Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1958 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1956 - 1957

MIONTUAIRISC NA FIANAISE

(Minutes of Evidence)

Déardaoin, 20 Márta, 1958.

Thursday, 20th March, 1958.

The Committee sat at 11 a.m.

Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste) and Miss M. Bhreathnach (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN.

1. Deputy Brennan. — I have great pleasure in proposing that Deputy Dillon, the outgoing Chairman, be re-elected. Speaking for myself, and I think for all other members of the Committee, I believe he has given us absolute satisfaction and we will be pleased to have him for another year.

Deputy Sheldon.—I second that.

Question put, and agreed to.

DEPUTY DILLON took the chair.

Chairman.—I am very much obliged, gentlemen, for proposing me and electing me to the Chair. I am especially grateful to the Deputy who proposed me.

VOTE 1—PRESIDENT’S ESTABLISHMENT.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called and examined.

2. Chairman.—Mr. Whitaker is here to help us with the Finance group of Votes and there are no paragraphs in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to those Votes. I propose to take the Votes and then to return to the General Notes. We will begin with Vote No. 1 on page 2.

Deputy Brennan.—I suppose it is futile to ask how, under subhead A.—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—the expenditure was £176 less than the grant. I suppose it was due to some post on the staff which was not filled for a period of the year?— It is quite a casual amount. I think it is a very close estimate of the total requirement.

In the case of salaries, wages and allowances, is it not possible to estimate accurately? — If there are changes in staff, people may be coming in at a lower point on the scale than those who are going out. These casual irregularities occur.

Deputy Brennan. — It is a very close estimate. Thank you.

VOTE 2—HOUSES OF THE OIREACHTAS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

3. Deputy Sheldon.—Just a general question—this change in which Deputies are described as Members has been occurring for several years. I am wondering why members of Dáil Éireann should not be described as Deputies rather than Members, as Senators are still called Senators. It is slightly illogical. I think possibly Mr. Whitaker is not responsible for the wording of this—it comes from the Oireachtas Office?

Chairman. — They are referred to as Comhaltaí.

Deputy Sheldon. — Why not Teachta Dála?—I cannot say offhand why it is, but I suspect it may be that these are the terms used in the Irish version of the Constitution in reference to members of the Dáil and Seanad.

Deputy Sheldon. — I think the Estimates for 1956-57 were the first ones in which this form appeared.

Chairman.—I suppose we must assume that the pursuit of literary perfectionism proceeds in the Department of Finance and they may have discovered some anachronism and corrected it in the light of the terms of the Constitution.

Mr. Whitaker.—I am advised that the change was proposed by the Dáil Office in putting forward the Estimate. They can claim credit for it.

4. Deputy Sheldon.—In “Extra Receipts payable to Exchequer” there is a sum of £380 for the refund of overpayments, how does that arise?—The money was recovered from Deputies and Senators mainly on account of travelling expenses which had been overclaimed because of a mistake about the horse power rating of motor cars. The basis was changed in 1953 to a cubic capacity rating and some Deputies and Senators had not taken this into account when presenting their claims.

Deputy Sheldon.—I knew that there had been such an item, but I thought it had been cleared up before this year.

VOTE 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE TAOISEACH.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 4—CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

5. Deputy Sheldon. — On subhead E.— Special Statistical Inquiries—in regard to this passenger card inquiry, is there any prospect of an end to it or are they continuing it?—As the Deputy knows, the purpose of it is to acquire statistical information about the expenditure of tourists, both people coming into the country and our own people going abroad. Tourist expenditure, both gross and net, is so important in assessing our balance of payments that it has been thought well to keep on this inquiry so far. How much longer it will go on, or whether it need be as extensive as it has been, are matters on which we will have to be advised by the Central Statistics Office. Up to this, I do not think there has been any over-lavish expenditure, in view of the importance of getting correct information about the balance of payments.

VOTE 6—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 11—MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT STOCKS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 12—STATE LABORATORY.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

6. Deputy Sheldon.—Does the drop in the Estimate for next year on the recovery from the Road Fund of the salary of an officer engaged on analysis of road-making materials reflect the review you made last year? — Yes, following our examination of the present position, we decided to reduce to £150 the amount to be recovered in respect of these examinations. We are keeping the matter under review.

VOTE 13—CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

7. Chairman.—There had been a very protracted delay in the procedure for examining candidates for admission to the Civil Service. Has the procedure in any way been expedited recently?—I was not aware there was a protracted delay.

Chairman. — I remember once seeking to get an assistant librarian into the Department of Agriculture and it took two years. Has your attention ever been directed to the fact that where the Civil Service Commission are seeking to secure eligible candidates, the delay is very long?—I do not think there is any delay in relation to the ordinary general service grades, that is, so far as clerical officers, executive officers and so on are concerned. It is virtually an annual routine to get recruits. There may be delays in relation to special appointments, where particular qualifications are required. There may be difficulty in settling the terms or delay in forming interview boards for examination purposes. If there has been delay in the past I hope we will be able to expedite matters in the future.

Chairman.—I had the strong impression that the procedure was cumbersome and dilatory in the extreme. I will not trouble you to give us any note on that, but I would invite you to enquire from the establishment officers in the Departments what their experience is in securing appointments through the Civil Service Commission.

VOTE 14—AN CHOMHAIRLE EALAÍON.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 15—COMMISSIONS AND SPECIAL INQUIRIES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

8. Chairman.—Could you tell me, Mr. Whitaker, what progress is being made in the work of the Commission on Place Names? — Following a similar enquiry made last year, I sent a note to the Committee about the position and, as far as I know, there is, as yet, no tangible evidence in the form of a published list by the Place Names Commission. They are working on the problem.

