|
|
|
|
MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA(Minutes of Evidence)Dé Céadaoin, 27 Eanáir, 1960.Wednesday, 27th January, 1960.The Committee sat at 3 p.m.
DEPUTY COSGRAVE in the chair. Mr. E. F. Suttle (Secretary and Director of Audit), Miss M. A. Keily, Mr. J. F. MacInerney and Mr. L. V. O’Neill (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.VOTE 36—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.Mr. J. Garvin called and examined.383. Chairman.—There are three paragraphs in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report on this Vote. Paragraph 53 of the Report states:— “Subhead G.—Charge under Irish Land Act, 1909, Section 11 (2) Labourers’ Cottages Fund. 53. The provision of £24,640 in this subhead represents a subsidy of 20 per cent. of annuities due to the Irish Land Commission in respect of advances, all of which were made prior to 1923-24, to local authorities for the provision of cottages and allotments under the Labourers Acts. A further 16 per cent. (£19,710) of these annuities was met from the Labourers’ Cottages Fund, established under the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. The income of this fund included an annual contribution from the Exchequer of £4,900. As a matter of administrative convenience and a measure of rationalisation of the subsidies structure, the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1958, provided for the cessation during the year under review of the charges on voted moneys and on the Exchequer, and the writing-off of the advances by the Land Commission to the extent represented by subsidies from the Vote and the Labourers’ Cottages Fund. This Act also provided for the winding up on 31 March 1959 of the Labourers’ Cottages Fund and the transfer of its assets, consisting of £19,648 in cash and securities to a nominal value of £252,118, to the credit of the Savings Certificates Reserve Fund.” Beside the annual contribution by the Labourers’ Cottages Fund, is there any other source of income?—There was a sum of about £4,900 payable as part of the Exchequer contribution to the Labourers’ Cottages Fund. That ceased on the enactment of the provisions of the Act of 1958. The Act provided that the Minister for Finance should cause to be written off from the Land Commission loans such amounts as he considered reasonable having regard to the abolition of these subsidies. The total subsidy from the Fund and the Vote was 36 per cent. of the loan charges on the loans. The subhead which is the subject matter of this note in the year now under review saved half the provision on account of the cessation of subsidy. The total provision was £24,640 and a sum of £12,321 did not issue. On account of the change?—On account of the change. 384. Chairman.—Paragraph 54 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Exchequer Extra Receipts. 54. Between the years 1945 and 1951 a company built five hundred and ten houses for letting and was paid by the Department under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932, grants based on a rate of £45 per house in respect of four hundred which qualified for these grants. In 1954 the company claimed from and was refused by the local housing authority grants at the appropriate rate for each of the five hundred and ten houses under the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948. Following on successful legal proceedings against the local authority the company appealed to the Minister who fixed the grants at the net rate of £296 per house payable in ten annual instalments by the local authority. The company was required to refund the grants paid under the 1932 Act and a sum of £17,588 was received and brought to credit as an exchequer extra receipt.” Deputy Sheldon.—I do not understand exactly why the grants paid under the 1932 Act should be refunded?—State grants were paid in respect of 400 of these houses. The remaining 110 were not completed until after the 1st April, 1950, and, therefore, failed to qualify. The total amount paid was £17,588. Now, the company was entitled to retain these grants unless they opted for the letting grants. In 1954 they endeavoured to obtain letting grants, under section 19 of the Act of 1948, in respect of the 510 houses. Apparently, between the time they were erected and 1954, they were not prepared to accept the stipulations and conditions attaching to a letting grant over a period of years. Then, it seems, they changed their minds. We were satisfied that they were entitled to receive the grants. You cannot, however, get two types of State grants in respect of the one scheme of houses. Therefore, it would be a condition of their getting the letting grants that they should refund the grant originally paid to them in respect of erection. Also, they had first to apply to the local authority. Here, again, a difficulty arose because, in the meantime, the area in which the houses were erected had been included in the County Borough of Dublin. The company applied to Dublin Corporation and were refused. They then applied to the County Council without success. The High Court gave a direction directing the County Council to entertain the company’s claim and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. The County Council then considered the application and allocated grants less than the maximum allowed under the Act. The company appealed to the Minister and in his decision he increased the amount of the grants, but not to the full extent, because of certain defects in the scheme and the fact that they had received remission of rates over the period between their erection and 1954, to which they would not have been entitled if they had received letting grants from the start. 