|
|
|
|
IMEACHTA AN CHOISTE.THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE.Dé Céadaoin, 22 Feabhra, 1961.Wednesday, 22nd February, 1961.1. The Committee met at 7.30 p.m. 2. Members Present. The following members were present:— Deputy Cosgrave (in the Chair), Deputies Booth, Jones, O’Toole and Sheldon. 3. Final Report of Committee. The Chairman brought forward a Draft Final Report for consideration. (i) Paragraphs 1 and 2 agreed to. (ii) Paragraph 3. Paragraph read as follows: “Rates on Government Property. 3. The Committee notes that duplicate payments amounting to approximately £2,000 were made during the year 1957-58 for water supplied to State-owned premises but that this figure may fall to be reduced considerably in the light of a review being made by the Commissioner of Valuation of the scale of payments for water supplied to military barracks. These duplicate payments relate apparently to only one year and the Committee presumes that duplication may also have occurred in earlier years. It has noted the arrangements made to prevent a recurrence of duplication, but it has not been informed whether any action has been taken to recover from local authorities the improper payments already made. The lack of co-ordination between Departments, which in this case has led to avoidable losses of public funds, could have serious implications beyond those under consideration.” Amendment proposed (Deputy Sheldon): “In line 11, to delete ‘improper payments’ and substitute ‘over-payments’.” Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed (Deputy Sheldon): “To delete lines 12 and 14 inclusive and substitute a new sub-paragraph as follows: ‘The Committee is concerned that the lack of co-ordination between Departments in the above cases has led to avoidable losses of public funds’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (iii) Paragraph 4. Paragraph read as follows: “Posts and Telegraphs. 4. The Committee notes that £88 has been recovered in respect of the erroneous payment of £400. It wishes to be kept informed of further progress.” Amendment proposed (Deputy O’Toole): “In lines 2 and 3 to delete all words after ‘£400.’ and substitute ‘,and it wishes to be informed when this matter is brought to a conclusion’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (iv) Paragraph 5. Paragraph read as follows: “Defence. 5. The Committee notes that the report of the agreement concluded at a conference in the Department in 1947 which was signed by the Chairman of the Company and the Secretary of the Department was regarded as constituting a formal agreement; but it observes with some surprise that the Department obtained legal advice in 1950 that the Company could not legally be held liable for the payment of compensation to the Department in respect of its outlay on the jetty. The Committee offers no further comment.” Amendment proposed (Deputy Booth): “In lines 4 and 5, to delete ‘with some surprise’.” Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed (Deputy Booth): “In lines 7 and 8, to delete ‘The Committee offers no further comment’ and substitute ‘In the circumstances, the Committee must regard the initial procedure followed as unsatisfactory’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (v) Paragraph 6. Paragraph read as follows: “Defence. 6. The Committee is perturbed to learn that the regulations relating to fire protection at all barracks and posts are considered inadequate. It trusts that there will be no further delay in rectifying the matter.” Amendment proposed (Deputy Sheldon): “In lines 2 and 3, to delete all words after ‘inadequate’ and substitute ‘It trusts that a complete revision will be carried out without further delay’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (vi) Paragraphs 7 and 8 agreed to. (vii) Paragraph 9. Paragraph read as follows: “Exchequer Extra Receipts. 9. In paragraph 4 of its report dated 13th June, 1957, on the accounts for 1954-55 the Committee suggested, that unless there are strong reasons to the contrary, trivial receipts might be brought to account in aid of the votes instead of being treated as exchequer extra receipts and thus reduce the volume of accounting. While the Minister for Finance agreed with this view and some progress has been made in this direction, the summary of the accounts for the year under review indicates that small sums continue to appear both in the Appropriation Accounts and the Finance Accounts. The Committee trusts that the examination of this matter will be completed before its next report.” Amendment proposed (Deputy Sheldon): “In line 3, before ‘trivial’ to insert ‘recurring’.” Amendment agreed to. Amendment proposed (Deputy Sheldon): “In lines 8 and 9, to delete ‘both’ and ‘and the Finance Accounts’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (viii) Paragraph 10. Paragraph read as follows: “National Development Fund. 10. In the years 1953-54 to 1955-56 £11 million was provided by votes of the Oireachtas for the National Development Fund, established under section 2 of the National Development Fund Act, 1954, to finance projects which in the opinion of the Minister for Finance were of a public character and in the national interest. Section 7 of the Act made provision for the winding up of the Fund immediately after 31st March, 1957, and for the surrender for the benefit