Chairman.—I wonder might we trouble you to let us have a further note at your convenience as to whether any progress of a material kind is evident since we last discussed this matter?—Certainly, I will.*

9. Deputy Brennan. — Has the Civil Service (Compensation) Board gone out of existence?—It has virtually come to an end. The Board dealt with applications for compensation arising out of Article 10 of the Treaty and most of the people with any claim to that type of compensation have passed on or retired. There may still be an odd case. I might add that in the Estimates for 1958-59 we have removed any specific provision for this Board.

10. Deputy Brennan.—On subhead G. could we have any information as to what commissions, if any, accounted for this money?—There are details on page 36 of the Appropriation Accounts.

11. Deputy Sheldon.—On this question of the total expenditure which is noted on page 36 on the various commissions, the amounts shown are indicated to be the expenditure from the Vote. Very considerable sums other than these are actually spent by other Departments. Would Mr. Whitaker have any note as to the complete total expenditure on these various commissions? For instance, the Workmen’s Compensation Commission spent £631 from this Vote, but another £1,906 was spent from other Departments in that year, so that the cost of the commission is very much greater than is shown in these notes?—We have tried to deal with that point by putting in a note of the cost incurred in other Departments.

Deputy Sheldon.—But that does not tell one anything about the total expenditure. I have no personal interest in this matter as to whether it might be very important or not. Supposing we discovered that, instead of an expenditure of £22,550 on the Place Names Commission, other Departments’ contributions towards that had been three or four times that amount, the Committee might begin to have more serious views as to the amount of money being spent on that Commission?—I think I can assure you there is no such risk. All Departmental expenditure is noted in the Appropriation Account.

Deputy Sheldon.—I appreciate that. I am not suggesting there is something not noted, but it could happen that most of these accounts could be for £1,000 or more and if they were to get that every year for 10 years, it would amount to £10,000.

Chairman.—In respect of the note, does it refer to total expenditure or does it refer to the expenditure in the financial year referred to by the Appropriations Account?—The financial year.

Chairman. — I think the point which Deputy Sheldon makes is: could we get a total figure in respect of each item referred to in the account? I think the point is that whereas the note tells us, in respect of the year 1956-57, there was a payment of £1,630 in respect of the Savings Committee, we do not know from the note what the total was over the entire period of the Savings Committee, whereas we do know from the item, total expenditure, that the total expenditure up to 31st March, 1957, was £346. Will it be possible to furnish us with a corresponding note giving us the total expenditure up to 31st March, in the relevant year, by other Votes?—Yes. Would you like me to do that by way of special letter to the Committee?*

12. Chairman.—If that would be convenient. If I may revert for a moment to the Place Names Commission, I think you will recollect that your letter to us —which is reproduced in Appendix V of the Committee’s report on the 1955-56 Accounts—on the provision for the Place Names Commission, did not reveal a very substantial corpus of work and yet, when we look to the total expenditure, we find that £22,550 has been laid out on the Commission since its inception. I think a time is coming when our recollections of the proceedings in the Dingle Peninsula become relevant. You remember the case I have in mind, in which very large sums of money were laid out on a dialectic dictionary of the Dingle Peninsula and, at a certain stage, we began to wonder would it ever stop or would we ever get anything from it. I cannot help expressing some anxiety at the expenditure of £22,550 with very little return?—I think I can assure you that we are keeping an eye on this in the Department.

Chairman.—It would be interesting to see the latest report on the progress made in the light of that substantial outlay.

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 AND THE JURIES ACT.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 20—SUPPLEMENTARY AGRICULTURAL GRANTS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

13. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead D.— the note refers to the general level of rates being lower than expected. May I, in comparison with that, point out that in Vote 17, for which Mr. Whitaker is not responsible, Rates on Government Property, a Supplementary Estimate of £25,000 was required because the amount that had been asked for for rates and contributions in lieu of rates on Government Property had been underestimated and local rates had greatly exceeded expectations. The only point is, I am wondering how much of the saving on subhead D. was really to be accounted for by rates being lower and how much by the number of claims for employment allowances being lower. Is there any means of easily ascertaining how much of the saving was due to one of these factors rather than the other?—I have not got sufficient material with me to answer that. My recollection is that the rates being less than expected accounted for most of the saving on the Vote rather than the employment allowances. I can verify that and send a note to the Committee, if you so wish.

Deputy Sheldon. — Perhaps it only means that the Department of Finance——

Deputy S. Browne. — Anticipated something that did not occur.

Deputy Sheldon. ——was not quite so optimistic about rates as the Valuation Office was?—I think there is a better chance of a saving when you have a spread throughout the country as you have in the case of the agricultural grant, rather than in the specific cases that come into Vote 17. The law of averages has a better chance of working when it applies to the whole country.

Deputy Sheldon.—I do not think a note will be necessary.

VOTE 21—LAW CHARGES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 22—UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

14. Chairman.—What actually is subhead A.—National University, £20,000. I see the Estimate simply says a grant for general purposes. I suppose it really is a grant substantially for running Merrion Square as opposed to the several colleges?—I am looking for the statutory basis. It is really to cover general administrative overheads, as you suggest.

Of the universities as distinct from the colleges?—Yes, as distinct from the constituent colleges.

15. Deputy Sheldon. — You are no longer responsible for this Vote?—It has passed to the Department of Education.

16. Deputy Jones.—As regards subhead D., that sum of £8,482 referring to University College, Galway, I assume that was because of some building. It was not expended in the year? — The total provision for University College, Galway, included £10,000 towards the cost of additional accommodation for classrooms. The work, so far as we know, has not yet been started and the charge that occurred was only an amount in respect of architects’ fees.