385. Chairman.—Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:— “Motor Vehicle Duties, etc. 55. A test examination of the revenue from motor vehicle duties, etc., was carried out with satisfactory results. The certificates and reports of the Local Government auditors who examine the motor tax transactions of local authorities are made available to me. The gross proceeds in 1958-59 amounted to £5,480,817 compared with £5,542,205 in the previous year. They include fines amounting to £32,725 collected by the Department of Justice, £5,831 in respect of fees received under the Road Traffic Act (Parts VI and VII) (Fees) Regulations, 1937, and £66,111 received from government departments in respect of State-owned vehicles. £5,509,000 was paid into the Exchequer during the year and £1,656 was refunded leaving a balance of £138,097 outstanding as compared with £167,936 at the end of the previous financial year.” 386. Deputy Lynch.—I know that the Road Fund monies are paid into the Exchequer, but, in what part of the accounts can we find where they are paid out to the local authorities? Mr. Suttle.—They are paid out through the Road Fund Account. Deputy Lynch.—Where can I find the Road Fund Account? Is it laid on the Table?—The amounts referred to in paragraph 55 refer to the Central Motor Tax Account and the local motor tax accounts, as distinct from the Road Fund Account. The Road Fund Account does not form part of the accounts that are under review here. On the way to the Road Fund Account they pass through this Central Motor Tax Account. In that way they come up for review here. Deputy Lynch.—I do not know whether I can ask this question. I do not know where to ask it. What Department or what authority divides up this Road Fund to the various local authorities? Chairman.—That is a question of administration. Deputy Lynch.—I have asked administration questions about this three or four times in the House and I cannot get a reply. I will have to wait until the next Estimate. 387. Chairman.—Let us turn to the Vote itself on page 97. In regard to subhead I.2.—Grants under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1952, and under the Housing (Amendment) Acts, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956, etc.—are the reconstruction grants responsible for the increase in the amount there? I notice that the expenditure was greater than the amount granted?—As compared with the preceding year there was an increase in activity in respect of both new houses and reconstruction but particularly in regard to reconstruction. 388. Deputy Jones.—In regard to subhead K.—Grants to Local Authorities for the Execution of Works under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, 1949—I notice, in the note, that the actual expenditure was somewhat less than anticipated. Might I ask if any works were disallowed?—Not disallowed, but examination of the final accounts revealed, in some instances, that expenditure to the extent on which the payment of the grant was calculated had not been reached. That is what the note means. Chairman.—Is this scheme suspended now?—It is. 389. With regard to subhead L.—Contributions towards Loan Charges of Local Authorities in respect of Sanitary Services Works—I notice, in the explanatory note, that the payment was deferred on account of unsatisfactory work. Does that happen frequently?—Deferring payment really means awaiting the outcome of correspondence and queries on final accounts. The contractor might have claims made in his final account which the local authority or the Department would be unwilling to meet until certain counter-claims in respect of unsatisfactory work were brought into account. A delay, which would have the effect of passing the account over from one financial year into another, could arise if the correspondence in such cases was lengthy. The witness withdrew. VOTE 50—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy called and examined.390. Chairman.—Paragraph 74 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General is as follows: “Subhead K.—Fuel Subsidy 74. £218,717 was paid to Fuel Importers (Éire), Limited, in recoupment of losses for 1958. The Company’s accounts disclose that approximately 44,000 tons of coal which cost about £365,000 remained unsold at 31 December 1958.” What is the present position of this company, Mr. MacCarthy? Is it still in existence or has it been wound up?— It has been wound up. All the assets have been disposed of. It is in the hands of a liquidator. What will happen to the staff? Is there any pension fund?—In fact, they have not got any staff but we would have left it to themselves to dispose of the staff. In some cases some of these companies paid a year’s salary or something of that sort to the staff. Deputy Sheldon.—Has the coal all been disposed of?—The coal has all been disposed of. Deputy Sheldon.—I suppose we will hear the sad story later. 391. Chairman.—Paragraph 75 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads as follows:— “Subhead W.—Appropriations in Aid 75. The amounts allocated and the recoupments from the American Grant Counterpart Special Account of expenditure incurred up to 31 March 1959 on agreed projects sponsored by the Department of Industry and Commerce are shown in the following statement:—
