keep the Fund in existence, using the income from investments for capital purposes, Mr. Rice? Mr. Rice.—I would not be in a position to say “yes” or “no”. I assume that is so, but it does not fall within my province. For the time being, the Fund is being maintained in existence and its income is being made available for such purposes?— So far as I understand. 34. Deputy Booth.—The net yield of revenue for 1957-58 was £97,000,000. Is that the figure which should actually have been paid during that year, which accrued due during that year, as opposed to the £96,970,000 actually paid into the Exchequer? I cannot reconcile the £97,129,567 net yield of revenue and the £96,970,000 paid into the Exchequer and the balance of £2,168,821 outstanding. Did some money come in during 1957-58 which was due in 1956-57? Mr. Rice.—If you look at the Finance Accounts I think you will notice that every year we go out with a small balance and the following year we come in with that balance. The receipts you see here are the amounts that were collected by us. When we collect the money we then pay into the Exchequer. It is not possible, however, to have all the receipts paid into the Exchequer by the end of each year. There is, invariably, a balance which must be carried over to the following year. This continues year after year. You will notice, from the Finance Accounts, that we go in with a certain amount and come out with a certain amount but, approximately, the amount collected there is paid into the Exchequer. In 1957-58 there is a slight difference I think of about £160,000, roughly, which was not paid in during the year. That was due to many reasons. For example, on the last day of the financial year, money is in transit and we just cannot get our hands on it to pay it in. 35. Deputy Sheldon.—The balance that is carried has gradually been getting bigger?—No. I think that if you look back over a period of years you will see it is pretty constant. I think that £160,000 is purely accidental. I think that happened for the reasons I have told you. Generally, there may be a slight increase but normally it is approximately the same. At one time it had been increasing, but, then, if you will remember, part of the balance held in one year was taken into the Exchequer in the following year. 36. Chairman.—Paragraph 11 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “11. I have been furnished with the following statement of outstanding taxes:—
Comparative figures for the previous year are—Income Tax, £10,773,970; Surtax, etc., £3,314,237 and Corporation Profits Tax, £519,242. I understand that the amounts shown under the head of income tax include a considerable number of protective assessments and cases under appeal in which final liability had not been determined.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—There is a slight improvement in the arrears position of income tax and corporation profits tax. There is a considerable improvement in the case of surtax where the arrears have dropped from £3,300,000 to £2,700,000. 37. Deputy Booth.—Is there any explanation of that improvement? I should be glad to know how that was done. Chairman.—I suppose the improvement is due to the superior diligence of the Revenue Commissioners who are constantly vigilant to protect the revenue, Mr. Rice?—I think that would be a good answer. I think, from previous years, it has been made clear by me. Take surtax, as an example. It is shown there to total £2,772,596. That represents, in large part, what we call protective assessments and the great bulk of it will not be collectible tax at all. There is only a small amount that is really collectible. What happened during the year was that some of the old arrears cases were disposed of, thereby reducing the balance from £3,314,237 to £2,773,000. Incidentally, we collected £113,000 up to date, out of that £2,773,000 and discharged £674,000. There was outstanding, last week, just £1,986,000. Of the amount that is outstanding, at the present date, only £267,000 is estimated to be really good money. All the balance is represented by these protective assessments which will be mainly for discharge. Really, looking at the figure of £2,773,000 and taking into account what has been paid since March, 1958, and what has been discharged since that date, the collectible balance is £267,000. 38. Deputy Booth.—It explains the position but I think a false impression is given in the public mind by these figures. I can quite see Mr. Rice’s difficulty that he may be forced to do it. However, I think it puts the Revenue Commissioners in a false light. I think it gives an impression that they were consistently in arrears whereas Mr. Rice’s figure is a very reasonable one. The figure of £2,772,596 gives a completely false impression in a public pronouncement. I do not know whether or not the same applies to income tax. There has been a decrease there. However, judging by paragraph 13 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, I assume that most of the tax written off as irrecoverable was mostly in respect of income tax, or would I be right in that?—The same thing applies. However, it is necessary to show what is legally outstanding at the moment because from time to time, as has been explained here in previous years, we have to make what we call protective assessments, especially when a year is running out of date. In some cases, we have to make very large assessments. I think I explained in a previous year that, in one single case alone, there was technically £1,000,000 outstanding and yet we had got the bulk of the money that was payable in that case. We knew that that £1,000,000 was going to be discharged, but we could not discharge it until the precise figures had been supplied and until the inspector could actually say, “That is for discharge.” So, with income tax, the position is rather the same as with surtax—although the figures are very much larger. Out of the £2,554,000 that you see in respect of income tax outstanding at 2nd June, 1958, Central Collection Office (Dublin General Schedule E) we have collected £224,000 between that date and the present date. We reckon the amount which will be ultimately collectible out of the £2,554,000 will be about £900,000. There will be for discharge £1,654,000 out of that £2,554,000, for the same reasons—— 39. Chairman.