It is intended to go ahead with the building then?—Actually the £10,000 for which provision was made in the year under review has been re-voted in each succeeding year, so it is still available to University College, Galway.

VOTE 23—MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker called.

No question.

VOTE 65—OIFIG NA GAELTACHTA AGUS NA gCEANTAR gCÚNG.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

17. Chairman.—This office has been, I think, transferred?—That is so.

VOTE 67—INCREASES IN PENSIONS.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

18. Chairman.—Does this Vote appear annually or will it be incorporated in the relevant Votes in the years hereafter?— This was a special Vote to deal with the increases in that year. Subsequently these increases have been incorporated in the ordinary pensions provisions.

VOTE 69—REPAYMENTS TO CONTINGENCY FUND.

Mr. T. K. Whitaker further examined.

19. Chairman.—Could you give us briefly a description of the functions and purposes of the Contingency Fund?— The Contingency Fund is a fund of £20,000 which exists to deal with payments, which, because of their urgency or irregular incidence, cannot be foreseen in time to be dealt with by an ordinary Estimate. The Fund, as you see from the Account, deals with such matters of irregular and unpredictable incidence as triplets’ bounty and bounty to centenarians. In addition, it deals with the refund of stamp duty on purchases by foreign diplomats of residences here. The amount of it being so small—£20,000— it cannot be used to meet, without prior Dáil authority, any significant expense; and the procedure is to make these payments from the Fund and then present an Estimate before the year is out for Repayments to the Contingency Fund. You will see that, in the particular year we have under review, the total expenditure out of the £20,000 was only £569, mainly in respect of these odds and ends of stamp duty and bounties.

Deputy Sheldon.—If I remember correctly, the only time it was badly needed in recent years it was not used.

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 general paragraphs on page iii of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Paragraph 1 reads as follows:—

“Preparation and Presentation of Accounts.

1. With a view to the earlier presentation of the annual accounts of the Public Services arrangements were made with Accounting Officers to close the books of account for the year under review on 30 June, 1957, and immediately after 31 March in future years. All the Appropriation Accounts for 1956-57 were received by 3 October, 1957, approximately two months in advance of the statutory date.”

I suppose this is just an occasion for mutual congratulations all round?—We regard it as quite an improvement. We were very glad to facilitate it by instructing Departments to do their best.

21. Chairman. — The next paragraph deals with the Outturn of the year:—

“Outturn of the Year.

2. The audited accounts are summarised on page xxvii. The amount to be surrended as shown in the summary is £3,326,969, arrived at as follows:—

This represents 3 per cent. of the supply grants as compared with 4.4 per cent. in the previous year. The principal savings were:—

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

Paragraph 3 deals with extra Exchequer Receipts:—

“Exchequer Extra Receipts.

3. Extra receipts payable to the Exchequer as recorded in the Appropriation Accounts amounted to £698,985.” Paragraph 4 deals with the Surrender of Balances:—

“Surrender of Balances on 1955-56 Votes.

4. The balances due to be surrendered out of Votes for the public services for 1955-56 amounted to £4,853,677. I hereby certify that these balances have been duly surrendered.”

That refers to the previous year, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Yes.

22. Chairman.—Paragraph 5 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows:—

“Stock and Store Accounts.

5. The stock and store accounts of the Departments have been examined. The results are satisfactory, with the exception referred to in paragraph 49.”

Deputies will notice that that note is qualified by a reference to paragraph 49. Paragraph 49 refers to the Gaeltacht Services to which we shall return when the Accounting Officer for that Department is with us.

23. Chairman.—Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General are as follows:—

“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, 1957. 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.

National Development Fund.

7. As indicated in paragraph 101 of the previous report the total payments out of voted moneys into the National Development Fund amounted to £11,000,000 at 31 March, 1956. The total issues from the Fund to 31 March, 1957, amounted to £5,149,331 leaving a balance in the Fund of £5,850,669. The issues during the year under review amounted to £989,380, viz.:—

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

8. Section 7 of the National Development Fund Act, 1954, provides that ‘on the expiry of the financial year ending on 31 March, 1957, the Fund shall be wound up and the balance then remaining in the Fund … shall, in so far as not required for the discharge of any liability of the Fund existing on that day, be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer.’ A sum of £3,200,000 was accordingly surrendered to the Exchequer and £2,650,669 was transferred to a National Development Fund (Winding up) Account.”

What is the present position of the National Development Fund?

Mr. Whitaker.—The position is that it was wound up as at 31st March, 1957. An amount of money corresponding to the outstanding commitments of the Fund was transferred to a winding-up account to meet those commitments as they mature, the balance of money voted for the Fund being surrendered to the Exchequer.

Chairman.—What actually was surrendered?—A sum of £3,200,000. £2,650,000 was transferred to the winding-up account.

Chairman.—That disposes of the general paragraphs.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 7—OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. R. P. Rice called and examined.

24. Chairman.—Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read as follows:—

“Revenue Account

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

10. The net yield of revenue for the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 under its main heads, is shown in the following statement:—

£94,056,000 (including £4,275,000 in respect of Special Import Levy) was paid into the Exchequer during the year leaving a balance of £2,168,821 outstanding as compared with £2,131,250 at the end of the previous financial year.”

Deputy Booth.—Under paragraph 10, I notice there is a drop in revenue of practically £1,000,000 under the heading of estate duties. Is there any explanation of that?

Mr. Rice.—Death duties are payable on the death of a person. Sometimes a number of wealthy people die in one year. Sometimes we may have two years in succession and not have a single big case.