Chairman.—What were the projects under the technical assistance scheme in 1958-59? I see there was a sum of £35,480 spent?—Yes. In June, 1957, a sum of £160,000 was made available from the American Grant Counterpart Fund and that was allocated as follows: grant for the establishment of management development unit, £6,000; industrial technical assistance projects, £74,000; and coalfields exploration, £80,000. In October, 1959, which would be outside the year of account, there was a further allocation which brought the total to £230,000. The actual expenditure in 1958-59, which was charged to subhead T., was £1,039 on the management development unit; £34,420 on industrial projects and £21 on the coalfields exploration project—the bulk of the expenditure on coalfields exploration will come this year. As to the items making up the industrial technical assistance, I have a list of these here. They are divided into a number of categories. As regards employment of consultants by firms, I do not know whether you want me to name the firms? No?—I will give you the numbers. We had 18 firms. In addition, we made a grant towards the travelling and subsistance allowances of trade representatives going to a conference on textiles. The £21 in the case of the Leinster Coalfield was for advertising expenses inviting tenders for the actual work. 392. Chairman.—In paragraph 76 of his Report the Comptroller and Auditor General says:— “Exchequer Extra Receipts 76. Reference was made in the previous report to the cessation of the flour subsidy with effect from 11 May 1957 and to the payments made to Grain Importers (Éire), Ltd. which were subject to adjustment when the examination of the flour millers’ accounts was completed. As a result of the final adjustment £186,152 was refunded to the Department and brought to account as an exchequer extra receipt.” Has Grain Importers (Éire), Ltd. been wound up?—Yes. Completely. 393. We turn now to the Vote itself, which is on page 148. In regard to subhead M.2., do the Labour Court sit as a whole Court or do they still divide the work?—They have a deputy chairman. I cannot say how far, in actual practice, they are dividing at the moment. Under the Act they may divide, and they have a deputy chairman for that purpose. 394. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to subheads O.4. and Q.1., both of which show very big savings, in each case the savings roughly amount to the increase which had been expected over the year before. Would Mr. MacCarthy say would it be possible to review this type of grant more closely? I know the estimate has to be prepared sometime in advance, but, surely, where vast sums are involved—in this case the total underspending on the two subheads comes to well over £100,000, which is a very material figure—would it not be considered better, where there was an element of doubt, to wait and see what happens and bring in supplementary estimates rather than impose a charge as high as £100,000 extra which was not, in fact, required. I can appreciate that in subheads N.4. and T., it would be permissible to take a leap in the dark a little more comfortably because that is offset by a contra-account in the appropriate subhead. But in these two would it not have been more prudent to be a bit more sparing in the estimate?—We have the same problem in the Transport and Marine Vote in the case of harbours. It is extremely difficult to estimate. In connection with the estimates for the next financial year, we had estimates prepared on the Saturday of last week which, in the case of these particular grants, were altered the following Tuesday, by the addition of £250,000. It is not as if these particular subheads were made up of a large number of small grants, they are a complete hotch-potch— some of them are very big. Every grant must be sanctioned by the Industrial Development Authority or An Foras Tionscail but they do not make payments until certain stages are reached in the work. There are two possible causes of delay. There may be delay in the completion of the legal documents, which will mean that the Authority are not really committed fully to the expenditure, or there may be delay on the part of promoters. There is no reason, in principle, so far as I can see, why we could not proceed by way of supplementary estimate, except that, generally speaking, I think we tend to try to avoid supplementary estimates if it can be done. In the case of subhead O.4., the saving is pretty big but it is out of a total of £200,000. In the case of An Foras Tionscail grants, the circumstances are even more difficult, because, I think, their legal arrangements, sometimes, with firms outside the country, tend to lead to a lot of delay. But I cannot see any objection in principle to supplementary estimates where there is a doubt. It is these cases of large projects that brought to my mind the way all sorts of difficulties arise. I would have thought that experience would have shown you could almost safely say “Well, we may plan it now, but there will not be money spent for a considerable time”?