|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Déardaoin, 26 Feabhra, 1959.Thursday, 26th February, 1959.The Committee sat at 11 a.m.
DEPUTY DILLON in the chair. Liam Ó Cadhla (An tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste), Miss M. Bhreathnach, Mr. C. J. Byrnes, Mr. J. F. Maclnerney and Mr. J. Mooney (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 46—NATIONAL GALLERY.Mr. T. McGreevy called and examined.311. Chairman.—Mr. McGreevy, the last time you were with us, we spoke of the plans for an exhaustive inventory of the pictures at the Gallery. Has there been any development in that matter? —Well, nothing elaborate, Sir, except that we have been going on with it. I have to re-measure every picture I have been trying to catalogue. I have not been well this last year. We have gone on with more than two-thirds of the work. I wanted to re-measure everything, because I found that wrong measurements had got into the old catalogues. We are pretty well over two-thirds of the way through the re-measurement. We might be ready—there is always the question of staff—within a year with the general catalogue of the pictures, which will cover everything in the cellars as well as on the walls. We have nearly 1,000 pictures hanging, and then we have drawings as well; and also we would have 500 or 600 down below. Between pulling out pictures stacked against the walls to measure them, as well as measuring those on screens, it is a little cumbersome as a way of doing things. The pictures in store are not actually available for display in store. If we had more premises, we could bring people down to see the pictures, if they wanted to see them. As it is, we have to bring the pictures up. Deputy Lynch.—I want it again put on record that there are still no proper premises for these pictures. 312. Deputy Booth.—There was a question about the sale of reproductions the last time. Has there been any progress on that? Chairman.—There was some problem about the sale of reproductions. In the most recent Finance Minute, the Minister for Finance says: “The Minister is informed that improvements in the facilities for the display of postcard reproductions have recently been made, from which it is hoped that increased sales will result.” Deputy Booth.—It looks as if some increased sales have resulted. Chairman.—We hope that will continue to progress. The witness withdrew. VOTE 10—EMPLOYMENT AND EMERGENCY SCHEMES.Mr. Risteárd Ó hEigeartuigh called and examined.313. Chairman.—Paragraph 23 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “23. Provision was made under subhead F. (Urban Employment Schemes) and subhead G. (Rural Employment Schemes) for grants towards expenditure by local authorities on road and amenity schemes, etc., to provide employment. The grants, amounting in all to £282,556, were paid in instalments, during the progress of the various works, by the Department of Local Government acting on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office. The accounts of the expenditure on the schemes are examined by Local Government auditors whose certificates are available to me.” Is there any further comment you wish to make, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. That paragraph is for information only; it is intended to give a picture of the manner in which the grants are administered. 314. Chairman.—Paragraph 24 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “24. The expenditure charged to subhead H. (Minor Employment Schemes) and subhead I. (Development Works in Bogs used by Landholders and other Private Producers) amounting to £286,233, relates to schemes administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office. In certain counties these schemes were carried out by the county engineers acting as agents for the Office.” Do you wish to add anything to that, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—No. I have nothing to add to the information contained in those paragraphs—Nos. 24, 25 and 26. 315. Chairman.—Paragraphs 25 and 26 read:— “25. The scheme for which provision was made under subhead J. (Rural Improvements Scheme) was also administered by the Special Employment Schemes Office either directly or through the agency of county engineers. The works carried out included the improvement and construction of accommodation roads to houses, farms and bogs, small drainage works, the erection or reconstruction of small bridges, etc. Only works which are estimated to cost not less than £40 are approved and grants may vary from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. of their cost. The gross expenditure amounted to £194,654 and contributions by beneficiaries, which are appropriated in aid of the vote, totalled £31,485. 26. The amount charged to subhead K. (Miscellaneous Schemes) includes the cost of improvement works on small fishery harbours and piers carried out by the Office of Public Works on behalf of the Special Employment Schemes Office.” 316. Chairman.—On subhead F., could you tell us, Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh, why the money was not fully used. I see that it is due to the failure of local authorities to submit suitable schemes to absorb the full allocation. Were there no schemes available?