What other duties come under that heading?—Legacy duties and succession duties, but the main item is estate duty.

25. Chairman.—Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General state:—

“11. In accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Fund Act, 1956, the sum of £4,275,000 Special Import Levy was issued out of the Exchequer to the Capital Fund established under that section.

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

Comparative figures for the previous year were—Income Tax, £11,711,555; Sur-tax, etc., £3,268,400 and Corporation Profits Tax, £485,784.

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.”

There is nothing untoward in the figures contained there?

Mr. Rice.—Nothing unusual. Since the date this was compiled quite a lot of arrears have been collected.

26. Deputy Booth.—What exactly is a protective assessment? Is that a provisional assessment?—A protective assessment is made to prevent a possible loss of revenue. Where information is not available as to the precise amount of liability, an inspector makes an assessment in a sum which is sufficient to ensure that the full liability will be covered.

It is not on a conservative basis, I presume?—No.

Would it be right to say that in fact a protective assessment creates a liability on the trustees of an estate which is discharged when they supply the Revenue Commissioners with the information upon which a correct assessment can be made? —Yes.

27. Chairman.—Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General are as follows:—

“Extra-statutory Repayments of Customs and Excise Duties.

13. Extra-statutory repayments of Customs duties and of Excise duties amounting to £19,166 and £1,850, respectively, were made during the year. The Customs duties include £10,621 in respect of Special Import Levy.

Remissions and Amounts Irrecoverable.

14. 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, 1957. I have made a test examination of the items included in the schedules with satisfactory results. The total amount, £18,348, was in respect of Income Tax and Sur-tax, and the distribution according to the grounds of remission or write-off is:—

Deputy Booth.—In what cases can there be a remission without statutory authority? Is the discretion vested in the Commissioners?

Mr. Rice.— It is under the general powers. We have general powers to remit in certain types of cases where perhaps strictly we could recover the duty, but in which the circumstances are such that it would create hardship to do so. One could take the case where a person dies owing a certain amount of tax. Assets are small and to recover the duty might mean selling the furniture, or even the house of relatives left in poverty. You might also have a case where there is a technical liability but, in fact, no real liability. A person has been assessed to tax but has not appealed against the assessment, for example. Yet it may be clear that if he had appealed there would be no liability or a much lesser liability. That is generally the type of case. One which I have been looking at in this list gives an illustration. A person died insolvent. The only assets in this country were £1,000. There were assets in another country, but the estate was insolvent there also. Looking at it from the practical angle the very most that we could recover was about £1,000; but technically there were the amounts outside the country. We had an offer of £8,000 if we consented not to press for the balance. We realised that if the person did nothing we could recover only £1,000. We accepted the £8,000. As the case had not reached the final insolvency stage, we remitted the balance of the tax which amounted to £10,000. Although £10,000 was remitted, we gained £7,000 by not going ahead with proceedings.

Deputy Booth.—It makes the Commissioners seem more human than they sometimes appear.

Chairman. — Commonly known as the most humane body of men in Ireland are the Revenue Commissioners, if you approach them in the right way but woe betide the taxpayer who tries to put his finger in their eye. We now turn to the Vote itself, which is on page 11.

28. Deputy Booth. — On subhead E.— Remuneration, etc., to Collectors and Assessors of Taxes, etc.—when were these increases approved? Was that during the year? Is that a full year on the additional remuneration or only part of the financial year?

Mr. Rice.— There was an increase of remuneration dating back from November, 1955. The extra sum was paid in this year.

Was there provision made for that in the Estimates?—No, because the amount was not known. The Estimates were made at the beginning of the year. One did not know that the collectors would be entitled to this sum at the time the Estimates were made.

29. Deputy Haughey.—Are these collectors paid on a poundage basis?—No, their remuneration is based on the number of charges they have got to collect and there are office expenses.

Not on the amounts?—No.

30. Deputy Haughey.—On subhead L., what is a revenue instrument? Is that a rack?

Chairman.—What is a revenue instrument, Mr. Rice?— An instrument used for gauging the strength of spirits or for testing spirits — hydrometers and such things.

Chairman.—Does that clarify the Deputy’s mind?

Deputy Haughey.—Yes, it relieves my mind.

31. Chairman.—On subhead R., what is the Customs Co-operation Council?—This is a council of revenue people from Europe. In fact, they sit in from America, India and so on. The main idea is to simplify the tariffs of the various countries and to endeavour to clarify and help out revenue procedure as between country and country, the object being to help importers and exporters in various countries so that trade becomes easier.

32. Chairman.—Details of the Appropriations in Aid appear on page 13.

Deputy Sheldon.—I see that Item 7, “Proceeds of Customs Sales”, realised only £1,209. To anyone living near the Border, that seems an unusually low figure. Is there any special reason why the amount should be so very much below the estimate?—There was a prohibition on the export of pigs which terminated in May, 1956, and I find that in the previous year the sale of these pigs realised almost £5,000 and in the current year only about £400. That is the main factor.

Deputy Sheldon.—Anybody who lives near enough to the Border would have a shrewd suspicion of the amount of smuggling that takes place and it is a bit of a shock to find that all we manage to make out of it is £1,209.

Chairman.—Frankly, Deputy Sheldon and myself represent Border constituencies and we are frequently approached about people who are having their property seized and disposed of. I confess it does surprise me to learn that the proceeds of customs sales, seizures, etc., did not amount to more than £1,209. I thought you would have sold more butter in any one month than would realise £1,209?—Of course it varies from time to time. In regard to butter I imagine you will find that reflected in the account in the following year. Sometimes the value of the goods sold is small—of course, you have another heading here, No. 5, and you will find there fines and the like, and perhaps that would help Deputy Sheldon. We also get money under that heading.