—We provide only for what we think is reasonably likely to be spent in the year. The decision does not rest with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is essentially a budgetary question and it would be a matter for the Minister for Finance to decide whether he would leave part of the provision over for a supplementary estimate. Certainly, we could raise the point. 395. Deputy Moloney.—Could I ask if there is any likelihood that the grants under both headings might be incorporated under one subhead? Would that simplify the position? Evidently there are two different types of grants. Some seem to be allocated through the Industrial Development Authority and others through An Foras Tionscail. What is the difference between the two? understood that An Foras Tionscail allocated all grants outside the Shannon area?—The answer is there are two different statutory provisions. We could put them in the one subhead and have sub-divisions but that would not really achieve very much because we are not quite free, as you know, to exercise a transfer between the two Grants-in-Aid. We would be free if they were one combined Grant-in-Aid, but I think there might be financial objections to that. I do not think you could leave the Authority free to spend money either under the Foras Tionscail umbrella or the factory grants umbrella according as they wished. 396. In the case of subhead T.— Technical Assistance—there is a big under-expenditure too—£85,346. I notice that it is explained to some extent in the notes but I was wondering if the same position is likely to continue. It arises out of the point made by Deputy Sheldon. Deputy Sheldon.—This is offset in the the Appropriations in Aid. Mr. MacCarthy.—Even if it had not been, the same situation would not continue because we are now placing the contract for the drilling programme. This saving was due to a delay in doing that. 397. Deputy Sheldon.—In regard to subhead V.—Acquisition of Shares—I presume this just means there were no shares acquired?—That is so. Deputy Sheldon.—Under subhead W.— Appropriations in Aid—if I may say so, the note to No. 3 strikes me as being the understatement of the year. VOTE 51—TRANSPORT AND MARINE SERVICES.Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy further examined.398. Chairman.—There is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor General, paragraph 77, which reads as follows:— “Subhead A.1.—Córas Iompair Éireann 77. The charge to this subhead comprises—
£793,300 was paid to the Central Fund in recoupment of advances to the Board of Córas Iompair Éireann to meet interest payments on its Transport stocks for the year 1957-58. As indicated in a footnote to the Estimates, interest payments for 1958-59 were met out of the Board’s revenue. The grants towards revenue and capital charges are subject to adjustment when audited accounts for 1958-59 are available.” Have the final accounts for Córas Iompair Éireann for the year in question been received yet?—They have been received. Could you say how they worked out?— There was no over-payment. The audited accounts of Córas Iompair Éireann for 1958-59 show that there was no excess payment. 399. Chairman.—Paragraphs 78 and 79 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General read:— “Subhead A.2.—Great Northern Railway Board 78. Under the provisions of the Great Northern Railway Act, 1953, £243,304 was paid to the Board in respect of balance of losses and £55,016 towards capital expenditure for the period to 30 September 1958. All interest accrued up to that date on such payments, amounting to £123,070, was received from the Board and brought to credit as appropriations in aid. 79. From 1 October 1958 that portion of the undertaking of the Great Northern Railway Board which is within the State (excluding the Dundalk works) was transferred to Córas Iompair Éireann pursuant to the Great Northern Railway Act, 1958; and under this Act the Board is discharged from its liability to refund the payments referred to, and accordingly no further interest accrues.” Has the Great Northern Railway Board been dissolved?—Yes, it has been dissolved or, at least, it is almost dissolved. It is in the process of dissolution. 400. Chairman.—We now turn to the Vote itself. Under subhead B.—Grants for Harbours—could I ask is Dún Laoghaire under the control of the Office of Public Works?—That is right, it is a State harbour. And there are no grants payable?—No. 401. Deputy Jones.—How many harbours benefited from these grants?— There was expenditure at Arklow, Dundalk, Drogheda, Galway, Limerick, Rathmullen, Sligo, Fenit, Waterford, Westport, Wexford and Wicklow. Deputy O’Toole.—What was the amount in regard to Arklow?—£9,259. And the amount for Wicklow?— Wicklow was £17,186. Deputy Moloney.—What was the expenditure on Fenit?—£4,062. Deputy Jones.—What the expenditure for Limerick?—The expenditure for Limerick was £100,612. Deputy Lynch.—And for Waterford? —£36,833. 402. Chairman.—In regard to subhead G.