—The fact is that between Dublin and Cork, they account for the difference. In the case of Dublin, we notified them that £155,000 would be available that year for new schemes, but they submitted schemes amounting only to something less than that—£126,000, leaving £29,000 odd which they did not take up. In the case of Cork, they were £1,500 short; and actually one of the schemes submitted amounting to almost £5,000 was sanctioned only on the 31st March. That makes £6,500 in Cork which could not be expended in 1957/58. The real explanation is the difficulty in submitting schemes with a good labour content. It is only fair to say, in respect of the Dublin Corporation, that they were arguing with my office for a number of months about the desirability of building a swimming pool. You gentlemen will remember the discussions we had about swimming pools two years ago. A sum of £29,000 approximately in Dublin was involved in that. Protracted discussions took place as to its suitability as an employment scheme. I eventually agreed to give a grant, but not the normal grant for Dublin, because the number of unemployment assistance recipients which could be employed on making a swimming pool—as we have had bitter experience—is not very many. It was agreed to give only a sixty per cent. grant for the swimming pool, instead of the normal eighty per cent. grant for the Dublin Corporation. A considerable amount of time was occupied in the discussions and the Corporation were not prepared to take the 60 per cent. grant. It took up so much time that they were not able to submit suitable alternative schemes to absorb the full allocation. In respect of Cork, the position was that they did submit schemes, but the schemes submitted were more intended to do necessary work in Cork, for the Cork Corporation, than to provide work for the unemployment assistance men in Cork. In respect of some of the Cork schemes hardly one-fifth of the money would go to unemployment assistance recipients. We refused to accept the proposals submitted, sent them back, and asked the Corporation to submit new ones. They went over the proposals again. I will say that it was very reluctantly, and only in the absence of more suitable schemes, that I did agree to what they eventually submitted. The unskilled labour content of some of them that had to be let through was as low as 24 per cent., but this was a little better than the 17 per cent. which they put up originally. In fact, we had to warn Cork, through the Department of Local Government, that we would have to consider seriously how much money they would get for these schemes in future, unless they could produce schemes of better labour content. I do not say that the schemes were not suitable from the point of view of their being necessary and desirable works, but they were not the type of works intended to be financed from my Office, the primary purpose of which is to provide work for unemployment assistance recipients in Cork. The £29,000 in Dublin already referred to together with £6,500 in Cork, accounts for £35,500 out of £37,706, unspent—the major portion of it. I should also say that, in some of the schemes which had been sanctioned in Dublin, they were a bit slower in doing them than we had anticipated and this would make up the small balance. 317. Will it be possible to take steps in future years to get local authorities in these areas to have schemes prepared with a high labour content, in the event of their being necessary for the relief of unemployment?—The plain fact of the matter is that, in the case of Dublin, expending, as we have been over the years, a considerable sum of money, the major portion of works with a high labour content is exhausted. We will probably be forced to be less critical of some of the schemes submitted. For instance, in recent years, we have done a considerable amount of work in Howth, on the harbour, the adjacent road, and the new park. We have quite a number of the major park requirements of the city dealt with as well. We have had to approve of schemes such as the cleaning of the Dodder, the work on the Tolka, and some of the smaller streams. Actually, in the current year, we have allotted some more money to the improvement of some of the streams that caused the flooding in recent years. The Corporation are alive to the fact that they will get this allocation of approximately £150,000 every year, but, in fact, the schemes with the higher labour content in Dublin are exhausted, as we will have to realise. As far as Cork is concerned, I understand there are schemes that could be put up; but, again, the place of these works in relation to the general requirements of the Cork Corporation would need to be gone into in detail before we could be sure of that. Cork has been warned, as I said, that they must produce schemes of a higher labour content, or we would be disposed not to give them as much money as we have given them in recent years. The answer, in short, is that they are both alive to the situation, but in my Office we have not yet got a definite indication as to what alternative works could be arranged. 318. Deputy Lynch.—How are the sums arrived at for each local authority? Chairman.—We are dealing now with subhead F., which deals with Urban Employment Schemes. The next subhead is G.—Rural Employment Schemes. Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh.—They are apportioned more or less in relation to the number of unemployment assistance recipients in each area. Chairman.