of the Exchequer of the balance not required for the discharge of any liability of the Fund existing on that date. The Committee has noted that £3,200,000 was surrendered to the Exchequer and that £2,650,669 was transferred to a winding up account to meet outstanding liabilities. At 31st March, 1960, the balance to the credit of the winding up account had been reduced to £1,219,037 and it is stated in evidence that this sum will be required to discharge expenditure on approved schemes. Having regard to the provisions of the Act, the Committee wishes to point out that the winding up process has taken a longer time than the life of the Fund, and it feels that this was scarcely envisaged when the legislation was enacted. Definite information is accordingly requested regarding the outstanding commitments, and an indication of the date when it is expected to close the winding up account.” Amendment proposed (Deputy Jones): “In lines 20 and 21, to delete all words after ‘commitments’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (ix) Paragraph 11. Paragraph read as follows: “External Affairs. 11. When considering the excess on this Vote the Committee was informed that the failure to discover before the close of the financial year that excess expenditure had been incurred was mainly due to delays in the submission of sub-accounts by missions abroad. The Committee would be glad to learn whether these delays are a normal feature of the accounting system in the Department and whether any and, if so, what regulations exist regarding the submission of these accounts.” Amendment proposed (Deputy Sheldon) “In line 7, to delete ‘and, if so, what’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (x) Paragraph 12 agreed to. (xi) Paragraph 13. Paragraph read as follows: “Public Works and Buildings. 13. Two tenders for the supply of plant and equipment which were accepted on behalf of the Commissioners of Public Works were subsequently withdrawn and cancelled because the successful tenderer failed to supply the items at the quoted prices. The Commissioners were advised that the acceptance of the tenders did not constitute enforceable contracts as they were not under seal or under the hand of an authorised officer appointed under section 23 of the State Property Act, 1954. The contracts for supply were later awarded to the next lowest tenderers at an additional cost of £730. The Committee is perturbed to learn of such haphazard procedure relating to contractual work. It notes that the defect in this instance has been remedied, but it was stated in evidence that there were many different practices and methods to be investigated and that this would be a long term process which could only be done in stages. The Committee cannot but express its dissatisfaction with the manner in which this matter is being dealt with. It would have expected that from the Commissioners’ experience and the experience of other Departments a well defined procedure for the enforcement of Government contracts would have been established before now and it trusts that this question will receive immediate attention.” Amendment proposed (Deputy Sheldon): “In lines 18 and 19, to delete ‘have been established before now’ and insert ‘have already been established’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (xii) Paragraphs 14 to 18, inclusive, agreed to. (xiii) Paragraph 19. Paragraph read as follows: “Posts and Telegraphs. 19. A third case related to the embezzlement of sums amounting to £4,500 received at a sub-office as Savings Bank deposits and for the purchase of Savings Certificates. The frauds had been carried out over a number of years and the sub-postmaster and his wife were prosecuted and convicted. The Committee was told that the frauds were facilitated by the trust placed in the sub-postmaster, in that bank deposit books were left in his custody and savings certificates paid for were not collected from him. The Department has found it difficult to control the situation without creating undesirable mistrust of the Post Office Savings Bank. The Committee appreciates this aspect of the matter but it is perturbed to learn that these frauds could have remained undetected over a number of years despite the fact that various inspections had been carried out.” Amendment proposed (Deputy Sheldon): “To delete lines 8 to 10, inclusive, beginning at ‘The Department,’ and substitute ‘The Committee is perturbed’.” Amendment agreed to. Paragraph, as amended, agreed to. (xiv) Paragraph 20. Paragraph read as follows: “Posts and Telegraphs. 20. The Committee was further informed that six cases involving losses totalling approximately £16,000 which came to notice in the past three years are still under examination. A Departmental Committee is carrying out a comprehensive examination to ascertain whether more effective measures can be devised to safeguard public funds and investors’ deposits. The Committee is glad to learn that this action has been taken and wishes to be informed of the outcome.” Amendment proposed (Deduty Booth): “In lines 5 and 6, to delete ‘and investors’ deposits’.” Amendment agreed to. Draft Final Report, as amended, agreed to. Ordered: To report to the Dáil accordingly. 4. Conclusion of Business. The Committee concluded its business at 8.30 p.m. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