—Inquiries into Shipping Casualties— I take it only humans are covered under this subhead?—That is so. 403. Deputy O’Toole.—In regard to subhead K.—Protective Equipment for Irish Ships—has this equipment been supplied?—The present position about that is that there has been some change in the situation. It was originally estimated that the equipment required for eight ships would total an estimated cost of £20,000. The equipment had actually been ordered and most of it has already been delivered at a cost of £8,000. In the meantime, however, two of the eight vessels for which we had been providing have been fitted with this equipment as part of their general reconditioning and overhaul and that cost us nothing. Two of the other ships have since been sold and we expect another one to be sold shortly, so that we have only three left. The equipment, costing £8,000, which has been ordered should be sufficient to cover these three, so that, in fact this, provision will now disappear. Radar would come under that?—It is protection against magnetic mines. Something is fitted to the ships. VOTE 52—AVIATION AND METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES.Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy further examined.404. Chairman.—Paragraph 80 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report reads:— “Subhead G.—Constructional Works, including Furnishing of Buildings— Shannon Airport Subhead H.—Constructional Works, including Furnishing of Buildings— Dublin Airport Subhead I.—Constructional Works, including Furnishing of Buildings— Cork Airport 80. Expenditure during the year on constructional works, including furnishing of buildings, at Shannon and Dublin Airports amounted to £228,109 and £137,000, respectively. The total expenditure to 31 March 1959, excluding the cost of acquisition of land, amounted to £2,465,073 for Shannon Airport and £1,573,167 for Dublin Airport. Expenditure during the year on the site of the airport at Cork amounted to £584.” When is it expected the jet runway will be available at Shannon?—In August. Has work started on the Cork Airport? —The contract for the runway has been placed and the work has actually started. Is it with an Irish firm?—Yes. 405. Chairman.—Paragraph 81 of the Report reads:— “Operation of Shannon and Dublin Airports 81. I have been furnished with statements giving particulars of the cost of operating Shannon and Dublin Airports. Shannon Airport is managed directly by the Department, and Dublin Airport is managed by Aer Rianta, Teoranta, on behalf of the Department. The expenses and receipts under their main heads are as follows (the figures for the previous year being shown in brackets).
406. In connection with Dublin Airport I see a figure of £20,005 for catering receipts. Is that a profit?—It is a bit hard, in the case of Dublin Airport, to answer that question categorically because we have the management agreement with Aer Rianta and all we get out of it is the surplus on the management account, which is not the same thing as saying there is surplus on the operating account. I am not sure if the figure could be described as a profit. I think it is the surplus of operating receipts over operating expenditure. It would not necessarily be a profit figure. 407. Deputy Moloney.—In regard to Shannon Airport there is a figure of £189,583 for catering receipts as against £117,630 in the previous year of account. I take it that is the total?— That is exactly the same situation. It is the excess, but, in the case of Shannon, we charge, against the catering control account, interest and depreciation, so that the figure you have here could be, I think, said to be a profit figure as distinct from the Dublin figure which is purely an excess of receipts over expenditure. 408. Chairman.—I notice in connection with Shannon Airport that the air traffic communications receipts are down. Is there any explanation for that? I understood that landings were up?—It is a fixed sum but it did not all come in during the year. This is in respect of telephonic communications, telephones and so on—the landing fees are shown separately. They are the first item under the heading “Receipts”. They do show a big increase in that particular year. 409. Deputy Jones.—Before we leave that paragraph might I ask, in regard to the building programme which is in progress at Shannon Airport at the moment, what plans are in train for the airport? Is there anything else contemplated?—No, at the moment we expect that the present building programme will be sufficient to cater for the next few years. 410. Chairman.—Paragraph 82 reads as follows:— “Subhead T.—Appropriations in Aid 82. The surplus earned by Aer Rianta, Teoranta, on the management of Dublin Airport for the year ended 31 March 1958 was £47,498. The deficit on the company’s General Administration Account amounted to £13,995. This was arrived at after charging £10,000 for interest payable to Aer Lingus Teoranta and British European Airways arising out of the revision in 1956 of agreements between the three companies. Provision had been made in the estimate to set off this deficit against the management surplus. The balance, £33,503, was surrendered to the Department and has been brought to account as an appropriation in aid.” 411. Chairman.