—Both in respect of cities and counties?—Yes. 319. On the total vote there has been a surrender of £57,630, Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh?—Yes. Chairman.—Yet we are told that there are a great many unemployed in the country. Deputy Browne.—It is very hard to understand it. Deputy Sheldon.—Most of it is accounted for in the explanation given. Chairman.—We can look at that when we are drafting our report. 320. Deputy Booth.—In respect of the National Development Fund, it is clear that there are no further receipts expected. Is that right? Chairman.—The National Development Fund has been wound up, has it not? Mr. Ó Cadhla—Yes. A balance has been retained to finance the completion of schemes already undertaken. 321. Deputy Booth.—But there were no payments made in the current year. Is the balance of £7,955 completely earmarked? Chairman.—In regard to the balance of £7,955 set out in the National Development Fund account on page 29, Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh, is it completely earmarked—Yes, Sir. It represents commitments entered into in respect of previous years in respect of which the accounts have not yet been paid. 322. Deputy Booth.—Is it not odd that a whole year has passed without any progress being made on that account? No payments have been made at all during the year. Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh.—The real explanation of that is that the National Development Fund payments do not arise until the subhead payments are exhausted. It is a system that was started when the National Development Fund first operated, in 1953-54, in relation to this particular Vote. Under the National Development Fund, we, in this Vote, do not do anything that we do not do under the subheads; and it is, in fact, only when the subheads are exhausted that I can charge any of my expenditure against the National Development Fund. In 1957-58, the Committee will recall, the then Government decided to make £250,000 available over and above the original Estimate. That £250,000 was announced in the Budget statement, but the actual division of the money was not decided, in some instances, until later in the year. For instance, in relation to the Rural Improvements Scheme, there was £150,000 in the original Estimate, but in deciding to make additional money available for the Rural Improvements Scheme, the Government also decided to change the terms of the scheme, which took some time and argument. In actual fact, £65,000 of the £250,000 went to the Rural Improvements Scheme, which meant that we authorised £215,000 worth of new works under that scheme for 1957-58; but, as the decision was not made until late July, while the schemes were authorised, the works, in fact, were not all carried out, so that the Rural Improvements Scheme expenditure did not exhaust the subhead and we could not charge any of the expenditure which, in fact, was allocated in earlier years against the National Development Fund because we did not clear out the subhead. The same position arose in respect of the Urban Employment Schemes. Under Urban Employment Schemes, the original allocation was £140,000 and an additional £140,000 was in fact allocated, that is, £280,000. That was allocated in July, 1957, but when, in January, 1958, we were preparing the Supplementary Estimate we thought we would spend £287,000—and the Committee will see on page 27, subhead F., £287,000. We did not, in fact, spend £287,000 but only something like £250,000 and it is the fact that we did not exhaust the subheads which has meant that there are no actual payments made out of the National Development Fund. That is the real explanation. Had we exhausted the subhead and the Supplementary Estimate provision, the National Development Fund balance of almost £8,000 was there, and we had in fact a further £40,000 undrawn, making a total of £48,000, available in the National Development Fund to meet expenditure. That money was not required. Consequently, it is available in respect of the following year, that is, the current year, 1958-59. It is shown on the face of the Estimate of 1958-59 that that money is still available for expenditure. 323. Deputy Sheldon.—I take it, then, that this rule about the exhausting of the subhead overrides the earmarking. I understood that these balances were in respect of works sanctioned and that this money was earmarked for these certain works. From that point of view, as those works went on, one would expect the money to be paid out of the National Development Fund, seeing that it was so earmarked, but I take it the exhausting of the subhead overrides that?—Yes, that is the procedure. 324. Chairman.—How do you explain to us, Mr. O hEigeartuigh, that, in the National Development Fund account, subhead H. shows a debtor item of £1,806? —What we have yet to do, in that case, is to operate the Department of Finance approval, and adjust the transfer. There would have been the alternative method of charging it in the previous year against subhead H., but that is not what was decided. Perhaps, Mr. Ó hEigeartuigh, at your convenience, you will let us have a note on how that debtor balance arose in this account?—It arose in respect of the previous year because, in fact, we expended more than we had drawn for the subhead; but, as there were savings on other subheads, the extra money for subhead H. was not drawn from the National Development Fund. Chairman.