33. Deputy Sheldon.—There is an associated point which turns up in “Extra Remuneration.” That is the question of rewards for detection of smuggling. I wonder could Mr. Rice tell us what happens where a customs officer detects smuggling, seizes goods, gets a reward and a remission is made to the smuggler? Does the customs officer lose his reward?—Speaking off-hand, because I would really want to look that up, I think the rewards are very small, the rate is low and there would be no reduction of the reward in such cases.

I raise this because I know in the British Service there has been a good deal of discontent among British officers on that very point. They make seizures, and get rewards and then lose the rewards because somebody pulls strings and a remission is granted. I wonder if that operates here because if it does it would militate very much against the enthusiasm of the officers in making detections?—No, it is on the values that we work this reward and the officer gets a percentage. Speaking subject to confirmation, if necessary—I shall not write anything, unless I am wrong—I do not think the point arises that an officer would lose the remuneration.*

Chairman.—Does that clarify Deputy Sheldon’s mind or would he require Mr. Rice to send us a note on it?

Deputy Sheldon.— Not unless, on review, Mr. Rice finds some point worth mentioning.

Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Rice would look into it at his leisure, and, if he finds it necessary, he will let us have a note? —Yes. If I have answered approximately correctly, I shall not send any note.

34. Deputy Booth.— What happens to forfeitures? Is there a duplication on forfeitures or are they handled otherwise than by sale?—No. They are all sold.

Deputy Booth.—It comes in under No. 5, “Fines, forfeitures, law costs recovered, etc.,” and lower down under No. 7, “Proceeds of Customs sales (seizures, etc.).”

Deputy Haughey.—You could forfeit bonds and deposits, presumably.

Chairman.—What is the distinction here?

Deputy Haughey.—Forfeiture might relate just to money, bonds and deposits.

Chairman.—It would be quite agreeable to us, Mr. Rice, if you send a short note on this?—I think I had better do that. It might well be that we have carried forward forfeitures and that seizures might be covered, but I shall look into the details and send a note.*

35. Chairman.—I would like to recall Mr. Rice’s memory to our report on the Appropriation Accounts for 1955-56. We were discussing in question No. 34, on page 9, a paragraph by the Comptroller and Auditor General in amplification of which Mr. Ó Cadhla said, with regard to paragraph 10 of his Report on those Accounts, that it was not practicable to carry out every three months the review of Estate Duty Office cases which had not been closed and this work got considerably into arrears, and that he did not know what decision has been reached regarding staffing arrangements. I then asked you if you would care to add to that and you said you had been reviewing the staff in the Estate Duty Office and “we anticipate the investigation will end in September and we hope we will be able to organise this particular Branch so that without additional staff these cases will come under more frequent review.” I suggested you would probably let the Comptroller and Auditor General know the result of that review and you said: “Yes, we will do that.” Did anything transpire since in that regard?—Yes. We finished the inspection and we have reorganised the office so that these cases come under review. We are not at the final stage yet but we are almost at the stage where we can submit to the Comptroller and Auditor General the new lines on which we are working. It is not 100 per cent., but it is almost 100 per cent. agreed, and it is our hope that inside a very short time, we will show the Comptroller and Auditor General the new organisation and endeavour to get approval of the lines on which we are now working.

Chairman.—I think that will meet your convenience, too, Mr. Ó Cadhla?

Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Quite.

Chairman.—That disposes of the account for which Mr. Rice is answerable.

The witness withdrew.

VOTE 29—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called and examined.

No question.

VOTE 30—GARDA SIOCHANA.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

36. Deputy Booth. — With regard to subhead G., there was a decrease in the number of stations during the year but the actual expenditure on barrack maintenance, fuel, light and water, taking subheads G. and I. together does not seem to show a great decrease.

Chairman.—Was there a reduction in the number of stations, Mr. Coyne, in this year?

Deputy Booth.—There is a note at the bottom of page 85 under subhead I. which says that the saving was mainly due to the fact that a number of stations were closed after the Estimate was formulated.

Mr. Coyne.—Yes. During the period from 1st October, 1955, to 31st March, 1957, there were a total of 20 stations shut down. I have not an exact figure for the financial year but the barrack maintenance is a small payment in respect of cleaning and does not amount to an awful lot. There was a saving of £400, was there not?

Deputy Booth.—£416.

Mr. Coyne.—£416. I suppose it represents, in effect, the actual saving we did make on the number of stations that were closed down. “Maintenance” does not mean structural maintenance.

Deputy Booth.—It is just cleaning?— Paying a cleaner once a week, or something. The other subhead the Deputy drew attention to was subhead I.—Fuel, Light and Water. They are also fixed charges and depend rather on the kind of weather for the year in question. It was also affected, as I have recorded in a note in front of me, by the fact that some stations were closed down but if you think that the figures require further explanation, I shall give you a note.

Chairman.—I think Deputy Booth will agree that when you look at the total amount of £15,000 in one case and £25,000 in another case for all the stations in Ireland, the closing down of 20 stations, producing a saving of £2,300, is not insignificant.

Deputy Booth.—I was not aware of the actual number of stations that were closed.

Chairman.—Would Deputy Booth care to have a further note on that matter?

Deputy Booth.—No.

Deputy Sheldon.—I note that Mr. Coyne has got rid of the word “barrack” at last. In next year’s Estimates they are stations, not barracks.