—In fact, the collection of revenue is a highly technical operation. Would I be correct in saying to Deputy Booth that part of the function of this Committee is to clarify this matter annually when we have the opportunity of seeing Mr. Rice and asking him these questions relative to protective assessments, which is a highly technical business? It is true that it might be said that these appear to be fictitious figures but, in so far as they are, they are fictitious for a very good purpose, namely, for the purpose of raising protective assessments so that true amounts due may ultimately be collected?—Yes. You will see that there was a lot of writings-off this particular year. Quite a large part of these writings-off are in connection with these estimated assessments that we have to make but in respect of which we found out that profits had not been made or that our estimate was there and that the taxpayer had left the country, and so on. There was no real money there at all. However, we had to make the assessments and, until we had got at some finality, we had to leave the figures in. 40. Deputy Booth.—If we could somehow, through the Revenue Commissioners or through this Committee, give some publicity to that, it would ease the public mind enormously. A lot of people pursued by the Revenue Commissioners say it is not fair that they should be pursued for current tax when there is £2,500,000 lying there which the Revenue Commissioners will not collect, which is completely without any foundation. £900,000 is on any basis a reasonable amount. It reflects great credit on everyone that it should be as low as that. Unfortunately, that never seems to get across. I can see Mr. Rice’s point, that he has got to have the protective assessments. I think the Revenue Commissioners are quite unnecessarily putting themselves in a very bad light. If we could help in any way to get the point I mention across, we should do so. Chairman.—Perhaps, Mr. Rice, you will consider, in conjunction with the Comptroller and Auditor General, incorporating some observations in that annual note referring to the protective assessment element. Mr. Rice.—The paragraph says: “I understand that the amount shown under the head of income tax includes a considerable number of protective assessments and cases under appeal in which final liability had not been determined.” I think that the Comptroller and Auditor General had that in mind. He was really endeavouring to point out to the Committee that a lot of this was dead money. Chairman.—The fact is that this is a matter difficult to explain to the public at large but, doubtless, the Comptroller and Auditor General will bear in mind Deputy Booth’s anxiety. Possibly this concluding paragraph might be re-phrased with a view to making it more cogent to the average person. Deputy Booth.—The paragraph could even be reworded in future to say, under the heading of income tax, there was included a very considerable amount in respect of assessments in cases under appeal. There might be a number of cases without any great amount of money being involved. In actual fact, I do not know nor am I really concerned with how many cases are involved. The actual amount of money is very large indeed. Mr. Ó Cadhla.—We are working towards the position in which we can give a reasonable assessment of the actual position. That is rather difficult at present. Chairman.—I take it that we may hope you will bear in mind Deputy Booth’s view and that if a paragraph of a slightly more exhaustive character could be devised, you will consider incorporating it? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I certainly shall. 41. Deputy Sheldon.—May I suggest that in our Report you will consider including a paragraph indicating our satisfaction with the position? It might receive newspaper publicity. Chairman.—Perhaps the Clerk to the Committee would take a note of the desirability of doing that and we will consider the terms of such a note in consultation with the Chairman and the Comptroller and Auditor General? I take it, Mr. Rice, that you will assist if we ask you to help us in the drafting of a suitable note? In our desire to do full justice to the Revenue Commissioners, we might exceed the limits of discretion. Mr. Rice.—I am very thankful to you for that idea. Things are not really bad. 42. Chairman.—Paragraph 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties 12. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £16,394 and £1,617, respectively, were made during the year. The Customs duties include £3,410 in respect of Special Import Levy.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—These repayments arise mainly as the result of diplomatic concessions. 43. Chairman.—Paragraph 13 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:— “Remissions and Amounts Irrecoverable 13. I have been furnished with schedules of the cases involving a loss of £50 or upwards in which claims for duty under the Revenue Acts were remitted without statutory authority or passed as irrecoverable during the year ended 31 March, 1958. I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results. The total amount £176,217 remitted or passed as irrecoverable was made up as follows:—
The distribution according to the grounds of remission or write-off is:—