—And this debtor balance is carried forward?—Yes, giving the net figure of £7,955 still available, unspent. I am bound to confess that that is not perfectly clear to me. It would be of assistance if you, at your convenience, would give us a note dealing with this question of the Fund, which we could consider at leisure and clarify our minds? —Very well, Mr. Chairman.* The witness withdrew. VOTE 24—STATIONERY OFFICE.Mr. T. J. Malone called and examined.325. Chairman.—There are two paragraphs by the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to the Vote on page xiv. They are as follows:— “Subhead D.—Printing and Binding 29. A payment of £347 was made to a contractor for rent of type held standing from January 1945, to December 1957, in connexion with the printing of the Rules of the High Court and the Supreme Court. A further payment of £667 was made to the same contractor for rent of type held standing from July 1940, to December 1957, and from November 1944, to December 1957, in connexion with the printing of two works for the Irish Manuscripts Commission—the Dowdall and Peppard Deeds, and the ‘Zoilomastix’ of Philip O’Sullivan Beare. I have inquired as to the necessity for holding the type for these works for such lengthy periods, whether the works have yet been published and the type dispersed, and the system of control exercised by the Stationery Office. 30. It was noted that the Irish Manuscripts Commission decided in 1956 to curtail the two works referred to above and that the type for large sections of the works was dispersed. I have inquired if the type rent and composition charges incurred in respect of these sections have been assessed.” Is there anything further you wish to add to this note, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—Rent amounting to £422, including £347 in the year under review, has been paid to the contractor in respect of the period from January, 1945, to December, 1957, for type held standing for the Rules of the High Court and the Supreme Court. In reply to my inquiries in relation to this work I am informed that the holding of the type was necessitated by the unforeseen and prolonged delay on the part of the Department of Justice in furnishing the balance of “copy”. The Stationery Office repeatedly drew the attention of the Department of Justice to the position but without result. The work has not yet been published and the type is still held. It has been stated that the revision of the rules will be completed by 1960. I am informed that it would not be economical to apply the system of control recently established to odd work of this nature, Apart from the type for Parliamentary printing the need for retaining type ordinarily arises only in exceptional circumstances. The sum of £667 mentioned in relation to the Irish Manuscripts Commission’s works is the full amount paid to the contractor for type rent for periods from July, 1940, up to December, 1957. The liability still continues. In relation to these works I am informed that the production of publications sponsored by the Commission is, as a general rule, extremely protracted because of the circumstances in which the preparation, editing, etc., are undertaken. The Stationery Office is not in a position to exercise any effective control over the situation in so far as current works are concerned. A regular review of standing type in the case of works in progress or current works would not, in the view of the Stationery Office, serve any useful purpose nor would such review be readily feasible. As regards the future the Commission has undertaken at the request of the Stationery Office that as far as possible the following arrangements will operate: (a)no new work will be sent for printing until complete “copy” of the volume, apart, in some cases, from the introduction and index, is available; (b)all copy will be in final form; (c)corrections in proofs will be required only in respect of printer’s errors; and (d)proofs will be returned to the printers without avoidable delay. In the case of the Dowdall and Peppard Deeds the type rent and composition charges have not yet been assessed. From a preliminary examination it is estimated that the amount involved will be not less than £76. It is estimated that the cost of cancelled matter, including type rent, in relation to the Zoilomastix of O’Sullivan Beare will be approximately £260. These works have not yet been published. 326. Chairman.—Could you give us any help, Mr. Malone?