37. Deputy Booth.—In regard to subhead H., there is a note on page 87. I should like it cleared up now. The note says that the expenditure under subhead H. includes £94 for driving licence fees and third party insurance premiums in respect of the use of Garda Síochána cars in Northern Ireland. What were they doing there?

Chairman.—Why do your cars require licences for Northern Ireland, Mr. Coyne?

Mr. Coyne.—Some members of the Government who live in Donegal or who have to visit Donegal or even Sligo, sometimes find it convenient to pass through the Six Counties. There are probably six of the ordinary police cars which, on occasion, go into the Six Counties; an odd time the Commissioner himself may go to Belfast, and it may be necessary to convey somebody across the Border. We always keep about six police cars bonded for crossing into the Six Counties, but the main explanation, I would imagine, would be members of the Government or their Parliamentary Secretaries who find it convenient to travel through the Six Counties for one reason or another.

38. Deputy Sheldon.—The more interesting question is why they paid driving licence fees in that year. They were not necessary?—I would have to have notice of that. Where are we looking at exactly?

39. Chairman.—At page 87, in which there is a note stating that the expenditure under subhead H. includes £94 for driving licence fees and third party insurance premiums in respect of the use of Garda Síochána cars in Northern Ireland.

Deputy Cunningham.—Would there be a need for special premium for insurance —special payment?

Deputy Sheldon.—They are not insured here. Once you go out of here you must have them insured.

Chairman.—I think, when we have the benefit of Mr. Coyne’s attendance, the best thing is to propound the question and to allow Mr. Coyne to give us his version of the reason for the note.

Mr. Coyne.—The police cars here are not insured for use within the territory of the State but they have to be insured when they go outside the State.

Deputy Sheldon.—Third party only.

Mr. Coyne.—The laws of countries outside the territory of the State in general require that cars travelling in them should be insured. Our own police cars do not have to be insured here.

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

40. Deputy Booth.—That is only third party, presumably. We still carry our own insurance for our own risk. It is just third party?

Mr. Coyne.—Yes.

Deputy Haughey.—It does seem a little odd. The idea of third party insurance is, in case the owner of the car is not a good mark, the insurance company is there to pay up. Surely the Government of this country could be regarded as a good mark by anybody.

Chairman.—I do not know, Deputy, but I take it that if the law in Northern Ireland requires that a car operating there should carry third party insurance, that law applies generally. Is that the position?

Mr. Coyne.—I understand that to be the position, Mr. Chairman.

Deputy Cunningham.—I find that when I get a cover for the 26 Counties it does not cost anything extra to have the insurance company cover also for the Six-County area.

Mr. Coyne.—That is so, but no insurance company covers the police cars used down here. We act as our own insurers. We have not got policies in respect of them.

Chairman.—Are Deputies quite satisfied with this because Mr. Coyne will gladly supply a note if further clarification is thought desirable.

Deputy Haughey.—To me, it seems waste of money.

Chairman.—If it would be convenient, Mr. Coyne, we would be grateful for a note on that matter.*

Mr. Coyne.—All right, Mr. Chairman.

41. Deputy Booth. — With regard to subhead O., how long will this item go on appearing? Are there still claims coming up in connection with the Local Security Force? It seems a very long time after the Force was disbanded to be considering claims.

Mr. Coyne.—The question I am asked is, how long is this item likely to appear. The answer is as long as there are any survivors living who would be entitled to compensation.

42. Deputy Booth.—What sort of injuries are concerned? I suppose they would be largely traffic injuries or how did members of the Local Security Force become injured?—They might have been injured, in the course of their services, in a variety of ways. I do not think you could say they were simply traffic injuries. I could not particularise. I have not any accurate information before me. It concerns people who were, in fact, injured in the course of their service and their dependants.

43. Are there any new claims coming in now or would you consider that all the claims are in already?—There have been no claims in the last year or so, I am told. I think we may take it that we have had most of the claims that are likely to be made.

Most of the claims are now known. This is just further payments on foot of their claims?—That is right.

44. Deputy Cunningham.—What is the difference between subhead D. and subhead H.?—Subhead D is simply travelling expenses and subhead H. is for the purchase of vehicles and so on. Subhead D. covers allowances to officers and inspectors for the use of their own cars, cycling allowances to the ordinary Gardaí who use cycles, the travelling expenses of the lower ranks and the transfer expenses of officers and men and their families. Subhead D. literally covers allowances granted to members of the Force to defray the cost of travelling. Subhead H. covers the maintenance and running expenses of motor transport, the maintenance of boats where we use them, the carriage of stores, the carriage of provisions, replacement of tools, repayable advances to officers who are granted loans to purchase their cars and then, the biggest heading of all, purchase of the actual cars—purchase of transport—motor taxation and the cost of driving licences. So, there is a clear distinction between subhead D. and subhead H. One is running expenses: the other is capital outlay.

45. Deputy Sheldon.—Could Mr. Coyne say why there is this very large increase in the fees for stamping of bottles?—I think I could, because there was an alltime record in the number of bottles stamped—over 16,000,000, if I am right. The number of bottles was a record figure, amounting to 16,228,662. I think that is the short explanation.

Deputy Haughey.—Were they mainly stout bottles or all sorts of bottles?—I hope and believe chiefly beer bottles but they were all kinds of bottles that are required to show the exact quantity. One of the beneficent acts of government in the period since the establishment of the State was to secure that better beer was put in proper sized bottles.

Deputy Haughey.—Deputy Booth, like myself, is probably aware of the consistent increase in the popularity of the pint of draught stout and thought that the number of bottles being used were on the decrease rather than the increase.