Income tax and surtax passed as irrecoverable increased from £7,743 in 1956-57 to £166,499 in the year under review. I understand that the increase is due to an intensive survey of old arrears cases which was carried out during the year.” Mr. Ó Cadhla.—In the majority of the cases of tax being passed as irrecoverable, the responsible parties could not be traced. Chairman.—If there is no other question, we can turn to the Vote itself on page 11. 44. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to subhead K.—Motor Cars for Frontier Patrols—may I preface my remarks by saying that the estimation on this Vote is most remarkably close. There is only a surrender of £2,400 out of a total net estimate of £1,900,000. This led me to wonder if the fact of running too close to estimation had any influence on the decision as to whether or not cars should be bought under subhead K. In fact, if those cars had been bought, the Vote would have been in jeopardy. Does that type of consideration be given? Mr. Rice.—No—not in the slightest. Things work out automatically. There is no question of hiding, contriving or anything of that kind. Deputy Booth.—The amount of the expenditure was within a couple of hundred pounds of the previous Vote. The Estimate for 1956-57 was £8,150. We do not know how much was expended in that period. Deputy Sheldon.—That is precisely why I raised the matter. 45. Chairman.—I see you got Department of Finance sanction for losing £35 worth of sacks. Would it be unreasonable to enquire what you were using the sacks for? Mr. Rice.—We borrowed them from the Post Office. We use them for all kinds of waste and litter and for carrying things from one office to another. We could not return them immediately. Some of them were not of very good quality. They became worn and were destroyed. Others were lost. 46. Deputy Cunningham.—With regard to subhead R.—Customs Co-operation Council—what is the Customs Co-operation Council?—The Customs Co-operation Council is a body which has been set up in Brussels. Virtually every country in Western Europe has a representative there. In fact, there are also representatives from Asia. The idea of the Council is to make things easier in regard to international trade. One of the principal aims is to introduce what is called a Tariff Nomenclature so that people will know what is included in each tariff heading. If, for example, a trader in one country wants to sell goods to another country, he would know exactly where those goods would be classified in the tariff of that other country. The Council tries to make things easier for business generally. 47. Chairman.—Would I be right in believing that the Revenue Commissioners could place at the disposal of the various Government Departments, through this Customs Co-operation Council, information as to the tariff schedules in foreign countries?—That is so but, unfortunately, our own particular tariff is a peculiar one. In the process of time we will have the Irish tariff, revised in the terms of the Nomenclature, circulated amongst traders. It will be available for traders. Each trader in Dublin, by reference to this book, will be able to see how he stands as regards the tariffs in any country using the Nomenclature. 48. Deputy Cunningham.—Is there a report available? Do they have annual reports and, if so, are they available?— I think at the present time they are largely Departmental. This is not a political assembly as such. It is just an assembly of the civil servants of each country who are trying to devise easier Customs methods. They have had some reports of their own but I think only some have been published. I should imagine that in the course of time there will be further publications. 49. Deputy Booth.—Does this Council work entirely on its own or is it a subsidiary of O.E.E.C. or the Council of Europe?—It is not a subsidiary of O.E.E.C. but it does keep in touch with O.E.E.C. and other bodies. It is entirely on its own?—Yes, it is entirely on its own. The suggestion came from O.E.E.C. It is not confined to O.E.E.C.?—No. It extends to other countries besides the European countries?—Yes. The last time I was there I saw a representative from Pakistan. 50. Chairman.—With regard to the amount of £1,950, of which £500 was a contribution towards the expenses of the Council and £1,450, travelling and other expenses arising out of membership, did we have a permanent representative or does a representative just travel to meetings of the Council as required?—Yes. From time to time we have a representative. At the present moment I am not sure whether we have one. Some years ago we had one almost constantly there. He worked with the representatives of the other countries on the Tariff Nomenclature. He is not there at the moment since his particular job is completed. 51. Mr. Cunningham.—Would it be proper for us to ask for a report on the activities of the Council in order to see what actually is going on? Mr. Rice has given us some information. Could we get some report to see whether some service is being produced?—I have not got it very precisely, but if the Committee so desires, I see no reason why I should not send a note to you.* Chairman.—Very well. It would be very acceptable if you could arrange to let us have a note as to what the exact functions of the Council are and what it has done to date?—There are many matters of detail, but I take it you want a general idea? I will give you a note which will give you a proper idea of what has been done and what is about to be done. Chairman.—Your understanding of the Committee’s mind, Mr. Rice, reassures me that any note you may submit will be more than adequate. Mr. Rice.—Thank you, Sir. Chairman.—If there is no other question, then we are very much obliged, Mr. Rice. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. *denotes projects in respect of which expenditure is also borne on the relative votes. † Break-up over the various years not available. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