—We are in difficulties with practically all the Irish Manuscripts Commission work. Briefly, I think it is that the editing of these works is done on a voluntary basis, as a general rule. The Commission is working under difficulties and does not feel itself, I think, in a position to harry the editors or to force them, and we are unable to do anything about it. This is about the best way of putting it. I wrote to the Chairman of the Commission about three works, including the Dowdall and Peppard Deeds and the “Zoilomastix” of Philip O’Sullivan Beare. In the case of the Dowdall and Peppard Deeds, which is a typical case, I received the following reply: “Many of the Deeds are faded, mutilated and difficult to decipher. In July, 1939, a specimen page of Dr. Charles McNeill’s Calendar of the Deeds in the National Library of Ireland was approved, and by October, 1940, the first proofing of the text was completed by the printer. The original deeds were stored for safety during the war in an inaccessible repository. Having to relinquish the work owing to ill-health and advanced age, Dr. C. McNeill handed it over to Rev. Professor A. Gwynn, S.J., in December, 1946. During 1947, Father Gwynn devoted a great deal of time to it. Early in 1948, the Archivist in the County Record Office, Preston, reported the existence of some 300 deeds (dating from the 13th century and relating to the Dowdall and Peppard families) which had been deposited there. After the transfer of this collection to the National Library, the Trustees of the Library granted permission, in June, 1948, for publication of the Preston collection. In January, 1949, Professor Otway-Ruthven was appointed to complete the preparation of both the National Library and Preston deeds for press. This involved the intercollation of the newly-discovered deeds in chronological order. In the course of her editorial work, Professor Otway-Ruthven found that portions of Dr. McNeill’s work were unsuitable for publication as printed in the galleys. The Commission agreed that the only satisfactory course was to cancel these portions and to substitute a Calendar of them which would be considerably shorter than the cancelled matter. The Department of Finance sanctioned the cancellation in February, 1954. The Chairman and Secretary have stressed the necessity for finally completing the work without delay but Professor Otway-Ruthven’s professorial duties prevent her from giving much time to this difficult work except during vacations.” The other case is that of the “Zoilomastix” of Philip O’Sullivan Beare. This work was set up in 1945, but, in October of that year the Editor, Rev. T. J. O’Donnell, S.J., was assigned duty in India and was unable to deal with the proofs until his return to Ireland for a short period in 1948. Fr. O’Donnell afterwards took up work in Rome, and there was difficulty in finding an Editor who would complete the editorial work. Eventually, Rev. Professor A. Gywnn, S.J., who had and has already on his hands more than enough to keep him occupied full time, took it over in 1956. That is the essence of the case. 327. Chairman.—I know there are complications in these matters. Is it necessary to set these works up in print until they have been completed?—That is our case. We have an agreement with the Commission to give us the copy in final form. We try to insist on that but there are difficulties. Sometimes they will say: “We think it is the final version but we do not know.” Something new may be discovered, when the work is being printed, or it may be that when the editor sees it in cold print, he may alter it here and there or delete passages from it. If new work from the Commission is not accompanied by a statement that it is in final form, we write to the Chairman about it. I do not think we can do more than that. We try to follow up work as best we can when it goes to the printer. Some of these works are on the stocks for 10 years or so and it is very hard to keep track of them. There is a lot of coming and going of the proofs. The printer may give 100 pages of proofs and he may get back the first 50 pages to-day. He may then send us 100 to 150 pages and he may get back some of the first lot and some of the next lot. It is very difficult to keep track of it, but we are doing our best. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to make on that, Mr. Ó Cadhla? Mr. Ó Cadhla.—I have not. Chairman.—I take it that these observations cover paragraphs 29 and 30. 328.—Deputy Brennan.—Since a rental has been paid on standing type for, in some cases, as long as 17 years, would it not be better to have this work paid for rather than have it done voluntarily? In that way more regular time could be devoted to the work? Chairman.—I suppose the truth is that one has to take the scholar qualified to do the work on whatever terms you can get him. You cannot go out and hire a man on the street to edit the “Zoilomastix” papers or the Dowdall and Peppard Deeds. Very special qualifications are required for such work. Mr. Malone.—That is not a matter for the Stationery Office. The Manuscripts Commission decide— Chairman.—I think the point in Deputy Brennan’s query is why do we not employ men to do this work? Is that it? Mr. Malone.—You are getting the bulk of the work done for nothing. Deputy Brennan.—Would it not be better to pay them some retaining fee so that you could put a bit of pressure on them and thus ensure that the work would be done more expeditiously rather than be paying type rental for 17 years? Chairman.—That is outside the ambit of Mr. Malone’s responsibility. He cannot control that matter. Perhaps we can consider that aspect of the question when we are dealing with our Report. Now let us turn to the Vote itself on page 52. 329. Deputy Booth.—With regard to subhead F.—Books, Periodicals and Maps —the note on page 53 says that expenditure incurred eventually in respect of published books and periodicals proved to be much in excess of the earlier estimates. Could we have some further information about how the estimate was made out?