Chairman.—I think the explanation is no more dramatic than that the licensed trade is turning over from the cork-mouthed bottle to the crown cork but this is not a matter on which we can reasonably press Mr. Coyne?—The speculation that the increase is solely due to beer bottles may be wrong. It may be that industrial firms are packaging goods of various kinds to a greater extent in bottles than was formerly the case.

I do not think we can press Mr. Coyne on that point except to say that a record number of bottles were stamped. If we wish to press the matter further it must be taken up with the Minister on the Estimate.

46. Deputy Cunningham.—With reference to motor park attendants’ licences, does that mean that O’Connell Street contains only one licensed motor park attendant?—It certainly does not mean that. This is in respect of 20 attendants who pay a shilling each under an old Act. The bulk of the motor park attendants do not pay anything. These unfortunate 20 people were paying this shilling at the time that park attendants generally were brought into use and allowed to function by the police and we have continued to collect this shilling a head from the 20 survivors of the old regime. I doubt whether we have any legal authority to do it but we get the money and it has to be shown in the Estimate.

Chairman.—No doubt these observations will bestir the vigilance of the Comptroller and Auditor General who will enquire into the legality of the collection of this money.

Deputy Cunningham. — Would it be cheaper not to collect it?—It is volunteered. I do not think the costs of collection are serious at all.

47. Deputy Booth.—What is the source of the Local Security Force funds (unexpended balance) to the amount of £186 which appear as an Extra Exchequer Receipt?—I understand that when the Local Security Force was disbanded there were certain funds in their possession which were handed over to us. We have held them for a number of years and we are now surrendering them to the Exchequer. When the various units of the Local Security Force were disbanded some of them had sums of money on hands. I would have to have notice if you wish to know how exactly these moneys came into their hands. I was not myself in the Department of Justice at the time of the formation of the Local Security Force and I do not know offhand what the system of financing was and how it came about that they had funds. The note I have says that funds amounting to £186 which had been held in a suspense account since the termination of the Local Security Force were transferred to the Exchequer. I presume public moneys were made available to them for various purposes and that this small sum had not been expended by some units at the time the Local Security Force was wound up. I had better give you a note because I have no accurate information on that.

Deputy Booth.—As far as I am concerned it was probably recreational funds or something like that and as long as it is all gone, we need not pursue the matter.

Chairman.—Are you of opinion that this is the end of that account?—So far as I know it is the end.

48. Deputy Sheldon.—On the Statement of Losses on page 87, there is a note that an interior sign purchased for use on Garda cars at a cost of £9 was never actually used. Do you know anything about that?—Yes, I do. The police authorities thought at one time that it would be a good thing to have a sign on police cars showing plainly that they were police cars and many of the police cars carry such an exterior sign. However, it then occurred to someone in headquarters that this exterior sign made it plain to all, including potential malefactors, that this was a police car and someone had the idea that it would be a good thing to have the car looking like an ordinary car but that by pressing a button in the interior at the appropriate moment a sign would light up in the interior, one at the back of the vehicle saying “Stop” and one at the front saying “Police Car.” In that way it was thought that where it would be necessary or desirable to do so the car could creep up on would-be disturbers of the peace and then run up the “Jolly Roger.” Eventually the idea was discarded but not, I am sorry to say, before it had cost £9.

49. Deputy Booth. — On the Garda Síochána Reward Fund, 1956-57, the details of which are on page 87—how are these payments made? — The payments are made under regulation on the authority of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána who determines who should get the reward. The statutory authority under which regulations are made prescribe the procedure, but in effect the Commissioner is the authority who determines the awards. If the Deputy wants lists of the members of the force to whom awards were granted, I could not give that without notice.

50. I do not think that will be necessary. I just want to find out what, in general, are the conditions under which an award is payable?—The statutory provision is section 18 of the Garda Síochána Act, 1924, and then there are various regulations. The standing regulations in force at the moment were made in 1925. They authorise, in effect, the Commissioner to grant an award as he thinks fit. They do not limit him as far as I know. I have no doubt rewards are granted for meritorious service but again I would have to give you a note if you want the details. The operative provision in the regulations is that “awards may be made to members of the force who have shown exceptional zeal, intelligence or ability in the discharge of police duties.” The practice is that the Commissioner is sent lists of men who have performed good police duty, good revenue duty, good duty under the Weights and Measures Act, in fishery cases or with respect to smuggling. These are considered. He gets a recommendation from his officers, and so on, and finally he determines who should get the award.

51. In regard to the total amount credited to this account during the year, how is it arrived at?—It is arrived at by the feeders of the fund. The fund is fed by the fees payable to the ex-officio inspector of weights and measures, and some sums that have to be paid for verifying weights and measures. The whole of these fees go into a reward fund and are its principal source. In addition to that there are various other fines and awards, in particular, disciplinary fines, fishery awards and taximeter fees which are very small. There is also a standing contribution from the Vote of £415. However, the principal source are the weights and measures fees.

The vote of £415, would that come under subhead A?—Yes.

VOTE 31—PRISONS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

52. Deputy Sheldon.—On subhead B.— Victualling — the Estimate discloses a drop in the amount to be used in the prisons from farms and gardens and at the same time it discloses that you expect to get increased receipts from farms and gardens. It would appear that for some reason the prisons are using less farm and garden produce?—The prison population is steadily declining. I should say that in 20 years from 1937 to 1957 the average daily prison population has fallen from 600 to 400. These figures are not deadly accurate. We closed certain prisons. In fact we closed them in this financial year. I think we closed Cork in January. We closed Sligo. We closed the Borstal at Clonmel. When I say we closed the Borstal at Clonmel, I mean we transferred it to Dublin. That does not seem to explain the point made by Deputy Sheldon as to why we continue optimistically to hope we will get more. I am afraid I do not know.