—The Vote itself is on page 158. Deputy Jones.—With regard to subhead T.—Appropriations in Aid—I have had occasion to raise this matter before; the admission charges to Shannon Airport are different from those which obtain at Collinstown. Last year Mr. MacCarthy told us that new arrangements were contemplated at Shannon. I take it no new arrangements have been made since the last occasion on which I raised this?—No. I gather a new arrangement may be expected within the next few months. The admission charge is still 2/6d. a car?—2/6d. a vehicle and 6d. for each person. Deputy Lynch.—You charge 6d. in Dublin?—No. There is no charge in Dublin. Deputy Jones.—It is merely a parking fee in Dublin. Mr. MacCarthy.—In recent times it is a parking fee. There used, of course, be an admission fee. Deputy Jones.—I raised this matter before because I feel that this charge keeps people out of Shannon. The policy evidently is to make it very difficult for people to get into Shannon. 412. Deputy Moloney.—Under what circumstances has a fee to be paid in respect of a car entering Shannon?— Official cars—that is to say, the cars belonging to State employees and employees in the catering controller’s service and people coming to the airport on business, such as architects, tradesmen, and so forth, and people visiting the airport to see passengers off or to meet passengers—they are all excepted. It is not, I think, a statutory exception. It is a sort of administration arrangement. I believe that, under the statutory order, strictly speaking, they all should have to pay, but it would be meaningless, obviously, to charge a person calling to pick up a passenger in his own car when a taximan can come along and pick up passengers without having to pay. There would be no point in charging State personnel because the State would have to recoup them the expense ultimately. Deputy Jones.—If I go to Shannon Airport merely to call in there I have to pay 2/6d. and 6d. for each passenger. In Dublin Airport there is a parking fee of 6d. That situation has obtained there for some years?—I cannot commit the Minister for Transport and Power, having myself no function now in that regard, but I can say that it is the intention to introduce a similar arrangement at Shannon. I do not say that the charges will be identical. The last I heard of the matter was that the charges would be rather higher at Shannon than at Dublin. That is due to the fact that it is more difficult, of course, to arrange a concession at Shannon. At Dublin, there is a parking concession, a concession which can be easily taken up. It would not be so easy to get people to take up a concession at Shannon, at least on as favourable terms. VOTE 53—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE.Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy called.No question. VOTE 54—TOURISM.Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy called.No question. VOTE 66—REPAYMENT OF TRADE LOANS ADVANCES.Mr. J. C. B. MacCarthy further examined.413. Chairman.—Is this Act availed of at all at present?—I think there are some cases in the machine which are being processed but, in fact, we do not accept new applications. At least, when we get them, we refer them to the Industrial Credit Company following on the provision of new capital for that Body. The witness withdrew. VOTE 23—VALUATION AND BOUNDARY SURVEY.Mr. J. Mooney called and examined.Chairman.—I should like to welcome you, Mr. Mooney, on your first visit to the Committee. Mr. Mooney.—Thank you, Mr. Chairman. VOTE 24—ORDNANCE SURVEY.Mr. J. Mooney further examined.414. Chairman.—Is this work carried out from the building in the Phoenix Park?—Yes, it is a whole establishment in itself. VOTE 25—RATES ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.Mr. J. Mooney called.No question. The witness withdrew. VOTE 5—COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL.Mr. E. F. Suttle called and examined.415. Chairman. — What number of accountants have you in your Office?— We have four senior auditors, 10 auditors and, at the moment, we have only four assistant auditors. We hope to recruit some more. All these men are qualified in various ways; some of them are members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants; others are qualified as Certified Accountants. Nearly all are qualified through some sort of accounting association or body. 416. Deputy Moloney.—To what extent is the staff obliged to go outside the parent Government Departments here in Dublin? Have investigations in connection with accounts to be made in such places as Cork, Limerick and so forth?— Yes. Travelling expenses in the Vote cover the travelling expenses of members of the staff travelling to various places throughout the country. For example, in connection with the Army audit, they travel to Galway, Athlone, Cork. They might go to the West one year, to the South the next year and, in the following year, they might confine themselves to the Curragh. They travel around to various places. The same situation obtains with regard to accounts for Shannon Catering, and bodies like that; they travel down there and do the work locally. The witness withdrew. The Committee adjourned. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