—It is essentially an estimate. We proceed, to a great extent, on the previous year’s figures. We found that there was an increase in the prices of quite a lot of publications, and possibly, demands by Departments increased. The increased prices, plus increased postage, too, involved an increase which we did not budget for. This is the subhead under which books, periodicals and maps are supplied by the Stationery Office to Departments?—Yes. 330. Deputy Sheldon.—Subhead G.— Office Machinery and other Office Supplies —involved an expenditure of £52,483. Is the levy referred to in the Note on page 53—“Payment of a levy in respect of the purchase of certain office machinery was unavoidably deferred in the absence of full authentication of the charge”—the special import levy?—Yes. Expensive machinery was in question. We had to be satisfied that the Revenue Commissioners requirements were met. There was a distinction between the levy ordinarily payable and that due on a house to house transaction, a London house with a Dublin branch being involved. The Revenue Commissioners are very particular about the charges made on imports in such circumstances. We could not pay until the Commissioners were satisfied. I think there was some difficulty between the Commissioners and the importing firm. We would not pay until we had positive evidence of our liability. Was the levy charged?—Yes. Was this type of machinery used by other people as well as the Stationery Office?—It probably is. 331. Deputy Booth.—With regard to subhead H.—Appropriations in Aid— there is a statement on page 53. I note there is an increased demand in respect of sales of publications. I think that, in the previous year, there may have been some suggestion that there should be some form of advertising so that there would be increased sales, to the benefit of the revenue. I do not know whether or not the increase over the amount estimated has been due to any increased sales pressure. Could we have any information as to whether there is any increased sales pressure? In the last Report, we commented on the fact that there was a tremendous number of very valuable publications which the Committee felt did not get sufficient publicity and that it might result in increased sales if more people were aware of what was available. Chairman.—In the Note which appears on page 54, you say that there was an unexpected improvement in the average receipts from sales of publications towards the close of the financial year and the fall in sales of Ordnance Survey maps was less than expected. Was that in any way due to improved advertising?—I do not think so. We did a fair amount of advertising and we have increased it this year; possibly we have overshot our allocation. It is very hard to say whether the advertising is showing results, but I think it is. I should explain that last year we had no best sellers. In the current financial year, we have a number of them. We have “Economic Development”, the White Paper “Economic Expansion”, a new edition of the Missal and we have a “Gramadach”. We also have the three volumes of the First Dáil Debates. All of these are selling well and we have advertised them extensively. 332. Deputy Booth.—Would there be any point in considering whether the publications are priced slightly too high? I can quite see that the Stationery Office are trying to recover as much of the costs as they can, but the price of some of their publications does seem to be very high. Possibly they might get an increased turnover if they reduced their prices a bit. I do not know whether, if the Appropriation Accounts were priced at 5/- instead of 8/6, for instance—this may be an inappropriate example—there would be an increased sale for them. Possibly not, but for some of the other publications, perhaps it could be considered a good sales policy to price them a bit lower. That might result in increased sales and the total expenditure on Stationery Office publications is very largely due to the setting up of the type, so that the printing of an extra 400 or 500 copies would result in a negligible increase in costs. Chairman.—Do you think, Mr. Malone, that by reducing the price of some of your publications, the increased sales would more than offset the reduction and possibly produce a greater margin of profit on the total?—The answer is, very definitely, “no.” We are actually increasing the price of some of the publications. The prices were ridiculously low and do not represent anything like the production costs. You will find that next year the price of practically the whole range of our publications will be slightly increased, but they will not be increased to an economic price. On the question of sales, I do not think that a reduced price would stimulate a demand for, say, a Statutory Instrument, or a publication like that. The sale of a Statutory Instrument is related entirely to the importance of that particular document. If it related, say, to an increase of duty, then it would sell very rapidly. There would be other documents of no great interest. In general, the policy has been to increase the prices slightly. 333. Deputy Carty.—Is the Stationery Office carrying big stocks of Irish translations all the time?—Yes. 334. Deputy Brennan.—How is old office equipment disposed of?—In the case of typewriters and office machinery, we trade in on the purchase of new equipment and if the old equipment is only junk, we sell it by tender. 