53. Chairman.—Is there not a connection between receipts from farm and garden produce and the cost of victualling? Am I right in believing that the cost of victualling is estimated at £36 3s, 3d. per head; that there is then an estimate made of the probable prison population and that the multiplication gives the estimate for the cost of victualling?—That is absolutely right.

Chairman.—The proceeds of the receipts from farms and garden produce would, I suppose, rise as the prison population tended to fall? Fewer prisoners will eat less potatoes, cabbage and beans.

54. Deputy Sheldon.—In the Book of Estimates for the year of account there is a note which says: “The amount provided under this subhead includes the value of the produce, estimated at £405, to be supplied from the farms and gardens.” In the Book of Estimates for the year 1958-59 the amount has dropped to £300. I am wondering why that should be so when the amount provided in the subhead has not dropped?

Chairman. — Surely, I am correct in saying that questions relating to next year’s Estimates, which are under discussion in Dáil Éireann, should be raised with the Minister?

Deputy Sheldon.—I am not talking about the amount as such. I am talking about the trend. Is there a trend whereby less produce is actually being used in prisons? — Less would be used over a period because we have fewer prisoners. That is really about all the light I can throw on the subject. In effect, curious as it may seem, the price of some of these commodities fell in the year of account and, whereas we had estimated to pay £36 3s. 3d., we had only to pay £32 odd. I am afraid I can suggest nothing except that the prison population and the prison staff have fallen.

55. Deputy Sheldon. — Mr. Coyne has already answered the other question I wished to ask. The saving on subhead B. obviously could not be related solely to the drop of £1,676?—It is due to a drop in the average cost and we slightly over-estimated the number that would be in prison.

56. Deputy Booth. — With regard to subhead P.—Manufacturing Department and Farms—it seems odd that the expenditure was £23,992, whereas the receipts totalled £27,000. Is that an economic proposition?

Deputy Haughey.—There is a profit of £3,000. It is reconciled on page 90.

Chairman.—Does the Deputy feel that the margin is too narrow?

Deputy Booth.—The fluctuations seem rather narrow.

Chairman.—It represents a differential of approximately £3,200 on an outlay of £24,000?—If you look at the Abstract Statement of the Manufacturing Accounts on page 90 and the Reconciliation with Appropriation Account, you will observe the profit set out there fairly clearly. The reconciliation is necessary because the figures in subheads P. and Q. do not tally with the amounts shown for purchases and sales. That is why it is necessary to explain it in the Reconciliation Account but the profit is shown fairly clearly there. We are not really in competition with outside industries in this matter at all. Most of the work we do is for the Post Office—making mail bags.

57. Deputy Sheldon. — With regard to subhead K.—Incidental Expenses—that can be read in two ways and I am not sure which is intended. The note says that the saving is mainly due to decreases in expenditure on carpentry and the treatment of prisoners. Is the word “on” to be assumed between “and” and “the”?—I think it may be assumed. It is an unfor tunate juxtaposition.

Chairman.—Since that ambiguity has been disposed of, we may now turn to the Vote for the District Court.

VOTE 32—DISTRICT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

58. Deputy Booth.—With regard to subhead D., what exactly does that expenditure cover?

Chairman. — Could you tell us, Mr. Coyne, what does the expenditure of £59 cover in regard to subhead D.—Our Lady’s Home, Henrietta Street, Dublin? —Subhead D. covers contribution towards girls who are sometimes remanded by the District Court for a period. It is on condition they will reside in a particular place. This particular Home, which is run by the Sisters of Charity, is willing to take these people who are subject to such a condition by the Court, that is to say, Catholic girls in a Catholic institution. A small amount of 15/- a week is paid as a contribution in respect of every such girl for the period the girl is maintained by them. Only such people go there as are willing to go there under a condition imposed by the court.

Deputy Booth. — It is a very small amount.

Chairman.—It does seem to be a fantastically low rate to pay a charitable institution for maintaining girls at the instance of the Court? — Yes, this is a charitable institution. These are girls who have got into some sort of trouble. I am sure the nuns would be willing to take them in for nothing in the circumstances. They are satisfied to accept this 15/-. I think it likely that the inmates do some remunerative work and may themselves make a contribution to the institution.

Chairman.—I think it is true that this is a matter which would be more appropriately raised on the Estimate. Mr. Coyne’s only function is to discharge the obligations placed on him.

VOTE 33—CIRCUIT COURT.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

59. Chairman.—With regard to Extra Receipts payable to the Exchequer, interest on public bank accounts, is that the interest on moneys that would be on deposit in a bank on behalf of the Circuit Court?—Yes, exactly.

VOTE 34—SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne further examined.

60. Deputy Sheldon. — With regard to the Appropriations in Aid, the bankruptcy estimate is a very depressing figure. I think the 1958-59 estimate is even higher.

Chairman. — Clearly we cannot make Mr. Coyne responsible for that. The figure in regard to Extra Exchequer Receipts is an even more depressing one.

61. Deputy Sheldon.—With regard to the note on fees (stamps), is there any particular reason why the amount should be so much higher than estimated?— Yes, because we trebled many of the fees and doubled others.

Deputy Booth.—A sufficient explanation.

VOTE 35—LAND REGISTRY AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question.

VOTE 36—PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE.

Mr. T. J. Coyne called.

No question. The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned.

* See Appendix IV.

* See Appendix V.

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

† Break-up over the various years not available

* See Appendix VI.

* See Appendix VII.