335. Deputy Booth.—On page 54, it says that the value of stock in hand on the 31st March, 1958, in regard to paper, was £128,038. I imagine that the variety of stocks must be fairly great, but at the same time is it really necessary to carry stocks of that value all the time? Chairman.—Is £128,038 a normal paper stock or does it happen to be especially high?—It is slightly subnormal, if anything. It would represent less than a year’s user of paper?—About seven or eight months’ supply. We cannot be caught on the wrong foot and one cannot press a button to get twelve months’ supply of paper. I take it that experience indicates how many months’ supply of paper it is necessary to keep in stock?—That is so. Deputy Booth.—There would be a tremendous variety of types?—392 varieties. 336. Deputy Sheldon.—The first of the Notes refers to “constructive losses” and I was wondering what they were?—They are not losses in money. This was equipment which we hired for the Central Statistics Office for a particular period. The machines were not used to the full extent, through, I think, economy measures, but the hirers still had to get their payment. 337. Chairman.—Before we conclude, Mr. Malone, you may remember that in our Report dated June, 13th 1957 we referred to a matter as follows— “Agents arrange for the placing of advertising in Government publications, collect the receipts and after deducting their commission remit the net proceeds to the Stationery Office. It was brought to the notice of the Committee that the contractual arrangements with these agents were not in all cases clear. It understands that the position is being reviewed and will be glad to be informed of the revised arrangements.” Subsequently we received a letter from the Department of Finance, on the 20th February of this year. It stated— “I am directed by the Minister for Finance to refer to his minute of 30th October, 1957 on Paragraph 18 of the Report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the Appropriation Accounts, 1954-55, regarding the contemplated revision of the contractual arrangements for the placing of advertising in Government publications. The Minister desires to inform the Committee that a revised form of contract has been drawn up in consultation with the Law Officers and it has been made clear, in connection therewith, that special discounts allowed by the contractor to other advertising agencies will be regarded as expenses to be borne by the contractor. The new form of contract is now in operation for the Telephone Directory and it will be applied to other similar contracts as they arise.” I take it that disposes of the matter?— The telephone advertising contract is in operation and there are other aspects of advertising contracts that have not been brought into line yet. It is rather a big job. We had to use the telephone contract as the basis for other contracts. The work is proceeding. Chairman.—We may take the Department of Finance letter then, as an interim observation and we will get a similar one when the work is concluded. 338. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to the extra receipts, I was wondering what there was about that payment that it does not come under No. 5?—There were certain reports published, tourism surveys and industrial surveys by American experts, and a visit to the United States of America of a Congress of Irish Unions delegation and the cost was borne by the State and the equivalent drawn from the American Loan Counterpart Fund for recoupment to the Exchequer. We took the charge on our Vote in the first instance and a recoupment was obtained for us and brought to account as an extra receipt. 339. Chairman.—I have here a balance sheet and profit and loss account for the Government Publications Sale Office and if it meets with the approval of the members, I propose to have it published as an appendix to the report.* 340. Deputy Booth.—I notice that in some of the publications of the Council of Europe the offices in various countries through which these may be purchased are mentioned, but, in no case, is Ireland mentioned as having such an office through which the publications can be readily obtained. I suppose the obvious source would be the Government Publications Office, but they do not give the registered address of the supplier?—I do not think we are agents for the Council of Europe. We are agents for United Nations publications and we keep a small stock of them, but there is no great demand for them. Chairman.—Do you happen to know if there is any agent for the Council of Europe publications?—Easons may be, but they have dropped out of our business altogether. 341. Deputy Booth.—Is there any way in which we can raise the matter? Would it be more appropriate to raise it in the House? Chairman.—Is that a question of policy or administration, Mr. Malone?—I do not know. I think if they asked us to stock them, we probably would. I take it that probably the most convenient way for Deputy Booth to raise the matter would be to contact the Department of External Affairs and mention that you have been consulted? —I would not say that the Stationery Office would be over-anxious to get the publications; they might be inclined to flood us with them and their accounting procedure might be exacting. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
